I have to work very hard, given my political distaste for almost all things conservative, to consider most criticisms of political structures in light not only of the current political discourse but also the consequences that they could have for the future. If I were to pretend that any of the governments that have sovereign control over me or that land that I inhabit were ones that I supported, would I still agree that the changes were beneficial to Canada's governance.
Earlier this week, I read this article from the Globe and Mail. "Give the house the authority" by Andrew Heard argues that the representatives of Canada's people in the House of Commons should have to pass a motion allowing for any attempt to pro-rogue parliament. I've thought about this, and it does have some limitations...
In reality, this would only be an effective means of control in a minority government, because the opposition parties are less likely to vote in favour of pro-roguing the parliament than the government. It may work in a majority provided that there was a considerable division within the party at the time. Unfortunately, it could also be used as a bartering tool in Canada's governance; where, members of the opposition will agree to vote for pro-roguing provided some of their localized concerns are dealt with once the government resumes (granted, this is more prominent in American government than Canadian, but should be considered as a consequence).
Heard's proposal does allow for more involvement in any decision to have the parliament pro-rogued - which isn't necessarily bad because it decentralizes the power away from the governor-general of Canada and the Primeminister (where it essentially rests - read the article to understand how this power has become a de facto power of the prime minister). By decentralizing the power, a proper check can be placed on the prime minister, ensuring that any attempt to pro-rogue government is actually for the benefit of the people of Canada rather than just the governing party...
Now, considering how frequently parliament has been pro-rogued in Canada throughout its history, I'm not sure how frequently this legislation would have to be enacted... but, as the current political party has used its de facto power to pro-rogue parliament as a means of maintaining political power, it would perhaps be an appropriate method of fixing a problem. For a government to pro-rogue parliament twice in 12 months is pretty much disgusting... And, though the liberal political media would like you to think that the Canadian people are not responding (and they aren't responding through overt popular discussion so much as general political fatigue... though there is a facebook group with nearly 200,000 members that has banded against the pro-roguing of the current session), Canadians do find it troubling that the government of Canada, including its opposition parties, have not been allowed to work in the government's transparent body (the House of Commons) as a result (read the initial article - it provides some polling data, which is of debatable validity, but still reveals something). What is taking place, provided members of the government is working right now, is back-room discussion about what direction the country should go in. And a lot of party politicking. The country has been sacrificed at the altar in the interest of the Conservative Party of Canada rather than the interests of the electorate...
Considering the contemporary political landscape of Canada....
Something that the Liberal Party should consider in any upcoming election is placing a well-considered policy of this sort into their campaign - it not only acts as an attack on Harper's use of current proroguing legislation, but provides an increasingly democratic means of affecting the country's governance (an angle that Harper has been able to exploit successfully thus far with the promise for fewer appointed Senate seats). Though this is not popular vote, it is a vote on a power that has been used and abused, without general Canadian support, by Stephen Harper, and could potentially be abused by subsequent Primeministers. Even Liberal ones. Even those representing the New Democrats, or the Greens. But we should get it done anyways....
Some other articles to consider, if you're interested in this.
"Halted in mid-debate" - The Economist
"Harper goes Pro-Rogue" - The Economist
"Proroguing PM takes hit in poll" - Chronicle Herald
And then, just because I really dislike Harper, I'm going to post this. A full text speech transcribed from Harper in 1997. Interesting.
