Parliament resumes Monday after a seven-week holiday, though holiday may be too gentle a word.

The break was triggered by a hasty prorogation to avoid the government being defeated and maybe even replaced on a confidence vote, and was even more controversial in that it occurred only two weeks into the first session following the Oct. 14 election.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper arrives at Rideau Hall in December 2008 to request Parliament be prorogued. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Proroguing Parliament was a desperate move by a minority government to hold onto power and followed an equally controversial manoeuvre by the three opposition parties to seize it.

These were three parties that, while collectively comprising a majority, each received significantly fewer votes and seats than the Conservatives only a few weeks earlier in the general election.

Adding to the intrigue, which appeared both to engage and enrage Canadians, the prorogation was granted under the arcane and little understood rules that have evolved to govern the British parliamentary system.

The seminal event leading to the suspension of Parliament was a two-hour, closed-door conversation between Governor General Michaëlle Jean, the grantor of the request, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the requester.

Only these two individuals and perhaps a couple of close advisers know exactly what was said or what deals might have been brokered in the course of this conversation. In a democratic country in the 21st century, you have to ask: is this good enough?

Time for a rethink

If transparency and openness are, as many of our leaders say, the essential conditions to revive the downward spiral into which the economic system has stumbled, surely the same qualities are equally necessary to prevent further decay and cynicism in our political system.

Minority governments seem to be the norm these days. We have now had three in a row. And with one party, the Bloc Québécois, capable of winning around 50 of the 75 seats in Quebec, while running candidates in just that province, the likelihood is Canada is going to have many more hung parliaments in the foreseeable future.

That means confidence votes in the House of Commons will more and more be like shootouts when a hockey game ends in a tie. And like shootouts, anything can happen.

So instead of potentially plunging the country into a revolving set of constitutional crises, perhaps we need to replace the existing system of seldom-used precedents and publicly misunderstood rules that evolved in Britain — from a time when kings, queens and elected elites shared the real power — with clear rules that will govern what happens when a democratically elected minority government loses a confidence vote today.

A few suggestions

Then opposition leaders Gilles Duceppe, Stephane Dion and Jack Layton sign thier coalition deal beneath a portrait of the Fathers of Confederation in early December 2008. (Tom Hanson/Canadian Press)

One suggestion would be for fewer confidence votes. The Russian-roulette style of parties, either in opposition or in government, trying to create votes of confidence around bills or issues that are not really tests of confidence should be prohibited.

Confidence votes should be limited to the budget, spending estimates, declarations of war, treaties and the speech from the throne, the overview of the government's agenda.

If opposition parties want to gang up and amend a government bill on, say, climate change, so be it, provided the amendments do not call for significant new spending. (Controlling the public purse would remain a government responsibility.)

As well, once in each parliamentary sitting — and until now most parliaments have had two sittings between elections — there should be an opportunity for each of the opposition parties to move a non-confidence motion in the government to test the will of the House.

In the current situation, that would result in a maximum of three opposition-based non-confidence motions every two years, a reduction in the opportunities the three opposition parties currently have.

The real test, of course, is what happens when a government loses a vote of confidence. Then it should fall to the governor general to try to find a new government, which would continue in power until the next fixed election date — or until it was defeated on a confidence measure.

Try again?

In the event of a successful non-confidence vote, a governor general could ask the just-defeated PM to try again. Or the GG could turn to the leader of another party.

Governor General Michaelle Jean delivering a speech from the throne. (Canadian Press)

Either way, the new government would have to face a vote of confidence on its agenda within a set number of parliamentary days after taking office to show that it could control the House. If a defeated PM was back at the helm and lost a second vote of confidence, the governor general would have the choice of allowing for an election or inviting the leader of the Official opposition to form a government.

Again, at the end of a set number of days in office, that new government would face a confidence vote. Defeat on that vote would automatically trigger an election on the Monday at least 35 days after the defeat.

Out of the GG's hands

Purists, monarchists and those who have spent their career studying and trying to master the intricacies of the existing "system," which isn't really a system at all, will scream at the ideas put forward.

But I would argue that the simple changes proposed have several things to recommend them.

First, they are open, predetermined and easy to understand. They remove or at least limit the ability of politicians to shape the system to their own ends and keep their opponents — not to mention the country — in a stultifying state of constant election alert.

They also take crucial decisions affecting the future of the country out of the hands of an appointed governor general serving a limited term in a mostly ceremonial post. A person who, on some occasions, might have been appointed by the very prime minister who benefits from the decision.

Since Confederation in 1867, Canada has steadily and carefully been taking steps away from many of the practices, traditions and rules that were inherited from Great Britain.

For almost 142 years we have been shaping our customs, institutions and symbols to meet our own reality. Now is the time to take a big step and bring our parliamentary system of government and elections into the 21st century.