Asking the Governor General, rather than the Speaker, to have the House recalled is wrong both constitutionally and politically

On Monday, December 17 the Finance Minster of Canada resigned hours before she was to present the government’s economic update.  In was clear from her letter of resignation that she and the Prime Minster had lost confidence in each other.  Later that same day, the Liberal caucus met to discuss, among other things the way forward, including whether the Prime Minister should resign. On the other side of the House, the Leader of the party that was the only potential ally to the government also voiced his opinion that the Prime Minister should resign.  By the end of the week the Leader of the NDP indicated that he would introduce a motion of non-confidence in the government as soon as the House resumes from it year-end adjournment at the end of January.

Today, Friday, Piere Poilievre, Leader of the Opposition, has written to the Governor-General requesting her to advise the Prime Minister that he must recall the House to determine whether he has its confidence.  He cites as reasons the turmoil in the government, and the fact that the government is likely to lose a vote of confidence.  While it may be obvious that the House is likely to vote non-confidence in the government, the would-be Prime Minister writing the Governor-General to involve herself in the business of the House shows either an ignorance of the constitution or worse, a lack of care for its proper operation its operation.  To invite the Governor-General into the business of the House not only disrespects the constitution it disrespects the Governor General by dragging her into the political and parliamentary arena.

This approach is also unnecessary as there are ways to address the matter within the constitutional framework and to have the question determined in the forum where such issues are to be raised, the House of Commons itself.   The decision to recall the House during an adjournment lies solely with the Speaker of the House of Commons.   The House of Commons, in which Mr. Poilievre has an integral role, and from which he gets his authority, is the master of its own procedures.  The procedures of the House are set out in its Standing Orders.   Standing Order 28 (3) provides that “Whenever the House stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, the Speaker may give notice that being so satisfied the House shall meet, and thereupon the House shall meet to transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time”.    Although such requests are usually made by the government to address an urgent public need, such as back to work legislation for an essential service, there is no reason that the Leader of the Opposition could not make the request of the Speaker.  Even if, as some have suggested, this is unprecedented in Canada, the Standing Orders also provide that  “In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker… whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.” SO 1.

In the present case, if the Leader of the Opposition could convince the Speaker of the public interest in determining the confidence of the House in the Government, then the Speaker would be obliged to take some form of action.  As set out in Standing Order 28, the Speaker would have to consult the government, but this does not mean that the Speaker must accept the government’s position.  The Speaker is the servant of the House, not the government.  If Mr. Poilievre could convince the Speaker that he has the support of a majority of Members that the House should be recalled, the Speaker should either accede to the request or resign since he would no longer be acting on the advice of a majority of the House.  Such a request by the Leader of the Opposition would have to be based on evidence not political innuendo or speculation on the possible outcome of any vote.  Rather there would need to be clear evidence of the desire of a majority of MPs to recall the House.  If Mr. Poilievre is so certain of his position, he should prepare a simple letter to the Speaker asking that the House be recalled to determine, as a matter of constitutional urgency, whether the House retains confidence in the government. The letter could then be circulated to MPs to obtain their specific endorsement for the request.  If a majority of MPs sign on then the Speaker’s hands, as a servant of the House, would be tied to the will of the House.

What happens next is less known and is merely speculation.  The Prime Minister would be left with three options.  He could have his government resign and request a dissolution and election.  He could face the vote in the House seeking some support to stave off defeat.  If the vote is lost, which is likely given the position now of all opposition parties, he would ask that Parliament be dissolved and that an election follow.

His third option would be to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament thereby avoiding the vote of confidence.  This would only seem to be credible if he intended to resign as leader and Prime Minister and to allow the Liberal Party to select a new leader, establish a government and face Parliament. If the House still lacked confidence in the government, the new Prime Minister would advise the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament and call an election. The opposition would likely attack such a decision vigorously on the ground that the prorogation is being called just to save the government’s skin and to avoid defeat in the House of Commons. However, such an attack might sound quite hollow coming from the mouth of Mr. Poilievre, who was the Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he requested and received a prorogation when faced with an imminent vote of confidence in his government in December 2008.

What is clear is that the matters at hand are political and parliamentary and there is no need or place to distort the constitution by dragging the Governor General in to the halls of the House of Commons and its attendant political mire.

One thought on “Asking the Governor General, rather than the Speaker, to have the House recalled is wrong both constitutionally and politically”

  1. The foregoing assessment is entirely correct. The troubling aspect of the Poilievre letter to the Governor General is that it seems to be based on the same general misreading of the Constitution that prevailed among the upper echelons of the same political party during the 2008 constitutional situation. One may be allowed to inquire where Mr. Harper then, and Mr. Poilievre now, get their constitutional advice. Partisanship and desire for public office are, in fact, not an acceptable substitute for well-established conventions and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
    Perhaps the Governor General ought to return the letter to its point of origin, using the form of politeness: thank you but no.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *