Motion to limit PM's prorogation power passes

[Dave_ON]

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/17/layton-prorogue.html

I'm generally not a fan of these non binding motions as they are truly meaningless when all is said in done, but I think this might have some political “umph” to it if the opposition plays it right, which they likely will not.

The vote passed 139 to 135.

I do like the idea behind the motion however, that the PM would no longer be able to prorogue parliament without the express permission of Parliament. Honestly what's truly sad about this is that, that was always an unspoken rule heretofore. It's sad that the concentration of power has shifted so far away from Parliament that motions like this, impotent as they are, are necessary.

[cybercoma]

I'm seriously disappointed with this government. From their profligate spending with meaningless freezes on bureaucratic salaries and department funding, to the way they completely ignore research on health and crime so they can put through their ridiculous, thinly-veiled moral-agenda, they have let me down every step of the way.

[Moonbox]

This 'motion' is absolutely meaningless and I doubt will be worth the paper it was written on.

[g_bambino]

I do like the idea behind the motion however, that the PM would no longer be able to prorogue parliament without the express permission of Parliament. Honestly what's truly sad about this is that, that was always an unspoken rule heretofore.

It still is: The government can't govern without the permission of parliament; prorogation is a part of governing. The problem is, however, that the membership of parliament has been essentially reduced to five: the leaders of each party and the one independent. The other 303 MPs are merely clapping seals who do their party leader's bidding without question, so omnipotent have the leaders become due to the process by which they are chosen. This motion, therefore, and unsurprisingly, attacks the wrong target.

[ToadBrother]

This 'motion' is absolutely meaningless and I doubt will be worth the paper it was written on.

It's meaningless because it modifies a Prerogative, and as I've stated on a number of occasions that means a constitutional amendment.

[DrGreenthumb]

It's meaningless because it modifies a Prerogative, and as I've stated on a number of occasions that means a constitutional amendment.

It doesn't require constitutional amendment because it does not affect the Governor general's right to prorogue. It only sets out rules regarding when the PM can request that she do so and for how long.

[M.Dancer]

It doesn't require constitutional amendment because it does not affect the Governor general's right to prorogue. It only sets out rules regarding when the PM can request that she do so and for how long.

Yes basically it means only a majority can prorogue at will...

[DrGreenthumb]

Yes basically it means only a majority can prorogue at will...

As it should. When a majority of our elected representatives agree that a prorogation is appropriate it is a reflection of the will of the people who voted them into Parliament.

[g_bambino]

It's meaningless because it modifies a Prerogative, and as I've stated on a number of occasions that means a constitutional amendment.

I'm not entirely sure why it would require a constitutional amendment; none of the royal prerogatives are spelled out in the written parts of the constitution, and acts of parliament may (and do) bind the crown merely by saying they do.

[cybercoma]

What difference does it make, really? A majority of MPs could vote to prorogue parliament, but that certainly doesn't mean they represent a majority of Canadians. You can win a riding with 20% of the vote, depending on the number of candidates and how it's split.

[ToadBrother]

I'm not entirely sure why it would require a constitutional amendment; none of the royal prerogatives are spelled out in the written parts of the constitution, and acts of parliament may (and do) bind the crown merely by saying they do.

Prorogation has been for centuries the domain of the Sovereign (remember, Charles I ultimately lost his head over his use of it). That is, by definition, a Royal Prerogative. The use of Prerogatives occurs only on the advice of the Government (save when a Government has fallen). These Prerogatives are the "unwritten" part of our Constitution, but they remain a constitutional feature, meaning if you want to amend their usage, you have to alter the constitution. Now, in this case, since this is the Federal Parliament, it seems reasonable that an Act, after being passed in both the Commons and the Senate, would constitute a constitutional change, but I'm not seeing anyone putting forth a Bill here. A motion is not an Act.

[g_bambino]

Now, in this case, since this is the Federal Parliament, it seems reasonable that an Act, after being passed in both the Commons and the Senate, would constitute a constitutional change, but I'm not seeing anyone putting forth a Bill here. A motion is not an Act.

Oh, I know; the motion is a waste of time, being both non-binding and a miss at the real target. I'm merely pondering whether the royal prerogative to prorogue parliament couldn't simply be bound by an act of parliament; one that sets a regular schedule for the legislature, perhaps, as we discussed in another thread.

[ToadBrother]

Oh, I know; the motion is a waste of time, being both non-binding and a miss at the real target. I'm merely pondering whether the royal prerogative to prorogue parliament couldn't simply be bound by an act of parliament; one that sets a regular schedule for the legislature, perhaps, as we discussed in another thread.

I think an Act would probably be sufficient, providing in only affected the Sovereign's powers as per the Federal Parliament. I'm no constitutional expert, but I think if properly framed, so as not to involve the Provincial or Territorial legislatures, an Act, passed both in the House and the Senate, would constitute a legitimate amendment.

[g_bambino]

I think an Act would probably be sufficient, providing in only affected the Sovereign's powers as per the Federal Parliament. I'm no constitutional expert, but I think if properly framed, so as not to involve the Provincial or Territorial legislatures, an Act, passed both in the House and the Senate, would constitute a legitimate amendment.

I wonder, though, if there aren't negative consequences to such a move; some of the royal prerogative has survived for a reason.