In December of 2008, the Canadian government underwent what is now called the Prorogation Crisis. On the 27th of November, shortly after the election of the Harper government, the Minister of Finance released the Economic Statement. The statement was a controversial document that was not supported by many MPs. Faced with an imminent vote of no-confidence, the newly elected Harper government asked the Governor General to prorogue parliament. The Governor General acceded to Harper’s request and Parliament was prorogued until January 26th, 2009 (MacDonald & Bowden 10-11). The controversy surrounding the crisis raised questions about the reserve powers and the constitutional role of the Governor General. There is much debate about whether or not …show more content…
Additionally, it has been suggested that prorogation no longer falls under the discretion of the Governor General and is instead controlled by the executive of the state, hence the Governor General could not have refused Harper’s advice to prorogue Parliament. As well as this, the Governor General made the strongest decision possible in allowing the prorogation as it left the greatest number of options available to Parliament in accordance with the principle of apolitical decision rule. Furthermore, the Governor General’s decision was the right one due to the fragility and instability of the Coalition as an alternative government. Finally, whilst critics claim that by allowing the prorogation, the Governor General set up a precedent for governments who want to avoid accountability, the Harper government still underwent a confidence vote at the end of the prorogation and thus did not entirely avoid …show more content…
It rests on the assumption that the executive of the state must always be accountable to the elected members of the House who are the people’s representatives (Wheeldon 105). To have responsible government, the Prime Minister and Cabinet must maintain the confidence of the House. The first thing that must be distinguished is the difference between an imminent and a formal loss of confidence. A formal loss of confidence occurs when a majority of the Members of Parliament in the House of Commons vote against the Speech from the Throne, the Budget or other confidence matters or when they carry out a motion of non-confidence as the Opposition was threatening to do prior to the Prorogation Crisis (MacDonald & Bowden 8). Once a government is defeated by a formal vote of non-confidence, the Prime Minister can no longer request a prorogation (MacDonald & Bowden 8). However, in the case of Harper’s government, the formal vote of non-confidence had not occurred and the government still maintained the House’s confidence when Harper asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. Thus if the Prime Minister has the confidence of the House, the Governor General, by convention, should accept and follow the advice of the Prime Minister. This maintains responsible government because the Prime Minister is an elected official whilst the Governor General is appointed and thus does not represent the people (Hogg
Instead of the current administration making a swift and decisive action to deal with these insolvent institutions, there were many bureaucratic attempts to delay action so that the problems would not become a polit...
...ment dissolved after having the head of state pass a vote of non-confidence in Meighen. This time, Byng accepted to dissolve the Parliament and elections were called. Because the Conservatives campaigned the fact that the Liberals were corrupt and the Liberals campaigned on Canadian rights and how the British should not be able to interfere with how Canada wanted to rule itself, King’s Liberals won the next election and went back into power. Though these events are all facts of what happened, King had several options to choose from before asking to dissolve Government.
Dyck defines responsible government as a “form of government in which the political executive must retain the confidence of the elected legislature and resign or call an election if and when it is defeated on a vote of non-confidence”(432). Essentially this means that the executive branch of government, which is the Prime Minister and his office/staff, along with the
... Canadians' trust in their government to handle situations such as this wavered. And lastly, why not do as others had success with? The Americans already utilised the method of spending their way out of a depression, and it had worked for them, at least to a degree. It was enough to save millions of lives and give hope to the people! So why not do as they did? Why wait so long for the situation to be too late to heal? The Canadian government were not very successful in their efforts in dealing with the Great Depression. Replacing prime ministers (twice) and making only minor changes ultimately did Canada no good. The government's poor efforts in their attempts to resolve
For the MPs in Canada, party discipline is the core for their actions. For them, collective responsibility plays a big part in their agenda. As a party, they are held responsible for any decision that their party makes, and are expected to defend it at any given point of time. For a majority government, party discipline becomes an even more important issue as it is directly related to the term of the Prime Minister (PM). Under the rule of maintaining the confidence of the House, the PM must gain the support of the House in order to stay in his role. This is where high party discipline comes into place. With it, the PM will not have to worry about being dismissed by the Governor General. Should the high party discipline deteriorate and gives away into a low one, such as the one in the States, the government will be in a constant potential risk of collapsing into paralysis. Once the leader of the cabine...
Stevenson, Garth. "Canadian Federalism: The Myth of the Status Quo." Reinventing Canada: Politics of the 21st Century. Ed. M. Janine Brodie and Linda Trimble. Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2003. 204-14. Print.
On February 21 and 22 of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to rule whether th...
Patriquin, M. (2014, April 11). The epic collapse of Quebec separatism. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from Maclean’s website: http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-epic-collapse-of-separatism/
This essay has argued that there are many limitations that the Prime Minister is subjected too. The three most important are federalism in Canadian society, the role of the Governor General, and the charter of rights and freedoms. I used two different views of federalism and illustrated how both of them put boundaries on the Prime Minister’s power. Next I explain the powers of the governor general, and explained the ability to dissolve parliament in greater detail. Last I analyzed how the charter of rights of freedoms has limited the Prime Minister’s power with respect to policy-making, interests groups and the courts. The Prime Minister does not have absolute power in Canadian society, there are many infringements on the power that they have to respect.
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
Stevenson, Garth. "Canadian Federalism: The Myth of the Status Quo." Reinventing Canada: Politics of the 21st Century. Ed. M. Janine Brodie and Linda Trimble. Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2003. 204-14. Print.
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Alternative Federal Budget 2011, Report: Rethink, Rebuild, Renew (pg. 69, 70, 72, 75) Retrieved from: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/AFB2011
In Mellon’s article, several aspects are mentioned supporting the belief that the prime minister is too powerful. One significant tool the prime minister possesses is “… the power to make a multitude of senior governmental and public service appointments both at home and abroad,” (Mellon 164). Mellon goes on to state the significance the prime minister has when allowed to appoint the government’s key member...
This paper provides an overview of the crisis, outlines the major causes of the crisis, examine alternative solutions to the problem
While there are no legal rules governing how ministers can exercise the prerogative, they are subject to a number of non-legal rules and conventions, in particular the convention of ministerial responsibility. As FM Maitland states this is the principle that “for every exercise of royal power some minister is answerable. ”[1] Ministers are collectively responsible to parliament for their administration and policy, as well as, being individually responsible for their own personal conduct and conduct of their department. If a minister does not adhere to the acceptable standards they can be compelled or forced to resign. Ministers are, therefore, accountable to Parliament for the decisions that the... ...