Inside Politics

ProrogueWatch: Powers, politics, and the powers of prime ministers

by Kady O'Malley Posted: January 7, 2010 1:30 PM Last Updated: January 7, 2010 3:17 PM
harper-chretien-584-819523.jpg
In this May 2002 photo, Stephen Harper, left, looks on as then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien, right, welcomes the then-leader of the now defunct Canadian Alliance to the House of Commons. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)  

On his blog at the always enlightentaining Globe and Mail politics site, Tim Powers poses the following entirely legitimate, and really quite interesting question:

This year Canada will turn 143 years old and there have been 105 prorogations. Just because of their political dominance during the 20th century, the vast majority would have been by Liberals. So what is the policy going forward on their use? Please explain.
Leaving aside for a moment the somewhat dubious device of counting prorogation back to Confederation -- no, really, please don't make me explain again why that math doesn't scan --and the fact that he seems to be directing the question at a particular political party, I came up with what I think could be an eminently sensible proposal for the use of the prorogation prerogative by future (or, indeed, current) prime ministers: Set the maximum period of time during which parliament can stand prorogued at seven days.

The PM would retain the ability to "recalibrate" his government whenever he feels the need to do so without encroaching on the ability of parliament to do its job. The intention to prorogue could be announced at any point -- like, say, the day that the Olympic men's hockey team is being announced -- but the proclamation itself would not be signed until no more than seven days before the scheduled Speech from the Throne. 

You could, I suppose, make the seven day pause mandatory, which would prevent a future prime minister from invoking it on the spot to dodge a looming confidence vote, but that would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment, and you know what a bother that can be. Plus, that would seem to come perilously close to infringing on his privilege to exercise the power to prorogue whenever he -- or she -- sees fit.  

Really, though, I can't think of any compelling reason why parliament should be deliberately idled for longer than that -- outside of an already scheduled adjournment, of course, during which the Speaker retains the power to recall it if necessary, and committees can still meet should members desire to do so. 

What do you think, commenters? Is there a potential down side that such a proposal fails to take under consideration? 


Tags: blackberry jungle, modest proposals