Prorogue a ‘Very Dangerous’ Precedent

Prof. Errol Mendes of UofO has stated that PM Harper’s recent decision to prorogue government is not just a bad idea, but “very dangerous.”

Any time that the prime minister wants to evade the confidence of the House now he can use this precedent to do so…

This is certainly an unprecedented situation that we saw unfold. I hope that we won’t come to the brink of this type of effort to unseat a sitting government going against the democratic wishes of the people of Canada.

Mendes is the same person who contemplated seeking an injunction when the election was called early.

He suggests that parliament could pass legislation to prevent prorogue abuse in the future, which may just happen when the House resumes in January.  All three parties have indicated they intend to continue their efforts despite attempts at appeasement.

In the meantime I’m thinking that if the PM can prorogue over lack of confidence, why can’t all of us follow the same precedent?

I’m thinking of proroguing my exams this week.  Friends have indicated an interest in proroguing mortgage payments, or maternity leave until their kids hit 21.

One of my colleagues in law school posed a philosophical question as to whether death could be prorogued.  My response was if an elected government doesn’t do the job we elect them (or not) to do, can we regard it as a breach of social contract and prorogue our taxes?

Probably not, but just like death and taxes, the recent move by the PM likely just delays the inevitable.

Cross-posted from Slaw.

5 Comments on "Prorogue a ‘Very Dangerous’ Precedent"

  1. What is stopping Harper from again?
    1) using procedures to delay a non-confidence vote for a week or so.
    2) And then proroguing again,
    3) repeating the process and in effect taking over absolute control of Government.

    NOTHING!!?!!

    Thanks Harper, for destroying democracy.
    Now we have no choice but to take to the streets and fight for our freedoms you, Harper, have taken away.

  2. If proroguing is a dangerous precedent, then in the next election, the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc can run on a promise to amend the constitution in order to implement specific rules for proroguation.
    The proroguation hasn’t prevented ‘the coalition’ from taking power- it may still excercise that option comes 26 January, 2009, however, what it does do is grant a pause before the government is changed to be led into a completely different direction: should the coalition take office, Canada will go from being governed by a ‘centre-right’ party to shift to being led by a ‘left-wing’ coalition.
    Democratically, more seats do belong to the coalition, however, during the election campaign, Mr. Dion promised that he would never form a coalition with the NDP, so in reality, it can be said that voters who voted Liberal in fact voted against a coalition government because they voted for a party that promised not to enter into a coalition government.
    I think this proroguation is a good opportunity for all to pause and reflect before taking such a radical step.

  3. Prorogue is just a fancy word for suspension… compare this to our reasoning behind suspending a child from school (vs expelling that student) we try and give that student time to think about his/her actions, in the hopes that that student returns to school having learned a lesson, and correcting his/ her behaviour. If we want our government to be able to do the same, it should take much longer than January 26th to come to an Educated conclusion. The world we live in has many problems, our government needs time to bring the key people together and make an educated decision with regards to how to proceed. This “suspended” government should take as long as necessary to allow Canada to emerge as leaders of a new “global society”.

  4. June Johnson | January 8, 2010 at 10:46 am |

    If proroguation of parliament is so dangerous, we’ve had similar “dangerous” situations several times before; for instance, eleven times under Trudeau, two times under Mulroney, four times under Chretein, and now twice under Harper.
    Cry me a river.

  5. June, I address that point here.

    (n.b. to other readers addressing comments to me – my posts are those with my name on it. If you’re looking to contact me for other reasons, please e-mail me).

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. watercooler » Prorogue, the new Black

Comments are closed.