TORONTO – Since my first election to Parliament Hill in Ottawa, it has received public investments for repair, refurbishing and restoration that are mind-boggling. From1988-1995, the project received $100 million (a lot of money at the time!), then most recently in 2018, a contract worth $5 billion was allocated to complete the project. It being a government contract, and Ottawa being the most unpredictable National capital, weather wise, in the world, that number is likely to be revised upward.
I always thought that the Parliamentary precinct, and the House of Commons in Ottawa in Particular, was a special, inspiring place. Elected Members of Parliament, and, through them, the “average citizen” could express their right to propose, debate and approve the laws that give Canada its shape and character.
Acknowledging that it might be an elaborate process for many, our Parliamentary system (a variant of the Constitutional Monarchy model) is intended, among other goals, to safeguard against tyranny, ensure the rule of law and provide effective responses to threats against National sovereignty and other existential threats.
When Parliament sits (convened), all is possible, or so goes the argument. When it is prorogued (suspended, temporarily) there are “challenges” to effective governance and solutions that become virtually impossible to overcome.
This is underscored when the spokesperson for the Executive Council, a member of Parliament who chairs the Cabinet (ie. the Prime Minister) prorogues and resigns rather than dissolves Parliament and call for an election.
So what, goes the argument proffered by government lawyers arguing its defense. Our constitution, they argue, only requires that Parliament sit one day per year. And, by the way, executive powers are vested in the Governor General acting on the advice of the Cabinet through the PM, who, in turn, is [an] elected MP capable of securing the majority of votes in the House of Commons. three candidates who are still in the running to replace the exiting PM are not elected MPs.
The Applicants who brought the action against prorogation suggest that if MPs are not in the House, they cannot signal direction. Ironically, government lawyers trying to have the “prorogation” hearing overturned, over which Chief Justice Crampton presided on February 13 and 14, on an expedited basis, may have unintentionally suggested this hearing – as well as the restoration expenses – may be a colossal waste of time: our Constitution requires only that the House be convened for one day per year.
In the view of the Applicants in the Motion to strike the prorogation (Court File No. : T-60-25), Canadians are being deprived (wrongly) of their right of access to their Parliament (Assembly and the Executive) just as they need it most. They ask Chief Justice Crampton to rescind the prorogation. Wrong, or so counters the Government legal team, this is not a legal matter because it is not a constitutional matter. As a result, the entire issue is beyond the Court’s jurisdiction, they argued… this is purely a matter of political convention, so let’s go home.
No matter the Chief Justice’s decision, it may have the effect of setting a precedent to which other future Applicants may refer in seeking relief against the Government.
The possibilities of an earlier election are increasing.