# Canadian Dopers, how big a deal is "suspending Parliament"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 6, 2008, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962 "2008-12-06T05:59:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/21 "2008-12-07T00:00:23Z")
> [@qwest](#): > > Conversely, why allow the leader of the opposition to continue to spout rhetoric about how they`re going to bring the government down before hearing the next speech from the throne? Why is this not treason? Treason? :dubious: How is the normal, constitutional functioning of Parliament “treason”? ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/22 "2008-12-07T02:08:28Z")
Let me begin by saying that I spent my first 31 years in the US and the last 40 in Canada. Non-confidence is not at all like impeachment. Impeachment involves charges, evidence, etc. and is followed by a trial. A non-confidence vote requires only a majority of members of parliament (MPs) to vote against the PM. If the PM loses a vote of confidence (roughly, an important motion, which could just be a motion of non-confidence, or a budget or anything he declares a matter of confidence) he MUST resign. As I discovered only last week, if he advises the GG to prorogue (wonderful word, that) or dissolve pariiament and she refuses, he MUST resign because the crown has refused his advice. In principle, she could always do that, but in practice the last time a GG did that (I think it was in 1926, but my knowledge of Canadian history is kind of vague), there were riots in the streets. The first GG who was actually Canadian, not British, was in the 50s or 60s. (The current GG is a Hatian-born former journalist, incidentally.) Now the interesting question is whether she has any freedom of action in practice. In the parliamentary system, a government cannot endure that has lost the confidence of parliament. It has, but it has avoided the vote. It did this by putting the GG in an impossible position. Not being a native under this system, I can only go by what the chattering classes say. Some say she could and should have refused on the quite legitimate grounds that the only reason was to avoid a vote of non-confidence. Other, equally eminent commentators say that she has no choice but to go along with the PM, no matter how flimsy his reasons. One point that should be clear is that this is a minority government, which is unusual in Canadian history, although not unknown. The last minority government, in 1979, lasted 9 months and then there were new elections. What this PM did was prepare a budget ignoring the other parties priorities entirely (one of which was public funding of parties, which he proposed to end). He is now going around saying that the people elected him to govern, not the opposition parties. He is passing over the fact that 4 people in 7 voted against his becoming PM. Of course, they split those votes among a dozen or so other parties, three of whom actually elected MPs. So that those parties combine to form a coalition government is not, ipso facto, a denial of democracy, which is what the PM calls it. At any rate, on January 26, parliament will start a new session with a new Speech from the Throne (exactly like a State of the Union speech) and the MPs may vote against if, which will be automatically a non-confidence vote. Incidentally, the previous speech from the throne never got voted on and the GG could have refused prorogation on those grounds alone. I don’t think he could ever convince the GG to repeat this. So what the PM did was not a coup, but it was certainly a stretch. Incidentally, when I took American history in HS, the teacher commented at one point that if Andrew Johnson had been impeached, the US might have evolved towards a parliamentary system. I don’t see how it could have happened under the constitution since the cabinet is made up of non-members of Congress, but I think he meant that the president could be impeached whenever a majority of the House didn’t like his policies. Conviction by 2/3 of the Senate is a much higher barrier, however. Still we saw with Clinton how disruptive an impeachment could be. They knew there was no chance of conviction, but they went ahead with the proceedings anyway, effectively paralyzing the government. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/23 "2008-12-07T03:03:39Z")
> [@Hap\_Shaughnessy](#): > > The short answer is yes, sort of. > > The Governor General is the Crown’s representative in Canada, when the Queen (or King, as it sometimes happens to be) is not in the country, which is in reality, almost all of the time. But the GG is appointed by the Crown, on the advise of the Prime Minister, by convention. > > So constitutionally speaking, yes, a sitting PM could advise the Crown to appoint a new GG (there are some limitations here; a Governor General is expected to hold the position for about five years, but the term is not fixed.) > > The GG’s duties are largely ceremonial, but do include powers outlined broadly as ensuring responsible government. Or, as many Canadians grew up learning, POGGE (Peace, Order, Good Government, Eh) > > So, in a f’rinstance, Harper could have Jean replaced with a Governor General more politically in line with his own goals. But, in doing so, he would be tearing down a large part of the constitutional framework that has been built over the past 140 years in this country, and attacking even centuries older traditions that are the Westminster model we base our system of governing on. > > And the Crown still has the theoretical power to say no to a Prime Minister. Maybe. It’s complicated. Okay, so the Governor General is caught between a rock and a hard place. So, could the Queen herself decide the current situation is a Parliamentary crisis, fly to Ottawa and order Parliament into session? And if she coiuld (and did), would the PM have to resign over that, or would Parliament then call for a vote of confidence? ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/24 "2008-12-07T03:13:05Z")
well said, **Hari**. one point I would add, which if it exists in this thread I missed, is that in Canada we do not vote for a PM - we vote for MPs who form our parliament, and the leader of the party with the most MPs becomes the PM. **kunilou** , I don’t know this for certain, but my understanding is that the GG holds all the same power as the Queen would were she present, so I would expect that in your speculative scenario, the answer would be no. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/25 "2008-12-07T04:30:38Z")
Under the Canadian system, the Queen effectively never gets involved in person; she is always represented by the GG. The one exception is the piece of the crisis that did not eventuate – it’s the PM’s prerogative, under certain circumstances, to ask the Queen to dismiss the GG. It was rumored that Harper was prepared to do so if the GG refused to prorogue. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/26 "2008-12-07T04:42:32Z")
The Queen also has the power to appoint additional Senators in certain cases, a power which the GovGen does not have. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/27 "2008-12-07T14:56:12Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Suspending Parliament happens all the time. In that sense, it’s no big deal. However, it’s never been suspended in order to avoid a confidence vote. In that sense, it is a big deal. It is also highly unusual to suspend Parliament just weeks after a Throne Speech. There is at least one precedent at the provincial level. In Saskatchewan in 1991, Premier Devine requested that the Lieutenant Governor prorogue the House after the budget was introduced but had not been passed, which interrupted the usual process on a confidence matter. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/le_ministre_de_l_au-dela/32/12181_2.png) [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/28 "2008-12-07T15:06:09Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > As I discovered only last week, if he advises the GG to prorogue (wonderful word, that) or dissolve pariiament and she refuses, he MUST resign because the crown has refused his advice. I hadn’t heard that before - where’s that one found in the rulebook? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/29 "2008-12-07T17:54:20Z")
The precedent for that is the King-Byng Fling - after Lord Byng refused dissolution to Prime Minster Mackenzie King, King resigned. However, it’s a bad precedent, because it breaches the most basic rule that there must be a government, even if it’s just a caretaker gov’t. It was several days, if I recall correctly, before Lord Byng appointed Meighen as Prime Minister. It’s usually stated that if the GovGen refuses to follow the advice, the PM is entitled to offer to resign and invite the GovGen to find someone else. Technically, a PM is not required to do so, but if it’s reached the point where the PM has asked for a dissolution and been refused, it means that: 1. the PM has either lost the confidence of the Commons or will do so shortly, and 2. the GovGen thinks that there is a realistic prospect that someone else can form a gov’t with the confidence of the Commons. Since those are the likely facts, it means that the PM is on his way out anyway, so is required to accomodate the transfer. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/30 "2008-12-07T18:38:56Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > It was rumored that Harper was prepared to do so if the GG refused to prorogue. It was **theorized** that Harper could do this. I don’t ever recall a single rumour being reported from any source that he was considering it. [QUOTE=Northern Piper] The precedent for that is the King-Byng Fling - after Lord Byng refused dissolution to Prime Minster Mackenzie King, King resigned. However, it’s a bad precedent, because it breaches the most basic rule that there must be a government, even if it’s just a caretaker gov’t. It was several days, if I recall correctly, before Lord Byng appointed Meighen as Prime Minister. [/QUOTE] That does not, technically, go to either Hari Seldon’s claim or Le Ministere’s question. In the King-Byng affair, King asked that Parliament be dissolved; in this case, Harper asked for a short proroguation. Had Jean denied Harper proroguation, I don’t see any reason or precedent why he should have resigned. The issue of confidence is not yet decided at that point. Harper could have said “Thanks anyway. You might see me again real soon” and then spend four days trying to not lose the December 8 confidence vote that would have taken place. Indeed, I don’t believe that his request would even have been made formally public. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/31 "2008-12-07T20:07:17Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Had Jean denied Harper proroguation, I don’t see any reason or precedent why he should have resigned. My understanding is that the prime minister has no choice but to resign when the Governor General no longer accepts his advice, since his or her entire function is technically to advise the Governor General. ---
**Author:** ![seodoa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@seodoa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seodoa)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/32 "2008-12-08T00:25:50Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > open-top jeep? in Ottawa in December? no way. if he were to do that, it would be time for a Mental Health Act application. This is exactly why military dictatorships consistently fail in temperate and colder climate regions. (Sorry for the OT joke, have nothing to add to the conversation, but it’s all interesting stuff) ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/33 "2008-12-08T06:03:26Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > My understanding is that the prime minister has no choice but to resign when the Governor General no longer accepts his advice, since his or her entire function is technically to advise the Governor General. This is what I thought (and posted in another thread), but if I understand the Wikipedia article on the [King-Byng Affair](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-Byng_Affair) correctly, it appears that Mackenzie King did not resign until Lord Byng had refused _two_ requests to dissolve the House (on two separate days) and another request to consult the British government. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/34 "2008-12-08T07:31:01Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I think that part of the reason you have this reaction is that the article cited in the OP uses the term “suspends Parliament” rather than the proper term, prorogation. When you hear about a leader suspending a legislature, it usually means some non-constitutional step has been taken. > . Thanks for all the responses to my question. I suppose one could say that prorogation is more or less on par with an American president appointing officials during the congressional recess to bypass its approval. IIRC they can review and disapprove such an appointment when they do return to session, but there’s usually a good chance that won’t happen due to more pressing business. And I agree, the term ‘suspending Parliament’ does have a terribly ominous ring to it. It smacks of revolution and Enabling Acts. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/35 "2008-12-08T14:56:36Z")
In a somewhat similar crisis in Australia in 1975, one of the reasons that the Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister was that he feared, rightly or wrongly, that the PM would ‘advise’ the Queen to dismiss _him_ if he did not accede to the PM’s wishes. Peoples views on this episode, known as ‘The Dismissal’ in Australia, are still largely coloured by one’s politics. ---
**Author:** ![Hap\_Shaughnessy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecc23a/32.png) [@Hap\_Shaughnessy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hap_Shaughnessy)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2008, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/36 "2008-12-13T10:09:43Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > In a somewhat similar crisis in Australia in 1975, one of the reasons that the Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister was that he feared, rightly or wrongly, that the PM would ‘advise’ the Queen to dismiss _him_ if he did not accede to the PM’s wishes. Peoples views on this episode, known as ‘The Dismissal’ in Australia, are still largely coloured by one’s politics. This is a very real precedent, yet still a long-shot (at best) scenario that I’m sure both Harper & Jean considered, rejected, then eyed each other over… during their unusually long meeting. There has been so much going on in Canadian politics over the past several weeks, even our Constitutional scholars are re-reading everything, and still scratching their heads. I mean a Ha’va’d Prof named Iggy running the Libs, after an xmas coup? On the verge of a New Years Coalition? (And sorry i’ve missed this thread for a week!) ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/37 "2008-12-14T19:26:35Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > Thanks for all the responses to my question. I suppose one could say that prorogation is more or less on par with an American president appointing officials during the congressional recess to bypass its approval… More to the point, the President holds a power roughly analogous to the GG’s (although more limited): “He… may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper…” Art. II, Sec. 3. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962/38 "2008-12-14T19:56:18Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > Thanks for all the responses to my question. I suppose one could say that prorogation is more or less on par with an American president appointing officials during the congressional recess to bypass its approval. IIRC they can review and disapprove such an appointment when they do return to session, but there’s usually a good chance that won’t happen due to more pressing business. I’m not sure that’s the best analogy. Recess appointments have happened in the past, haven’t they? Not only is proroguing Parliament to avoid a confidence vote entirely without precedent at the federal level in Canada, I don’t think that it’s ever happened in any other Westminster-style federal Parliament before. A better comparison IMO would be the so-called “nuclear option” for ending a filibuster in the US Senate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-dopers-how-big-a-deal-is-suspending-parliament/475962.md?page=1)