Should we give the Crown more leeway to reject prorogation?

g_bambino · October 23, 2013

What I meant, which admittedly wasn't clear, was that Parliament was going to vote against him in a confidence motion. According to the other parties, he had lost the confidence of Parliament. If it were put to a vote, it would have been done. Parliament was prorogued before that vote happened. So in the legal sense, he didn't lose the confidence of the House. However, it was obvious to everyone how that vote was going to go.

Yes, of course; it seemed extremely likely he would have lost the confidence vote. However, the technicality that he hadn't yet officially--in the legal sense, as you put it--lost the confidence of the House would've been a prime factor in the Governor General's decision making. Confidence is a core component of responsible government, which is itself at the heart of what makes our system democratic. Only when the House has actually voted non-confidence in a government can the viceroy be certain a new prime minister must be appointed; some statement by two opposition parties' leaders, with support from a couple of others, isn't enough to go on; MPs hadn't been able to cast their own vote and it wasn't absolutely certain which way the majority would go.

Harper was still in every way Jean's prime minister and he wasn't breaking any constitutional law--written or conventional--by asking her to prorogue parliament, giving her no reason to say 'no' to his advice. However, there's no doubt she knew what he was up to and couldn't very well allow him to avoid facing parliament--another requirement for responsible government to function. So, she followed his advice and prorogued parliament but set it to resume only a few weeks later (over what would've been the Christmas break, anyway), when the Cabinet would again face the opposition and deal not only with the financial matters that were the catalyst for the parliamentary dispute, but also the prorogation itself.

I was hoping you would show up to set the record straight in this thread. You've taught me a lot of things about the Crown and our federal institutions, so I look forward to your insight on these topics.

Aw, shucks.

------

BTW, I was wrong about the money bill passing. It was never voted on (until after revision during the prorogation). But, the government did still hold the confidence it received when the House voted to support the Throne Speech given in mid-November.

[ed.: +]

Edited October 23, 2013 by g_bambino

cybercoma · October 23, 2013

Harper was still in every way Jean's prime minister and he wasn't breaking any constitutional law

And I never said that he did break the law. However, the fact remains that he prorogued parliament prior to a confidence motion to avoid officially losing the confidence of the House. It was a sad precedent that was set and repeated by Dalton McGuinty with the Ontario Crown later. No laws were broken. Everything was done by the books. Considering the context of the situation though, it makes the Crown look very bad.

TimG · October 24, 2013

However, the fact remains that he prorogued parliament prior to a confidence motion to avoid officially losing the confidence of the House.

Yet when it returned he immediately held a confidence vote and it passed. I really don't understand you incessant complaints about a 6 week delay. When I press you to explain why a 6 week delay was a problem you throw around irrelevant hypotheticals. We are not talking about hypotheticals - we are talking about a specific situation where the delay was 6 weeks and the confidence vote was held. A coalition that can't stay together for 6 weeks had no business trying to run the country and the prorogation served the best interests of the country.

People talk about the senate being a place for 'sober second thought'. I would say a 6 week prorogation to delay a contentious confidence vote is a excellent way to allow for 'sober second thought' in our political system.

Edited October 24, 2013 by TimG

cybercoma · October 24, 2013

I've already responded to your claim that 6 weeks is no big deal. I asked you where the arbitrary line is. You want to make this about the length of the prorogation and that's not what I'm arguing. In fact, it's completely irrelevant to my argument because I don't care if it was 6 weeks, 2 weeks, or 36 minutes. The problem I have is with a Prime Minister proroguing parliament for the purposes of avoiding a confidence vote, regardless of how long that delay lasts. If you're quite alright with a 6 week adjournment, then I trust you were OK with Dalton McGuinty's actions in Ontario? I suppose you would be ok with any Prime Minister, especially Liberal or NDP, taking 6 week breaks whenever he/she doesn't want to face a confidence votes? Because that's the issue that I have and you continue to ignore. You seem to think it's quite alright for PMs to delay a confidence vote whenever they please. Frankly, I think the Prime Minister should have a lot more integrity and accountability than that, instead of being an unaccountable coward.

Smallc · October 24, 2013

Tim isn't wrong though. The coalition couldn't survive a six week prorogation. Imagine how they would have done in government.

cybercoma · October 24, 2013

Tim isn't wrong though. The coalition couldn't survive a six week prorogation. Imagine how they would have done in government.

It doesn't matter. At the time of Parliament being prorogued we didn't know that. They had made their intentions known and signed an agreement. That was all we knew. You want to go back and fill in the blanks, which is completely immaterial. We operate on the Westminster system, so coalitions are a reality. We haven't seen them in Canada, but they're as much a part of our system as any other country's. Imagine if coalition agreements were drafted in other nations and Prime Ministers there refused to cede power or just prorogued those parliaments and ran propaganda campaigns for 6 weeks about how the coalition is trying to overthrow democracy. It's wrong factually and ethically. It's completely unacceptable.

guyser · October 24, 2013

Tim isn't wrong though. The coalition couldn't survive a six week prorogation. Imagine how they would have done in government.

He may not be wrong, but basically this is akin to " stop this war, we need to go buy more bullets, be right back in six weeks"

Six weeks is enough to repaint the house and make it appear different.

Smallc · October 24, 2013

Prorogation is also part of our system, and at the time of the request, there was no reason to deny it. A potential outcome of a future vote was irrelevant.

guyser · October 24, 2013

Prorogation is also part of our system, and at the time of the request, there was no reason to deny it. A potential outcome of a future vote was irrelevant.

Agreed, but I was speaking to your point about the 'imagine how well they would have done in gov't"

Smallc · October 24, 2013

Yes I was being just as hypothetical.

g_bambino · October 25, 2013

And I never said that he did break the law. However, the fact remains that he prorogued parliament prior to a confidence motion to avoid officially losing the confidence of the House. It was a sad precedent that was set and repeated by Dalton McGuinty with the Ontario Crown later. No laws were broken. Everything was done by the books. Considering the context of the situation though, it makes the Crown look very bad.

Well, no, it made Harper and McGuinty look bad. The governors general and lieutenant did as they were supposed to. Dismissing the advice of a prime minister would indicate the governor no longer had confidence in his cabinet, requiring the resignation of the prime minister. That would necessitate the appointment of a new prime minister, chosen not by parliament but by the governor him or herself. The Queen's representative replacing a prime minister who had neither lost the confidence of the legislature nor tried to give unconstitutional direction or made any illegal action, that would make the Crown look very bad.

And, I reiterate, the prorogations we're talking about were not what quashed any confidence vote. The opposition's actions did that. Had they held it together or stuck to their principles, they could've voted non-confidence in the government when parliament resumed.

[ed.: punct.. +]

Edited October 25, 2013 by g_bambino

g_bambino · October 25, 2013

I asked you where the arbitrary line is.

An arbitrary line can't be located.

Jean could've said five weeks. She could've said seven. Perhaps a month and a half is more round than a month and a quarter. What does it matter? She granted the prorogation so long as parliament reconvened "soon", and that was six weeks, most of which would've been the regular Christmas break. I think it was a pretty damn smart move on her part, for a number of reasons.

cybercoma · October 25, 2013

Prorogation is also part of our system, and at the time of the request, there was no reason to deny it. A potential outcome of a future vote was irrelevant.

I know there was no reason to deny it. I never said the Governor General should have denied. In fact, I've said the exact opposite. Stephen Harper is the democratically elected Prime Minister. The Governor General should take his advice, as long as he still maintains the confidence of the House. At the point he asked for the Governor General to prorogue Parliament there hadn't been an official vote of confidence yet. At the same time, the context of asking for the House to be prorogued stinks. It was done to avoid a confidence motion, which is an affront to democracy. Harper played entirely by the rules proroguing Parliament, but he gamed the system doing it. I think most reasonable people can see that shutting down the government to avoid a confidence vote that you know you're going to lose (since the opposition made their position known) is a dirty move. Not illegal. Just completely unethical.

cybercoma · October 25, 2013

Well, no, it made Harper and McGuinty look bad. The governors general and lieutenant did as they were supposed to. Dismissing the advice of a prime minister would indicate the governor no longer had confidence in his cabinet, requiring the resignation of the prime minister. That would necessitate the appointment of a new prime minister, chosen not by parliament but by the governor him or herself. The Queen's representative replacing a prime minister who had neither lost the confidence of the legislature nor tried to give unconstitutional direction or made any illegal action, that would make the Crown look very bad.

And, I reiterate, the prorogations we're talking about were not what quashed any confidence vote. The opposition's actions did that. Had they held it together or stuck to their principles, they could've voted non-confidence in the government when parliament resumed.

[ed.: punct.. +]

Yes of course. I agree with everything you said. I misspoke about it reflecting poorly on the Crown. I don't agree that prorogation didn't affect the confidence vote though. It most certainly did, as it gave the Conservatives time to go on an advertising campaign to mislead the public about the nature of our institutions. They blasted Canadians with advertisements declaring a coalition undemocratic, claiming they were attempting a "coup". The connotations of this term obviously violent. Public ignorance then influenced the other parties to let go of the idea of forming a coalition government. That was only possible by taking a break to spread propaganda.

Edited October 25, 2013 by cybercoma

cybercoma · October 25, 2013

An arbitrary line can't be located.

Jean could've said five weeks. She could've said seven. Perhaps a month and a half is more round than a month and a quarter. What does it matter? She granted the prorogation so long as parliament reconvened "soon", and that was six weeks, most of which would've been the regular Christmas break. I think it was a pretty damn smart move on her part, for a number of reasons.

As I said, the timeframe is irrelevant. Harper's purpose for the request is the problem and what it implies now that it is precedent.

Edited October 25, 2013 by cybercoma

g_bambino · October 25, 2013

I don't agree that prorogation didn't affect the confidence vote though. It most certainly did, as it gave the Conservatives time to go on an advertising campaign to mislead the public about the nature of our institutions.

Actually, they started that before the prorogation was granted, including making preemptive threats to go over the governor general (whatever that was supposed to mean) if she didn't do "as told"; if I recall correctly, it toned down after. Regardless, collapse of the coalition would still have been the opposition's own fault; nobody running it should've entered politics if they couldn't stand up against lies and misleading propaganda.

As I said, the timeframe is irrelevant. Harper's purpose for the request is the problem and what it implies now that it is precedent.

Perhaps. But, the event, at the same time, set the precedent that a requested prorogation in such circumstances should be allowed only if it ends soon. Six weeks has been established as "soon".

That's why I was surprised and disappointed when I heard the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario--Onely--had allowed a prorogation of indefinite length. Onely said in an interview he agreed to that because he had no guide. But, he did: Michaelle Jean in 2008.

[ed.: +]

Edited October 25, 2013 by g_bambino

TimG · October 25, 2013

As I said, the timeframe is irrelevant. Harper's purpose for the request is the problem and what it implies now that it is precedent.

In the future, any opposition coalition with half a brain will not advertise their plan till after defeating the government in a confidence vote. The government can only prorogue if it knows a defeat is coming. I really fail to see why the precedent is an issue. Edited October 25, 2013 by TimG

On Guard for Thee · October 31, 2013

In the future, any opposition coalition with half a brain will not advertise their plan till after defeating the government in a confidence vote. The government can only prorogue if it knows a defeat is coming. I really fail to see why the precedent is an issue.

Would that be like the Harper coalition that brought down Martin?

g_bambino · October 31, 2013

Would that be like the Harper coalition that brought down Martin?

Did the opposition forewarn Martin that they would vote non-confidence in his cabinet?

TimG · October 31, 2013

Did the opposition forewarn Martin that they would vote non-confidence in his cabinet?

Seems to me most Harper critics today were ecstatic that Martin was able to bribe Cadman and Stronach to support the Liberals. Is there really much difference between what Martin did and what Harper did?

g_bambino · October 31, 2013

Seems to me most Harper critics today were ecstatic that Martin was able to bribe Cadman and Stronach to support the Liberals. Is there really much difference between what Martin did and what Harper did?

That doesn't answer my question. If the opposition gave forewarning to Martin that they'd be voting non-confidence in the Cabinet, then the situations we're talking about would be similar. If the opposition didn't warn Martin and made their arrangements in camera, then the situation's aren't similar.

TimG · October 31, 2013

That doesn't answer my question. If the opposition gave forewarning to Martin that they'd be voting non-confidence in the Cabinet, then the situations we're talking about would be similar. If the opposition didn't warn Martin and made their arrangements in camera, then the situation's aren't similar.

I am confused. Do you really not remember? Harper advertised his intentions and Martin pulled out all stops to avoid losing. Conservatives at the time cried foul and alleged that Chadman (a man dying from cancer) was bribed with a life insurance policy. This is why I see complaints about prorogation as nothing put partisan rhetoric. Edited October 31, 2013 by TimG

g_bambino · October 31, 2013

Do you really not remember?

Either that or I never knew in the first place. Why would I ask, otherwise?

This is why I see complaints about prorogation as nothing put partisan rhetoric.

Even those that include McGuinty's recommended prorogation just before his resignation?

Sheogorath_The_Mad · October 31, 2013

Timeouts are used in sports all of the time - especially by teams that are losing.

Prorogation is the parliamentary equivalent and I fail to see why people make an issue out of them.

Treating politics like sports? Nimwits who treat the two alike are responisble for the state of our democracy.