Implications of Prorogation

[PoliticalTalk]

Why do you think Jean was wrong? What are the Implications of prorogation? Has this tarnished Canadas Democratic reputation?

[guyser]

Why do you think Jean was wrong? What are the Implications of prorogation? Has this tarnished Canadas Democratic reputation?

You have an essay due Monday dont you?

[robert_viera]

Has the Governor General offered any explanation for her decision? Is there any requirement that she explain her decision?

If preventing a vote of non-confidence in his government was the only reason Mr. Harper asked for a prorogation, I think the Governor General made a mistake.

The only way this will be settled is if a transcript of the discussion between Mr. Harper and the Governor General is released.

Edited February 28, 2009 by robert_viera

[Smallc]

Has the Governor General offered any explanation for her decision? Is there any requirement that she explain her decision?

No and no. In fact, I don't think that she's supposed to talk about what happened.

[bush_cheney2004]

No and no. In fact, I don't think that she's supposed to talk about what happened.

Why not? Is it a "state" secret?

[Smallc]

Why not? Is it a "state" secret?

Its a privileged conversation. The Crown doesn't make public the conversations that it has with its ministers...to the best of my knowledge anyway.

[ToadBrother]

Why do you think Jean was wrong? What are the Implications of prorogation? Has this tarnished Canadas Democratic reputation?

The GG had little choice. The number of times the Regal or Vice-regal has refused the advice of a Prime Minister in the last hundred years anywhere in the Commonwealth can be counted on one hand.

That doesn't make it right, of course. The implication is that a Prime Minister can stave off a confidence motion by getting a timeout from the Governor General. Mind you, we have no idea what the terms were, and it's quite possible that the GG agreed to it with strings attached. Still, it's a damn shame that what's supposed to be a largely ceremonial procedural power of our acting head of state has been co-opted as a way for a faltering government to escape what's supposed to be the supreme will of Parliament.

If there's any comfort, I think Harper won the battle and lost the war. Parliament and even his own party have clipped his wings.

[Jean_Poutine]

Why do you think Jean was wrong? What are the Implications of prorogation? Has this tarnished Canadas Democratic reputation?

Interesting way of framing the question. She wasn't wrong.

The people gave the Conservatives a large minority with virtually the same percentage of the vote that Chretien won a majority with in 1997.

In 1926, Governor General Lord Byng gave power to the opposition, but it backfired in the election that followed when King argued that Byng had interfered in Canadian politics and came back with a majority.

Of course, the vote of confidence was all about trying to gain power without an election. The past, and common sense, shows that this course of action is clearly a mistake and it would be even more so with the Bloc in the mix. However, the country just went through an election and nobody wanted another one -- especially the Liberals. It would have been amusing to see how the opposition would react if there was a no confidence vote and an election called -- careful what you wish for. However, neither of these options were really desirable.

Once Parliament was prorogued, the Conservatives got down to business with the budget, and Liberals distanced themselves from the coalition. In the end, the GG was able to avoid the two undesirable options.

[ToadBrother]

Why not? Is it a "state" secret?

In a word, yes. The Governor General acts in the place of the Queen, and as such her conversations with Her ministers are private and protected from scrutiny. You cannot technically scrutinize the decisions of the Sovereign.

I know that sounds weird and anachronistic, but during this particular crisis, if there was one good thing, I think a lot of people finally understood how our system technically works.

[bush_cheney2004]

Its a privileged conversation. The Crown doesn't make public the conversations that it has with its ministers...to the best of my knowledge anyway.

The actual conversation may be privileged, but the explanation certainly shouldn't be.

[ToadBrother]

The actual conversation may be privileged, but the explanation certainly shouldn't be.

The explanation is simple. Since the Glorious Revolution, the Sovereign or His or Her representative is bound to accept the advice of His or Her ministers. Over three hundred years of Parliamentary tradition are clear; the GG had no choice but honor Harper's request.

[capricorn]

Has the Governor General offered any explanation for her decision? Is there any requirement that she explain her decision?

As far as I know, the Governor General is not required to report to Canadians on her decisions following consultations with the Prime Minister.

If preventing a vote of non-confidence in his government was the only reason Mr. Harper asked for a prorogation, I think the Governor General made a mistake.

I doubt very much that the PM based his case solely on keeping his government in office. My feeling is that the aspect of the Bloc's role in a possible government coalition was a determining factor.

The only way this will be settled is if a transcript of the discussion between Mr. Harper and the Governor General is released.

Once Jean finishes her term as GG, she may commit all the details in her memoirs. Clarkson did write a book about her term as GG. Or Jean will let it slide and those records will be released to the public and researchers in 50 years when most of us will have turned to dust.

[capricorn]

No and no. In fact, I don't think that she's supposed to talk about what happened.

Clarkson wrote a book about her term as GG. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[bush_cheney2004]

The explanation is simple. Since the Glorious Revolution, the Sovereign or His or Her representative is bound to accept the advice of His or Her ministers. Over three hundred years of Parliamentary tradition are clear; the GG had no choice but honor Harper's request.

Then why didn't she just say that? If the outcome was predetermined, why all the drama from behind the curtain.

[ToadBrother]

I doubt very much that the PM based his case solely on keeping his government in office. My feeling is that the aspect of the Bloc's role in a possible government coalition was a determining factor.

I'm sure staying alive politically had everything to do with it. Harper had little problem with the same move a few years earlier when he was in Opposition. This was clearly a case of an abuse of a specific Executive power to defy the will of Parliament.

Once Jean finishes her term as GG, she may commit all the details in her memoirs. Clarkson did write a book about her term as GG. Or Jean will let it slide and those records will be released to the public and researchers in 50 years when most of us will have turned to dust.

I doubt very much there are any kinds of records kept of the conversation. Hopefully the GG keeps a diary of some kind that eventually will be released, but beyond that this was very much the Vice-Regal taking the advice of her Prime Minister.

[capricorn]

In a word, yes. The Governor General acts in the place of the Queen, and as such her conversations with Her ministers are private and protected from scrutiny. You cannot technically scrutinize the decisions of the Sovereign.

I think once the individual ceases to be GG, that individual can do what they want with the information they were privy to while in office.

[ToadBrother]

Then why didn't she just say that? If the outcome was predetermined, why all the drama from behind the curtain.

It's not her place to comment on Government policy or on the actions of Her Ministers. That's the Government's job. She does not owe you or I an explanation, her powers are laid out in the Constitution and through centuries of tradition.

You don't find the Queen explaining the reasoning behind her taking the advice of Her ministers, and the GG has nearly the same constitutional powers. The Regal or Vice-regal is, technically, beyond and above all such matters.

[bush_cheney2004]

....You don't find the Queen explaining the reasoning behind her taking the advice of Her ministers, and the GG has nearly the same constitutional powers. The Regal or Vice-regal is, technically, beyond and above all such matters.

That's what I thought you would say. Good luck with "Regal"....to me it is just a Buick. Even the SCC writes majority and dissenting opinions for public consumption.

Edited February 28, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[capricorn]

I'm sure staying alive politically had everything to do with it.

I'm sure you're right. The unanswered question is what argument did Harper put forward to convince her, even if he did so with a wink and a nudge.

I doubt very much there are any kinds of records kept of the conversation.

Then, you have never worked in the bowels of the bureaucracy. Keeping records of every significant and insignificant occurrence is sacrosanct even in the hoity-toity world of the GG.

[Smallc]

Clarkson wrote a book about her term as GG. I don't see anything wrong with that.

She no longer represents the Crown.

[Smallc]

Since the Glorious Revolution, the Sovereign or His or Her representative is bound to accept the advice of His or Her ministers.

I don't think that's completely true. There are cases where the Governor General could and probably would refuse a request and there are cases where she would dismiss the Prime Minister. Such a thing would be very rare, but it is completely within the realm of possibility.

I think that there were many factors that played into her decision. She made a decision that she thought was best for the Crown, the country, and the Constitution...and not necessarily in that order. I think she made the right decision for the time. If circumstances would have been changed even somewhat, there is a good chance that the Conservative Government would have been replaced.

This is all speculation of course, but my point is the Vice Regal doesn't have to follow, the advice....they just usually do as it is conventional.

[Melanie_]

I haven't read Clarkson's book, but I'm thinking there are probably still some things she can't talk/write about, even though her term is over. For Jean, this might be one of the things she can't talk about either, once her term is completed.

Political Talk, write your own damn essay! (I had 40 essays handed in today, which I'm procrastinating on marking as we speak... er, type.)

[ToadBrother]

I don't think that's completely true. There are cases where the Governor General could and probably would refuse a request and there are cases where she would dismiss the Prime Minister. Such a thing would be very rare, but it is completely within the realm of possibility.

There are theoretical cases, but in the modern history of Parliament (say, since the end of the 18th century onward), the actual examples of the Sovereign or a Governor General refusing a Prime Minister are so exceedingly rare (the last one being well over thirty years ago in Australia) that for all intents and purposes, unless the request were of an extreme nature (such as, say, askng that the current Parliament sit for an indefinite period) that, for all intents and purposes, Parliament is supreme.

I think that there were many factors that played into her decision. She made a decision that she thought was best for the Crown, the country, and the Constitution...and not necessarily in that order. I think she made the right decision for the time. If circumstances would have been changed even somewhat, there is a good chance that the Conservative Government would have been replaced.

She made the only decision she could. A sitting Prime Minister asked her to prorogue Parliament. There is simply no precedent for such a refusal. Of course, she has the reserve powers to do so, but let's remember here that the GG is bound as much by her traditional powers as by any constitutional directives.

This is all speculation of course, but my point is the Vice Regal doesn't have to follow, the advice....they just usually do as it is conventional.

You'll get this sort of simplistic "the GG has enormous powers" statement from the likes of Mike Duffy and other political analysts, but pretty much all the constitutional experts that I read agreed; as extremely unusual as Harper's request was, the real extreme situation would be if the GG had denied it. Denying a Prime Minister has only happened a handful of times in the modern history of the Westminster system.

[Smallc]

Denying a Prime Minister has only happened a handful of times in the modern history of the Westminster system.

I agree, and that's really what I was saying. Even though it is rare and unusual, she could refuse. She just doesn't because of tradition and convention. There are very few cases where she would actually refuse.

[eyeball]

...why all the drama from behind the curtain.

To keep up appearances? I guess someone has something to hide. Of course that only makes tongues wag and people want to know what that might be.

In your country you'd probably be looking for suspicious stains and such.