When Prime Minister Harper Prorogues Parliament, the Transgendered Bill Will Die, Among Others
When Prime Minister Stephen Harper asks the Governor General to prorogue Parliament before its scheduled return on September 16, 2013, and will mark the end of the 41st Parliament; consequently several pieces of legislation will die on the order paper in either the House of Commons or the Senate.
This means private member’s Bill C-279 to protect the right of the transgendered and make it illegal to discriminate against transgender Canadians under the Canadian Human Rights Act (we previously wrote about it here) will die on the order paper. However, the Bill could be restored to third reading once the new parliamentary session begins, at the last stage completed by the Senate.
Other key pieces of proposed legislation affected by the impending prorogation are:
- Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits (Senate Reform Act)
- Bill C-30, An Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act and to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act)
- Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder) (Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act)
- Bill C-21, Bill An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to political loans)
- Bill C-377 An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations)
The Prime Minister indicated that the 42nd Parliament will open around October 2013 with a speech from the throne that will set out the government’s agenda.
This seems to be a pattern for the federal Conservative government. According to CTV News:
“In December 2008, Harper prorogued rather than face a vote of non-confidence when his Conservatives held a minority government and the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Québécois were threatening his grip on power.
He prorogued again the following year, halting House of Commons committee hearings into the treatment of Afghan detainees and killing a number of pieces of legislation.”
But the federal Conservatives aren’t the only ones to use prorogation for apparent political purposes:
“Prorogation jumped into the headlines again last fall when then-Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty, embroiled in a number of scandals, resigned as Liberal leader and called a halt to business at the provincial legislature.”
Many stakeholders and the public believe that this tactic is used to avoid answering questions related to the Senate fraudulent expenses scandal and the $90,000 cheque in the Wright-Duffy Affair. Prorogation seems to be the way the government has and is using to avoid and divert the attention of electors from controversial issues that may impact the party’s re-election.
The practice has legitimate purposes, mainly the early closing of a parliamentary session when the government has achieved its agenda. This is the claim that the federal Conservatives are making in the present case. At the same time, prorogation has long been used to attempt to avoid political scandal. Unfortunately, while a government might have illegitimate motives for a prorogation, there is little standing in its way. It is the federal Governor General or provincial lieutenant-governor who has the power to grant a prorogation, and they seldom deny it, although they occasionally impose conditions, such as limiting the length.
One positive of the current round of prorogations is that they have brought the issue to the public and raised debate about the practice. Is it acceptable to allow a government to end a parliamentary session whenever it sees fit and for whatever reasons? How can Parliament limit the power to prorogue? Will changes to the practice require amending the Constitution?
Any practice that legally allows a government to avoid accountability demands reform. Such practices may have been instituted with the best of intentions, but we have clearly seen that our leaders don’t always have such good in mind. For that reason, it is clear that we must reform the practise of proroguing Parliament and provincial legislatures to eliminate or reduce as well as possible the likelihood that a government will use it to avoid scrutiny or to kill laws it doesn’t like. What the practice should look like is another question.
As for the Bills that will die on the order paper with the end of the current session of Parliament, we will look out for them in the fall and perhaps get some additional insight into the government’s motives.
Comments are closed.