Tagline: Moin called me a super-nerd last night. This is payback.
Topic: Was the Governor General’s Decision to Prorogue Parliament Constitutional?
Canada’s Leading Scholars Weigh in on this Historic Ruling
Where: University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Faculty Lounge
When: Today, 12 – 2pm
Panelists:
David Cameron, Chair, U of T Political Science Department.
Joe Comartin, NDP MP for Windsor-Tecumseh.
Bob Rae, Liberal MP for Toronto.
Peter Kent, Conservative MP for Thornhill and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Americas).
Ed Schreyer, former Governor General (joining via teleconference).
Lorne Sossin, Professor, U of T Law.
Lorraine Weinrib, Professor, U of T Law.
Peter H. Russell, Professor Emeritus, U of T Political Science Department.
Moderator:
Cheryl Milne, Executive Director, David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, U of T Law.
11.41am: Lounge is packed. The excitement is palpable. Media is setting up shop.
11.47: Not sure I can trust the internet connection in this room, but we'll see.
11.58: Wow - now a crowd is forming outside the entrance to the lounge. I haven't see this much excitement since (insert your own "Family Guy" joke here).
12.05: Waiting to begin...
12.07: We just performed a series of weird "move your chair forward" transitions. Those in the front row can now touch the panelists. This is a reflection of the typical Canadian political event (says my SJD colleague).
12.10: Panelists arrive...almost there now.
12: 12: Mayo Moran kicks it off with introductions. She thought there won't be much of a turnout as this is the first day of exams and she is thrilled at the turnout. They put this together really quickly (good call!)
12.14:Cheryl Milne (moderator) introduces panelists and procedure : Each panelist speaks for 6 minutes and audience gets to ask questions.
12: 16: Ed Schreyer opens (via teleconference). Says it is a well understood norm that it is in the prerogative of the GG to look to see if the presentation of the prorogue is presented in a legit and formal manner.
12:18: Schreyer is being vague but says he does not agree that it is outside the prerogative of the GG to okay a prorogue. He knows of no precedent but does not think it is fatal.
12.20: Lorraine Weinrib: She prepared a written statement. Says Harper has repeatedly denigrated framework of exercise of power in Canada. His actions in the current crisis makes one think that he has no commitment to the role of parliament. She is quite critical of Harper - used the word "denigration" a few times now.
12.23: She is listing Harper's sins now. Harper implementing agenda without regard for constitutional rules and norms. Harper is also disregarding role of courts. She is really not talking about the "proroguing" issue.
12.25: Harper's actions constitute a "constitutional blackhole". Harper's pattern undermines democratic processes.
12:27: She is still talking about Harper's sins. No real discussion of the prorogue here and its implications.
12.29: David Cameron's take: Funny anecdote about his Isreali friend who cannot understand what is going on in Canada.If Isreali cannot understand something, it must be really bad (laughter all around).
12.31: He has 4 points: (1) Do we live in a jungle or a garden? He says we live in a garden, but at times like this we creep into a jungle. Political power is regulating constitutionalism. (2) He is now envious of the US. He does not like that the coalition put forward Dion as leader. He does not like Dion period.
12.33: Stephen Harper is worse than Dion, he says. "There is no bridge he would not burn, no low road he cannot take". Again, looking like an anti-Harper speech.
12.34: His third point - Stability: The coalition will work, more than a Harper government that has scorched the earth upon which other parliamentarians walk.
12.35: Ideological point: He prefers a coalition to the "ideologically repugnant" Harper government.
12.36: Prorogue was constitutional, but a legitimate exercise can sometimes undermine constitutional norms. In essence, the jungle creeping in...
12.37: Peter Kent's flight delayed. Bob Rae gets his turn.
12.38: He gets a big applause. I guess many liberals here. He makes a joke about how he could pretend he was Peter Kent and suspend the proceedings. He is going to try to and not give a political speech.
12.39: Government is responsible to Parliament. Constitutions are about defining and limiting power. As politicians, they have to follow the rule of law. I think he is setting up a good premise here for bashing the prorogue.
12.41: Harper said he had an increased mandate to govern but he does not have that mandate. His mandate comes from Commons, and he has to secure the confidence of Commons. He thinks that it is a misconception for a PM to say he has been given a mandate to govern by an election.
12.42: What motivated the coalition was not to take over but to restore the integrity of Parliament. Basis of coalition is to create stability for government.
12.44: Since 1917, this is the first time that a government is using nationalist Quebec to drive one section of Canada against another. He thinks that this is Harper's greatest low.
12.45: He is not commenting on constitutionality of GG's decision. It's done.
12.47: Rae closes to an extended round of applause.
12.48: Joe Comartin begins. Agrees with Rae. He wants to address the "constitutional quagmire". No specific precedent available to GG (good point) but there are lots of precedents from elsewhere as to what the test should be. His comments are not meant to be critical of GG.
12.51: GG actually received a letter from coalition on Monday about agreement to form coalition.Also received letter signed by 161 MPs about no confidence vote. He is not sure if those letters were ever seen by GG but they did send it and on time. They (opposition or coalition MPs) did not receive any reasons thereafter for GG's decision.
12.52: They still haven't received any reasons from GG. He thinks that based on what happened, the test now is that unless you have an express vote of no confidence from Commons, a prorogue depends on the advice of PM to GG without any consideration of anything else.
12.52: He thinks that the latter test fails due process. He proposes building due process into law to ensure that a formal statement be sought from opposition and considered by GG in making decision.
12.57: Manipulation of constitution (as Harper did) is not a legacy they want to leave behind as MPs.
12.57: Peter Russell begins: Focuses on the prorogue decision as a constitutional convention. He says that conventions depend not on the courts, but on the political leaders of the day i.e. on the people as expressed through their elected leaders.
1pm: The Crown is not a rubber stamp but has a discretion. Discretion is the expression of the Crown's power.
1.02: If Harper went in to see GG with "rubber stamp" notion in mind, he certainly did not leave with that.
1.03: Issue is not whether she has the constitutional power to make call - she clearly did. Issue is if it was made properly. He will not answer that save to say we should reflect on what discretion means.
1:05: Tough judgment call for GG and she stood up to it. He focuses on the fact that the two-hour conversation meant something - again the rubber stamp versus discretion theme.
1.06: What is the methodology when you have a question about an unwritten constitutional requirement? he asks.
1.07: He thinks our parliamentary democracy is still intact. He is basically arguing for prudence and principle - and saying we should forget about the legality of this or that.
1.10: He concludes by saying conventions belong to the people, not to courts. He does not want Bastarache all over this - it is our responsibility to work our way through this.
1.12: Question period begins. I did not catch first question.
1.12: Bob Rae: PM asked for Parliament to be suspended to avoid confidence vote. He used power to set schedule to delay vote. He used every legal power he had. This is his problem with what the PM did. He still does not know what happened when Harper went to see GG and they perhaps will never know. This move will not create any stability as most people think it will.
1.15: Russell attacks Harper's statement about using every legal power to avoid confidence vote. He is worried that this means that they are governing by the letter of law, not the principle of it.
1:17: Russell is promoting his book now.
1:18: A student raises a question about public opinion and how he thinks no one agrees with the Liberals. He starts off by saying he feels he is in a liberal caucus meeting. Good for him!
1.21: Rae addresses it. Should public opinion be taken into account? He does not really answer but to say that he feels the PM may be using it.
1.:21: Cameron - Canadians have US politics on their mind and they have little understanding of the Canadian system. Public opinion matters but principles of responsible government shape political deliberation.
1.23: Question on selection of new liberal leader.
1.24: Rae - yes, Liberal party is looking at it.
1.27: Comartin and Russell now speculating on what went on in Harper-GG meeting in response to a question.
1.28: Question: If budget comes in and it is perfect, how will coalition deal with this.
1.29: Rae: I wouldn't lose any sleep over that possibility.
1.30: Rae weighs in proroguation vs. dissolution. Proroguation is like ringing the fire alarm to avoid writing exams because you know you will fail the exams.
1.30: Russell says you can have a vote of confidence just because the majority of the house does not trust the government. You do not necessarily need a specific policy failure or issue.
1.33: Lorraine Weinrib asks about the PM removing the GG if she makes a call he does not like.
1.35: Russell says Queen has a discretion in the matter - not just PM's call. Someone retorts "Who appoints her (GG) again?" Funny.
1.36: I still haven't heard a vigorous debate on this constitutionality of the prorogue matter. A bit disappointed that Kent did not show up.
1.38: Russell gives us (law students) props for being the generation of the internet age. Asks us to spread the word through blogs that we believe in parliamentary democracy.
1.40: Someone brings up the politics surrounding the confidence vote. He points out that the coalition is not giving the Tories a chance to govern. He says this might be about the funding issue i.e. political party funding.
1.41: Rae refutes. Says it'd be naive to think this is all about the funding issue, and also naive to think it had nothing to do with it.
1.43: This is really beginning to sound like a liberal caucus meeting. I am not particularly stoked by Harper's moves, but this is a little bit one-sided.
1.46: WHERE'S KENT?
1:49: Proportional representation question comes up.
1.49: Comartin is for it. Proportional representation governments are stable and set a format for coalition governments from the get go.
1.51: Last question to Russell: How do you reconcile representative government with position of GG that is not elected?
1.51: Russell: Treats it like an accountability issue which is not really a direct answer. Says the trend is not unique to Canada.
1.53: I am kinda hungry. A lamb sandwich after this.
1.55: Cameron says the West will feel pissed by this. No matter what happens, there will be a lot of healing to do.
1.56: Question period closes. Sossin will close.
1.56: Sossin -Constitutional principles are a fluid mix of law and politics. However, three pillars exist which are under siege in the current crisis - transparency and democratic accountability, principled pragmatism (don't stick to wording of constitution all the time or make adhoc decisions), and accommodating minorities (must include a way of valuing minority rights and positions).
2.00: Mayo Moran closes. Thanks all around. I have to go eat now. I may post an audio recording of this later today, if it came out clear and audible.
Recent Comments