The Lascelles Principles

Check, and mate...

To the Editor of The Times

Sir,—It is surely indisputable (and common sense) that a Prime Minister may ask—not demand—that his Sovereign will grant him a dissolution of Parliament; and that the Sovereign, if he so chooses, may refuse to grant this request. The problem of such a choice is entirely personal to the Sovereign, though he is, of course, free to seek informal advice from anybody whom he thinks fit to consult.

In so far as this matter can be publicly discussed, it can be properly assumed that no wise Sovereign—that is, one who has at heart the true interest of the country, the constitution, and the Monarchy—would deny a dissolution to his Prime Minister unless he were satisfied that: (1) the existing Parliament was still vital, viable, and capable of doing its job; (2) a General Election would be detrimental to the national economy; (3) he could rely on finding another Prime Minister who could carry on his Government, for a reasonable period, with a working majority in the House of Commons. When Sir Patrick Duncan refused a dissolution to his Prime Minister in South Africa in 1939, all these conditions were satisfied: when Lord Byng did the same in Canada in 1926, they appeared to be, but in the event the third proved illusory.

I am, &c.,

SENEX.

April 29.

—"Dissolution of Parliament: Factors in Crown's Choice", The Times, 2 May 1950, page 5

Comments

[Scott]

It would appear that Harper refuses to acknowledge and accept the Lascelles Principles, at least as evidenced by listening to him and his party minions, and given the fact that he is taking to the airwaves tonight to give a “presidential” address. Harper seems to believe that if he can go over the heads of the Members of Parliament straight to the public, he will carry the day.

I am not entirely sure he is wrong. This man has had great success convincing his great unwashed supporters to believe whatever lies come out of his and his lackeys’ mouths. Recall that it was he and his ilk that, starting in 1995, converted one of Ontario’s most-unionized counties, Durham Region, from voting NDP both provincially and federally to casting their votes for the Conservatives, leapfrogging over the Liberals in the middle! This man can sell anything to anyone.

Don’t forget also that in this last election, he convinced the public that his party was better equipped to handle the economy. Then once he’d convinced sufficient enough voters of that claim to win a renewed and strengthened “mandate,” we discover he had nothing original to offer and that many of his immediate post-election economic actions were taken straight from his opponent’s, Dion’s, playbook. Later, he convinced us that he would run a necessary, temporary deficit in order to stimulate the economy, but then we got his finance minister’s economic statement, which put the lie to that claim. It would seem that, where the Canadian people are concerned, this snake oil salesman can sell anything to anyone. He has the heart and skill of a huckster.

So why should this occasion be any different? Of course, it ought to be different because the Governor General should do her job and understand that her focus is not the will of the people, no matter how much Harper might sway the people, or use measures of public opinion to attempt to sway the Governor General. Ms. Jean’s only focus is the will of the Commons. It is the Commons, as the people’s representatives, who are supposed to take account of the people’s will. A majority of the Members of Parliament has lost confidence in the government and wants it to fall. Since collectively they represent the most Canadians then, that is the will of the people. That is the Westminster spin on representative democracy. The Commons has taken account of the will of the people — as is its function — and now it is Ms. Jean’s function to take account of the will of the Commons.

Alas, I think she will care more about how her fingernail polish looks than what constitutional law has to say on this matter. Moreover, I believe that Harper will quite successfully cajole, browbeat, and threaten her into submission. It is no coincidence that he will give his televised address before meeting with the Governor General, as if daring her to go against the “coalition” formed by his dialogue with his people. At the very least, I will bet money that she will grant him permission for an unprecedented prorogation thereby allowing him to escape the judgment of a House of Commons whose confidence he has utterly lost. Too bad we don’t still have Governor General Adrienne Clarkson: I think she would have at least had balls enough to trust the constitutional experts who, after over 80 years to ponder the subject, have come to the conclusion that Lord Byng made the right decision in 1926. The current Governor General needs to make Harper stand and take it like the sniveling man that he is: Face the Commons, and let the non-confidence vote take place on Monday. Yet, I feel in my bones that that is a vote we will never see. (If only Harper’s Conservative forebear, Joe Clark, had been half as clever as Harper, he might have prorogued and stayed prime minister longer!)

I fear that if Ms. Jean gives in to Harper’s shrill demands, it will be bad for Canadian parliamentary democracy. Harper considers the coalition’s attempt to wrest the reins of power from him as bad for democracy, his rhetoric suggesting a desire on his part to import ideas of American-style democracy and jettison the British Parliamentary System that has governed this country for over a century and a half. Ironically, if Ms. Jean caves into him, that jettison might just come to pass should Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition ever again gain a majority in the House. What do I mean by this? I wonder if this Governor General rejects decades of constitutional law, rejects centuries of parliamentary standards and principles, and instead grants Harper either prorogation or dissolution, if that might not begin a nascent drive in Canada for a Republic in the same manner as that sentiment has grown and grown in Australia? After all, if the Governor General will not properly perform what little tasks are left to her since 1931’s Statute of Westminster and make Harper stand and face his non-confidence vote, then why wouldn’t the Liberals seek total government reform were Canada’s natural governing party ever again to have a majority? We would not be the first member of the British Commonwealth to abandon the British Parliamentary System for a Republican model.