Boy, is this Prime Minister ever resorting to flimsy excuses: it's OK to prorogue because Chrétien did it -- twice. Sorry, but that doesn't cut the mustard.
Perhaps one day, some day far off, it will finally dawn on our PM that his is a minority government. Last time I checked that meant that his party can't command the confidence of the House of Commons without at least one opposition party propping up his government.
Yes folks, that also should work in reverse -- it may be legal but it certainly isn't legitimate to prorogue when your government can't, on its own, sustain itself on matters of confidence.
That's why Harper has got it wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the last bills passed before Parliament wrapped up for the Holidays was a supply bill -- as all financial bills are, it was a confidence motion.
ReplyDeleteThus, when Parliament adjourned for the holidays, the government was firmly holding the confidence of the House.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that the government doesn't presently enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. What I am saying is that as we both know, it can't do so without support from at least one other political party.
That fact brings me to my thesis that this differentiates prorogation from the usual circumstances -- when a Prime Minister commands the support of the Commons thanks to his own majority of seats.
Your views on this thesis would be appreciated.