History[edit]
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, prorogations in Canada lasted at least half of any given year. Parliament would typically be in session from February until June, give or take a few months, and would be prorogued for the remainder of the year, giving Members of Parliament the opportunity to spend a substantial amount of time in their home ridings.[3] Only when vast amounts of legislation needed to be debated and passed during the Second World War did parliament begin to sit for longer sessions. This was followed by an expansion of the government's role in Canadian life through the 1950s and 1960s, requiring even shorter prorogations.[4] Additionally, the advent of modern communication tools and air travel rendered long prorogations even more unnecessary; Members of Parliament may contact their home ridings whenever they want and can visit their home ridings during adjournments. Today, sessions of parliament still last about one year each, but the prorogation in between sessions is often only a few days and new sessions are started more for organizational or political reasons than for the purpose of giving members of parliament time away. Between 1867 and 2010 the average period of prorogation was 151 days. However, in the 30 year period between 1980 and 2010, the average was just 22 days.[5]
In 1873, during the 2nd Canadian Parliament, Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald asked Governor General the Earl of Dufferin to prorogue parliament in order to stop the work of a committee investigating Macdonald's involvement in the Pacific Scandal. While the Governor General did reluctantly prorogue parliament, he limited it to a period of ten weeks, appointed a commission to continue the hearings, and gave it until parliament reconvened to report. When parliament returned and the commission presented their findings, Macdonald was censured and had to resign.[6] According to Christopher Moore, it was at this point that the relationship between backbenchers and the prime minister began an evolution; "MacDonald himself became one of the inventors of the 'party machine'—the party as a disciplined, centralized, loyal team that would not dare to turn on him as it had in 1873." By the mid-20th century, parliamentary caucuses were being told by their leaders that they had "no right to question what a leader did or said."[4]
When, in 2002, Governor General Adrienne Clarkson agreed to prorogue the legislature at the direction of Prime Minister Jean ChrÉtien, the latter avoided tabling a report to the House of Commons public accounts committee regarding the sponsorship scandal that, at the time, surrounded ChrÉtien's party.[7] After parliament was again summoned, investigations into the scandal continued, ChrÉtien stepped down as prime minister in December of the following year, and the Liberal party was reduced to a minority government in the subsequent election of 2004.
A prorogation of parliament took place on December 4, 2008, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper recommended Governor General MichaËlle Jean to do so after the opposition Liberal and New Democratic parties formed a coalition with the support of the Bloc QuÉbÉcois party and threatened to vote non-confidence in the sitting minority government, precipitating a parliamentary dispute. The Governor General, however, did not grant her prime minister's request until after two hours of consultation with various constitutional experts. Upon the end of her tenure as vicereine, Jean revealed to the Canadian Press that the delay was partly to "send a message—and for people to understand that this warranted reflection."[8][9] It was also at the same time said by Peter H. Russell, one of those from whom Jean sought advice, that Canadians ought not regard the Governor General's decision to grant Harper's request as an automatic rubber stamp; Russell disclosed that Jean granted the prorogation on two conditions: parliament would reconvene soon and, when it did, the Cabinet would present a proposed budget, a vote on which is a confidence matter.[2] This, Russell said, set a precedent that would prevent future prime ministers from advising the prorogation of parliament "for any length of time for any reason."[10][11]Nelson Wiseman, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, wrote of Harper that "no Prime Minister has so abused the power to prorogue."[12]
Harper again advised the Governor General to prorogue parliament on December 30, 2009. The Prime Minister stated that this was to keep parliament in recess for the duration of the XXI Olympic Winter Games to be held in Vancouver, British Columbia, in February 2010. The move, however, was suspected by opposition Members of Parliament to be a way for Harper to avoid ongoing investigations into the Afghan detainees affair.
In October 2012, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario David Onley, on the advice of Premier Dalton McGuinty, who headed a minority government, prorogued the Ontario Legislature, with McGuinty announcing, at the same time, he would, after a new party leader was selected, resign both as premier and leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. Liberal House Leader John Milloy later stated that prorogation was necessary because an impasse was reached with labour leaders and the opposition over plans to freeze all public sector wages. The opposition charged that it was done to dodge negative publicity over the investigation and criminal probe into the Ornge Air affair, as well as the controversial decision to halt construction of two gas-fired power plants during the previous election and the subsequent threats by the opposition to vote on finding Cabinet ministers in Contempt of Parliament for withholding from the legislature information related to halting the projects.[13][14] In early 2013, Onley explained in an intervew conducted by the Toronto Star that, though he and McGuinty discussed the matter, among others, before he granted the prorogation, he ultimately could only follow the constitution and adhere to the principles of responsible government; only if the premier were "trying to subvert democracy" could Onley have refused the advice and, as Onley put it, "something that's politically controversial doesn't fit that category. Doesn't even come close... It's up to the politicians to work out the political process, the political decision-making that is behind prorogation—and the fallout after prorogation." On the subject of the lack of a date on which the legislature would be summoned to return, the Lieutenant Governor said he had no guide; the legislaure's standing orders outline that a specific date must be set, but the Legislative Assembly Act does not, and precedents are inconsistent.[15]
is to change the Governor-General and lieutenant-governors from appointed representatives of the monarchy who are effectively chosen by the Prime Minister into democratically chosen representatives. This change would give them democratic legitimacy to say no to an elected prime minister or premier, and could be made without even passing a law, let alone amending the constitution.