Michael Wolraich's picture

    Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Canadian Prorogation But Were Afraid To Ask

    By Michael Wolraich on Fri, 12/05/2008 - 1:19pm | Politics

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Canada's Parliament yesterday. Proroguing is not to be confused with pierogieing, a Polish sport in which competitors pelt each other with cheese-filled dumplings. While pieroguieing is popular in many Eastern European countries, and the Olympic Committee for Weird Athletics is considering adding a Freestyle Pierogie event to the 2016 Summer Games, Canada has banned the practice since 1993 because of the influential curling lobby, which feared that pierogieing would displace curling as the Guinness Book record holder for "Most Special Sport."

    A prorogation is a temporary suspension or, to the sports-minded, a timeout. Harper called the timeout in order to delay a confidence vote which he is expect to lose. A vote of no confidence would force the dissolution of the government. I know what you're thinking: "Shit, why didn't we think of that two years ago?" Unfortunately, confidence votes only work in parliamentary governments. Even if the U.S. Congress were to pass a motion stating, "We the U.S. Congress have more confidence in a Car Manufacturing Subprime Investing Icelandic Bank Run by 3 Baboons and a Figment of Someone's Imagination than George W. Bush," it wouldn't change a thing. But before you go calling your congressperson to demand a constitutional amendment, just remember that parliamentary systems generally allow the ruling party to call national elections whenever they want. Do you really want a repeat of 2008 anytime soon?

    So why did the Parliament lose confidence in Mr. Harper? Bumbling disaster relief? Tanking economy? Catastrophically stupid war? No, Harper tried to eliminate public funding for political parties. Thus, the no confidence motion would have been more aptly called an "oh no you di'nt" motion--or the Canadian equivalent, "oh no you di'nt, eh."

    Note to self: In a parliamentary system, never deny funding to coalition partners.

    One last comment on a Canadian politics, for those who have not already moved on to Deadman's 3-D NFL post, the prorogation had to approved by Canada's Governor General. Yes, that's right, the Governor General. The Queen of England technically runs Canada through the Governor General, who serves at her will:

    Through the Constitution Act, 1867, the Governor General is specifically granted the power to appoint, in the Queen's name, the lieutenant governors of the provinces, members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, senators, the speaker of the Senate, Supreme Court justices, and superior and county court judges...The same act states that the governor general alone may summon the House of Commons. Beyond that, the Governor General exercises the other powers that conventionally belong to the monarch. All laws are enacted in the monarch's name; before a bill can become law, Royal Assent (the monarch's approval) is required.

    So there you go.

    PS And yes, the 1867 Constitution Act is real and still in effect.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    In Altoona, pierogieing is an intimate act, between two consenting adults, one of whom knows her way around a kitchen. And that Governor-General is a lot hotter than a certain governor who can see Russia from her house.


    by Donal on Fri, 12/05/2008 - 3:41pm

    Dagblogit won't let me sign in. This is you know who, eh

    Lookit. Canuckland works like a dream. Free health care, lotsa oil, gay rights, even a few gays on the left, nationwide Celine ban, never rains til after sundown, dozen perogies for 99 cents, public skating, and free morphine.

    Knew you'd wanna know more about that. Just walk into your local Emerg, tell 'em you got a bad appendix, turrrrible pain,  drop your pants, and nurse Hilda'll give you a needle full of Burma's best. They never argue with an appendix.  I've been high for 11 years solid, never seen a bill.

    And no, New York, a prorogue is not a temporary suspension. It's an unprecedented denial of democracy, another step toward the destruction of democracy due to the GOPstapo-like techniques of the Tories

    By the way, didja read yer Kristof yesterday? All about ANOTHER Worthy Canadian Initiative.

    Gettin' so there's too many to list. Like the Double-Raise Take-Out. Pull that before the 8th end, and it completely takes the steam out of the other guy.

    I donno why I bother.


    by quinn the anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 12/05/2008 - 5:47pm

    Dammit. Foiled by the anonymous the comment feature. We need to add an "Are You Canadian" test to that.

    Thanks for the list of Canada's attributes. The free morphine explains a lot. I did read the Kristof column. For those in the audience who didn't...

    Years ago, New Republic magazine held a contest for the most boring headline ever. The benchmark was from a Times Op-Ed column — not mine — that read “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative.”

    (The initiative, btw, is about salt salt iodization, which is very worthwhile, as salt deficiency in pregnant woman can cause brain damage. But that's a topic for a different post.)

    So question for you quinn anon (or acanuck if you're out there): What is the point of the prorogation? It gets Harper an extra 7 weeks and a lot of bad press. Does he think that with more time, he'll be able to cobble together a new coalition? Seems like if I were an unhappy coalition partner, I'd be even unhappier after the prorogie triple peel treatment.

    PS You should be able to reset your password. Let me know if you still can't login.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 10:26am

    I read that column too. I never used to read the NYT, but I'm a convert. You guys are making me smarter. Or more liberal. Are those mutually exclusive?

    When they were talking about Harper on NPR this morning, I was struck by an absurd comparison...didn't Mugabe suspend Zimbabwe's parliment in order to hold on to his power when it was clear that he would lose it? I realize Harper is not sending out militas to kill his opponents. Yet. You know it's always quiet ones. And which country has been quieter than Canada? Quinn, you might want to seek assylm. I hear North Dakota is nice this time of year.


    by Orlando on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 11:35am

    Plus, North Dakota lives in a recession-proof bubble.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 3:52pm

    Am on the road, thus sign-in hassles. Harper wants to buy time to let the Coalition fly apart. We've never really had a multi-party ruling Coalition, and the Liberals are mid-leadership race - which makes the whole thing trickier, since the guy who would be Coalition PM (Dion) leaves in May. Likely new Liberal leader is Michael Ignatieff (boo) or Bob Rae (less booing.) The internal Liberal games around that offer a chance for the Coalition to split.

    Plus, Harper's gonna announce goodies from here to then. Help for autoworkers, stimulus, etc. Everything the Coalition said they'd do. So a Jan vote would then become 100% personality, not substance. And yup, Harper could win that. Not pretty, but lots of daily drama, rallies in most cities, etc.

    By the way, Monty Python was actually named something BEFORE Monty Python - "Whither Canada." It's true. We think the name change is the only thing that held this truly talented troupe back from success.

    Kindof a shame.


    by quinn esq (not verified) on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 12:41pm

    Genghis, you're a brave man to tackle the intricacies of the Canadian constitution, where so many others -- prime ministers among them -- have come to grief.

    The key to this crisis was that a no-confidence vote normally leads to dissolution of Parliament and a new election. But not automatically. The governor-general (hereafter referred to as Her Hotness) has the discretion to ask the prime minister to step aside and give someone else a shot at the job.

    The Liberal leader had already written to GG HH, saying he had the signed agreement of three opposition parties (with a combined majority of seats) to back him as PM. Under those circumstances, HH would almost certainly approved a transition of power, rather than a new election just months after the previous one.

    So Harper punted instead, asking that the scheduled Christmas break start a week or so early. So no no-confidence vote can occur before Jan. 27, when he had planned on bringing in a budget anyway.

    If that budget has loads of stimulus-type goodies, it will be hard for coalition MPs to explain to the voting public why they're voting against it. And frankly, much as I dislike Harper, it makes sense to wait until we see Obama's stimulus package (likely to be signed Jan. 21) before finalizing Canada's plans. (The economies are sorta intertwined.)

    On the political side, the 7-week delay takes the steam out of the push for a coalition. A good number of Liberal MPs are at best lukewarm about its stability and even its wisdom, including (some pundits say) Michael Ignatieff, the frontrunner for the party leadership.

    Harper and his team now have nearly two months to work the phones, peeling individuals away from the notion of a coalition. The Conservatives are only 12 votes away from a majority, so if that many Liberal MPs (out of 77) refuse to vote no-confidence, the coalition can't take power. If it's a choice between an embarrassing defeat in Parliament and a tactical retreat, the Liberal leadership will find a way to swallow hard and support Harper's budget. That's what he's counting on, and I think he's got more than an even chance of pulling it off.

    (Incidentally, I spent yesterday on an excursion through the hills of old Vermont to hear Jesse Winchester in concert. The two-hour show was well worth the six-hour drive.)


    by acanuck on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 4:12pm

    Thanks for the excellent explanation. I'm obliged pause in my snarking to echo Orlando: one benefit of blogging is the amount that I've learned, both from the knowledgeable bloggers and commenters like you and from having to do research in order to write with some semblance of intelligence.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 5:23pm

    Latest Comments