Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:

Archives

Just a question..

Will this prorogue look so great strategically as a political ploy for Harper if some economic shockwave hits us during the 7 weeks of the mandatory holiday Harper has given Parliament?

My example of a shock wave would be one or more of the Big 3 Automakers going into bankruptcy, and I bring them up as the example because I saw the story that Red Tory brought up over at his site that mentioned their pleas for a bailout on the 2nd go-around didn’t seem to go over very well with Congress (apparently they are asking for 34 billion $ in bailout money.. I think if I were Congress, I’d be sceptical too).

So, what if they go into bankruptcy at the end of the year and shut down? Under the prorogue, my understanding is that the government’s ability to do things such as spend money is hampered, and I don’t think under the rules of Parliament you can just “cancel” a prorogue earlier then the agreed upon date and resume an emergency sitting. So, unless someone wants to clarify that because I’m in error.. what exactly would the Conservative Government be able to do in a scenario like that without having Parliament open to pass emergency bailout legislation, as an example?

Share

11 comments to Just a question..

  • Good post. We need to talk now about what to do in for the communities in crisis. Then we need to have a serious talk about what to do so we stop cultivating these single industry towns. We have too many houses of cards – we did it with the auto industry in Southern Ontario, and now we’re making the same mistake with the energy industry. We are just so happy when people have work that there isn’t enough discussion about a healthy mix of jobs. Then, when crisis hits, our options are limited and too many people suffer.

  • I doubt there’s any law preventing the PM from requesting from the GG an early end to the prorogation.

    As if he would anyway.

    Is there any rule *preventing* reps of Parliament from doing the same?

    So much of all this is not codified, I wonder if our parliamentarians shouldn’t be trying, at least for the optics.

    We really should be pulling out all stops. We really are involved in a bloodless civil war at the moment.

  • Cross Country

    Yes, Canada, indeed North America would be so much better without the Big 3. Those meddlesome unions and organized labour in general have caused SO many problems. Annoyances like minimum wages and the like. Bah!

    People should happy to lose those jobs. It only makes it more competitive for those jobs that are left, and workers more efficient!

    Fearless leader has it all planned out.

  • Wouldn’t a “Governor General’s Warrant” cover this situation, when Parliament is not in session? Section 30 of the Financial Administration Act:

    “Where a payment is urgently required for the public good when Parliament is not in session and there is no other appropriation pursuant to which the payment may be made, the Governor in Council, on the report of the President of the Treasury Board that there is no appropriation for the payment and the report of the appropriate Minister that the payment is urgently required for the public good, may, by order, direct the preparation of a special warrant to be signed by the Governor General authorizing the payment to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund”

    I know this tool is used during general elections but the way it’s worked — “not in session” — that could mean during a prorogation as well.

  • roll tide

    If prorogation keeps government from bailing out the big three, fine with me.

    “In a profit and loss economy, the loss is just as important as the profit.”
    Milton Friedman

    “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
    Ronald Reagan

  • Just a nit-picky grammar issue: the noun is prorogation, not prorogue. So you should be asking “Will this prorogation look so great…”

  • Tim N

    They would blame the Liberals. Everything is their fault anyways, because Harper is never wrong.

    Sickens me to no end.

  • MississaugaPeter

    I wonder: Can Harper eliminate the $1.95/vote subsidy during this prorogue?

    Even during an election (October 10), Harper could spend/guarantee $25B to the banks…

    http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/10/10/flaherty-banks.html

    …one of whom just posted a $1B quarterly profit…

    http://www.winnipegsun.com/Business/2008/12/05/7639556-sun.html

    Billions of dollars can be spent without Parliament during an election, I guess billions of dollars can be spent without Parliament during a prorogue.

  • I’ve asked elsewhere whether there are limitations and haven’t seen any answer. But an interesting question for sure.

  • Scott & RT, I read something about a proclamation being required when Canadian Forces are involved. It goes like this: “Whenever the Governor in Council places the Canadian Forces or any component or unit thereof on active service, if Parliament is then separated by an adjournment or prorogation that will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of Parliament within ten days, and Parliament shall accordingly meet and sit on the day appointed by the proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day. ” I’ve lost the link.

    The proclamation is “issued by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.”

    You might find this of interest also as there is mention of emergencies, etc.

  • I raises an interesting question, doesn’t it? What are the “limits” (if any) on this prorogue? This was speculated on beforehand by the media, but the subject was promptly dropped once it had come into effect. Does anyone know?

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.