by Helen Forsey
Global Research, November 30, 2008
Canadian for a Progressive Coalition
After our costly and frustrating October 2008 trip to the polls, Canadians are once again being held hostage to the notion that a government can never be defeated in the House of Commons without triggering an election. If Eugene Forsey were still alive, we would know that the weapon being held to our heads is only a toy gun.
The late Senator Forsey was widely recognized and respected as an expert on Canada's constitution. Whenever political dilemmas loomed or processes needed clarifying, politicians, media and citizens alike sought his lively and learned counsel. Today, with our country again facing the uncertainties of a minority government, a multi-party opposition and difficult times ahead, his input is urgently needed.
The first thing he would point out in our current situation is that our Parliamentary system provides safeguards against a series of unnecessary elections. One of those safeguards is the customary co-operation and negotiation among parties in the House of Commons which enables minority governments to work, often very well. The other is the constitutional right of the Governor-General, in certain circumstances, to refuse a governments advice to dissolve Parliament and instead to call on another party in the existing House of Commons to try governing.
If the Canadian public, the politicians and the media had understood these vital aspects of respoinsible cabinet government and invoked it early in the last Parliament, events would have unfolded very differently from what they did. The government, instead of declaring every bill a matter of confidence on which it would stand or fall, could have chosen to work with one or more opposition parties, as minority governments usually do, to amend or even withdraw legislation that a majority of MPs did not support. Failing that, opposition parties could have voted together against the government and defeated it.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FOR20081130&articleId=11226
(With props to B.C. Mary and David who pointed me to the article)
Stumble It!
From what I've heard, no. This wasn't one of the circumstances she could have dissolved parliament under. Prorogation only ended the session of Parliament 6 days early. I think there has to be a vote of non-confidence, or they have to lose a vote on a matter of confidence for that to happen.
The GG can't just dissolve Parliament at whim.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-co ... ment-e.htm
The Long Prorogation:
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/repor ... mpid=40385
This article was written in 1769, during which period global events tooks months, if not years to have an impact. We now are able to witness cause and effect literally within minutes and hours on a global scale.
In "extraordinary times", such as the current "meltdown", government during prorogation, especially a minority government, cannot respond well to sudden events that might well have a negative impact on the nation as a whole. The general argument of the Long Prorogation has to do with when a prorogation becomes a dissolution. In the mid-18th century, a year was evidently considered adequate. But would that be legitimate today...........?
I think that prorogation would not be a whim though. It was (and is) a deliberate move by government:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-co ... ment-e.htm
"This is done by the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, either by means of a special ceremony in the Senate Chamber, or by the issuing of a proclamation published in the Canada Gazette. Both the Senate and the House of Commons stand prorogued until the opening of the next session."
That would be the key - the PM must ask for it. For the GG to prorogue Parliament without being asked would be 'on a whim'. Same as if she dissolved Parliament without the government first losing a matter of confidence.
But would that be legitimate today...........?
When the possibility of prorogation was raised, I heard a couple constitutional experts talking that he could extend it to a year or more if the PM wished. But such a thing would be silly, and detrimental. We need things like yearly budgets and quarterly updates to maintain the country running smoothly. Otherwise departments have no budgets, people don't get paid . . .the country grinds to a halt.
That might have worked in the 1700's, bu not in todays' world.
BTW, I agree that a prorogation of a year would be rediculous. I maintain however, that a prorogation of a month in a time when bad things could happen in hours and days is equally rediculous.
BTW, I agree that a prorogation of a year would be rediculous. I maintain however, that a prorogation of a month in a time when bad things could happen in hours and days is equally rediculous.
I would say, yes. If it wasn't in the best interest of the House or the People, it probably would have been denied. I would assume that's why the meeting with the GG took 90 minutes. He was probably getting schooled in constitutional law, and told in no uncertain terms that this was a one time get out of jail free card.
I realize it would take a battery of lawyers to attempt to prove that the actions of the PM would be contrary to the intersts of Canada. But if it could be proven, I wonder if it might be applied retroactively, to Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, Brian Mulroney, etc........
Ah, 'tis indeed the season of sugarplums dancing in my head.......