On Friday, Dec. 5, 2008 the University of Toronto Faculty of Law hosted a panel discussion about the Governor-General's decision to prorogue parliament. The following is a summary of the remarks made by panelist David Cameron.
I’ll be brief. I see no reason to take more time than Stephen Harper did in his weirdly pointless address to the nation on Wednesday night.
I will make four points, none of them on topic. When I initially agreed to speak I was told the subject would be something like “constitutional crisis or democracy in action?”, to which I probably would have answered both.
But as the planning for the session evolved, and events proceeded, the topic morphed into “Was the Governor General’s Decision to Prorogue Parliament Constitutional?” or something like that. To which I would probably answer yes and no.
However, since I expect my eminent legal colleagues to cover that topic like a blanket, I thought I would turn to something else, to some observations on the politics and implications of what the country is going through.
Four points.
1. Do we live in a jungle or garden?We Canadians are blessed. We live in a country in which the passions that cripple and sometimes destroy other societies are for the most part cribbed, cabined and confined. We have constructed a garden for ourselves, and, on the whole, we tend it pretty well.
It is, however, at moments such as we have recently experienced – when our political system is put on the rack – that you can sense the jungle creeping a bit closer. And, to my mind, it is of real concern that our system has been put under this severe stress, not by the economic crisis that is preoccupying the rest of the world, but by the self-indulgent expression of individual political will.
Constitutionalism is supposed to regulate political power; there have been moments in recent days when the passion for political power has sought to regulate constitutionalism.
2. Leadership
How things change. I now look with envy and longing at our great neighbour to the south.
While there is clearly talent waiting in the wings, we are currently badly led.
The coalition made what risks being a fatal error in allowing Stéphane Dion to stand at the head of the opposition forces. There is much to admire about Mr. Dion, but he is on political life support. In putting him forward as prospective leader of a coalition government, I believe the Liberals compounded the error they made in permitting him to stay on as interim leader of the Party. The prospect of Prime Minister Dion fills a great many Canadians with dread, and their worst fears were confirmed by that awful DVD.
Stephen Harper is very different from Mr. Dion, and he is worse. While Barak Obama, building his team of rivals, rises to the occasion and gives his people hope, Stephen Harper stoops to conquer, filling a great many Canadians with a feeling of despair and hopelessness. There is no bridge he will not burn, no low road he will not take, to stay in power. Beyond the deceit and the intentional obfuscation, what cannot be forgiven is the Prime Minister’s willingness to conjure up our national-unity demons for the sake of discrediting the proposed coalition. That, surely, is the lowest blow of all, and in itself a disqualification from high public office.
3. Stability
One can debate the likely stability of the coalition, if it were to form the government. Many people think it can’t work. In fact, I think it could. I think there are disciplines to be found in a formal written agreement, an accepted timetable, and the brute responsibilities of governing that could allow a coalition government to survive and function. God knows, other countries do it all the time.
Besides, I don’t see why one should assume that there would be greater stability coming from the government of a Prime Minister who has scorched the earth on which Members of Parliament walk and who has poisoned the atmosphere of the minority Parliament with which he would have to work.
4. Ideological suitability
My final point.
A wide consensus has developed in the Western world that the global economic plight calls for positive government. The state has a place in the boardrooms of the nation. For myself, I would rather have my country led by a political formation that believes in what it is going to have to do, than by a party and leader for whom the necessary policies are objectionable and ideologically repugnant.
So, these are my four points. But what about the question we were put?
“Was the Governor General’s Decision to Prorogue Parliament Constitutional?”
I guess it was constitutional in the sense that Her Excellency acted properly within her sphere of authority; she was entitled to make a choice, and prorogation is what she chose. But sometimes legitimate constitutional choices can undermine sensible constitutional norms and practices, and I fear that that will be the effect of what she has done in this case.
It’s that creeping jungle, again.