Question:
what does it mean to 'prorogue' the government?
A R
2008-12-04 09:56:35 UTC
as per the current case with the Canadian government. what's going on with that anyways? if the coalition goes through then who is the prime minister...or do the 3 leaders share it?
Eleven answers:
Manitou
2008-12-05 10:30:53 UTC
Prorogue is basically just suspending Parliament for a time. This is usually done 3 to 4 times a year for the parliament breaks (i.e.: holiday, summer, etc.).



With the current case of government, that is a big can of worms and in a way, it is just a bunch of children that were elected arguing. Here is the "Coles Notes" of what has happened.

1. Harper wins another minority government as his party has the most seats in the house.

2. Harper made statements that all parties would have to work together to help in the economical crisis that has occurred

3. Without consulting any other party, the PC release a "budgetary legislation" which has a No Confidence vote automatically connected to it. It has a few pieces that would hinder the other parties as well as no real economic stimulus, which is what the other parties wanted.

4. The Liberals and NDP talk and form a coalition which will be backed by the Bloc. With all their seats, they can cause the PC gov’t to fall and make the recommendation to the Governor General (GG) to give the coalition a chance to govern instead of the PCs.

5. Harper calls the coalition and their ideal a power grab and un-democratic. However, faced with the possible loss of power, he delays the vote till Dec 8. Then he calls for the GG to "prorogue" the government on Dec 4.

6. GG allows the prorogue and government will resume work in Jan of 2009.



The GG had few options, at this time and some of them were not that good. One would be allow the defeat of the Harper government and call an election, which would have "angered" many Canadians and cause a backlash towards the government. Prorogue this session will only delay, but might give all parties time to work things out. Another option is to give the coalition a chance (which is still a possible solution.)



To many political pundits, the prorogue seems to be a stall tactic by Harper to try and figure out how to deal with what has transpired. Many claim that this is not right and don't realizes that in 1926, Canada was govern by a coalition. During this break, the PCs will attempt to use fear mongering ads and spin doctoring to convince the Canadian public to believe his agenda. The coalition will be doing the same.



As for who in the coalition would be PM, that would fall on the Liberal leader as agreed by the Liberals and NDP, which will be Stephan Dion until May. The NDP will be given 6 of the 25 portfolios. The Bloc have "agreed" to back this government (the coalition) for about a year.



It is very unfortunate that the PC government have not been "cooperating". Many feel if they did instead of being the "bully" this issue would never come up. It has also began the divide of the East and of the West and just not Quebec. Most thought on this “budget” was that no party would want to cause another election so soon so they would have to take it. In a way, this was a form of political chicken and it left the PCs crying “fowl”.



As for my thought on all this, this is the first time that Canadian Politics was interesting since the Trudeau era.
2008-12-06 11:06:21 UTC
Wiki can explain prorogation better than I can.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogue#Prorogation



If the coalition somehow manages to seize power then the coaltion will put forward one elected MP as Prime Minister.



There can be but one Prime Minister.



The current Prime Minister has asked the Governor General to prematurely prorogue parliament. This has been done to delay a vote of non-confidence.



Everything that has happened so far is within the constitution.



We have a majority of MPs coming together threatening to make a non-confidence vote.



That majority of MPs is forming a coalition of three parties with the stated intent of forming a government. Notwithstanding that 63% did not vote for the ruling Conservative party it should be noted that 74% did not vote for the Liberal party, 82% did not vote for the NDP party and 90% did not vote for the Bloc Quebequois party. No one voted for the coalition. So while technically legal the coalition is lacking integrity in that it does not have a mandate from the public to govern. In short the coalition, while technically not a dictatorship, does flirt with tyranny.



The Prime Minister has asked the Governor General, who is the Queen's representative, for Parliament to be prorogued or suspended. This means the non-confidence vote will not go ahead until the new year. Essentially it means that the attempted coup by the coalition is delayed till a vote of confidence actually has to be about an issue, such as the budget, rather than a power grab.



Following a non-confidence vote the Prime Minister will ask the Governor General to dissolve parliament. She has two choices. One is to dissolve parliament and we have an election. The other is that she can ask the coalition to form a government if she feels they can form a stable government.



I don't think the coalition can form a stable government. Their leader, Stephane Dion, is a lame duck leader; he was to be replaced in the Liberal convention in May. The Bloc Quebequois is not interested in forming a government yet is a necessary component in giving the coalition its majority. Based on the different ideologies the coalition parties have, there is no way this unholy troika can work.



My prediction is that we will have an election and the result will be another minority Conservative government. An election is not wanted yet is the most likely outcome. The NDP will have fewer seats. The Bloc may have more and the Liberals will cherry pick a couple of NDP seats. Conservatives may have a few more or a few less but in any event will not gain a majority. It will be interesting to see what happens.



The local rag is suggesting that everyone votes party Green. That should help; we would then have five parties struggling for power.



I suggest in the event of an election that we follow the example of Nunavut where you elect someone to represent you rather than vote for someone who represents a platform written by someone else who obviously runs rabbits and howls at the moon.



The really bad part is that we already have an economy that is going to get more unstable as time passes. We really need a stable government. That government won't be able to influence the global financial crisis but it will be able to encourage our economy to function as best it can.



Instead of a stable minority government we have a bunch of turkeys squabbling over power.
?
2016-12-18 12:47:14 UTC
Define Prorogue
2015-08-10 09:02:08 UTC
This Site Might Help You.



RE:

what does it mean to 'prorogue' the government?

as per the current case with the Canadian government. what's going on with that anyways? if the coalition goes through then who is the prime minister...or do the 3 leaders share it?
jcurrieii
2008-12-05 07:15:09 UTC
Proroging the Government basically means that the Government has been suspended, and that the Party (note the word used, not person) in power is very LIMITED in what they can do...essentially we have no government, everything is running on auto-pilot. (This actually occurs a few times every year, when Parliament goes "on Holiday," and when elections are called.)



As for what is occurring right now, that is 100% pure democracy in operation. The party or parties with the most votes runs the government. While we have not had a Coalition Government since 1926 at the Federal level, it does have precedence at both the Federal and Provincial level. (The 1926 decision of the GG at the time actually affected the entire Commonwealth, as every nation in the Commonwealth actually adopted the decision should similar situations develop...and they have.) We have had situations develop within recent political history here in Canada at the Federal Level where there were preliminary negotiations between the PCs and NDP, and Liberals and NDP (both pre-Bloc) about forming Coalitions...but in each case, one or the other party made "unreasonable" demands and the negotiations fell through.



In the current example, the Liberals and NDP have negotiated an agreement, and the BQ have agreed in principle to support them, since they find Harper's bullying tactics as unpalatable as the Libs and NDP do. However, while propping-up the Coalition, they will not actually likely have any Cabinet Posts. The Liberals as the Dominant in the agreement will Choose the PM and hold most of the Senior Posts.



Also...for the argument that seems to be making the rounds right now about allowing Separatists into Government...

The PCs did that back in 2000 (give or take) when they merged with the Reform party (who had been agitating for WESTERN Separation from Canada under Preston Manning, and many/most of their seats were won under that banner) into the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party...briefly known as "CCRAP"...and only referred to ONCE in the House as such...for obvious reasons after a Liberal(?) Back Bencher requested permission from the Speaker of the House to use the Party's Acronym instead of the Official Party Name in the House and House Records.



Finally...Canada is a Socialist Country. Every Party sitting in the House right now is a Socialist Party at heart. Unlike many countries, ALL Canadian Political Parties are Centrist Parties...those left or right of center are only a step or two off center. If a Left Wing Canadian Politician ever sat down with a Left Wing Politician from a country like Italy, (s)he’d run away like a scared puppy. The last truly radical Political “Party” in Canada was the FLQ, and their members rather quickly fled their affiliation after Trudeau broke their collective backs when he used the War Measures Act against them. Even the PQ at their worst were far from radical.



Good Luck!



EDIT:

In the "Spirit" of Manitou's post...

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20081205103949AADdLxy
Bill W 【ツ】
2008-12-04 17:54:06 UTC
Proroguing Parliament just means having the Governer General suspend Parliament for a set time - in this case, until late January.



quizzard's answer is very disingenuous.



There is nothing wrong with Harper proroguing Parliament. He was democratically elected, and the so-called "coalition" wants to grab power without going to the people of Canada.



When Harper helped topple the Liberals in the 2005 no-confidence vote, he needed the Bloc's help (and the NDP), but that triggered an ELECTION, in which the Canadian VOTERS had a say. The separatist Bloc did NOT have any direct part in the following Conservative minority government.



What the current coalition is trying to do is to take over the government with NO ELECTION, and despite their lame attempt to cover the facts, they WILL have the Bloc separatists as part of the ruling government.



Canadians do not want a government of socialists (NDP), separatists, and proven liars and thieves (Liberals). That's why Harper and the GG made the right decision today.
The Arbiter of common sense
2008-12-04 10:00:20 UTC
Prorogue basically means to temporarily shut down the workings of the parliament. It is a way for the government to hide from it's constitutional duty to address parliament, in this case avoiding a vote which could topple their hold on power.



In Canada, we do not elect a prime minister. We elect individual members of parliament. The group of members (usually a formal 'party) who have the largest group traditionally form the government, choosing from amongst themselves a Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers.



That group continues to hold the reins of power until they 'lose the confidence of the House'. Losing the confidence of the house has usually meant losing a vote in the House of Commons on what is called a 'money' bill. So they can lose a vote on the passage of a new law, but not on a budget, for instance. It happens VERY seldom.



When a government loses a confidence vote, they are expected to resign. Now, when they resign, the governor general chooses one of several options. These include calling an election, refusing the resignation (sending the government back to work it out like big boys, basically), or he/she can ask the opposition if they are prepared to form a government. That is what the current 'coalition' wants her to do.



It's worth noting that coalition governments are perfectly legal, perfectly acceptable. Remember, we did not elect a Prime Minister, we elected members, and those members are traditionally free to form any alliances or coalitions they choose (although going against the wishes of their voters is bad for business, so to speak). That is all that the current coalition is doing, they are forming a fresh grouping that happens to include members of two parties. It's legal, it's traditional, it's democratic in the most basic of ways. So everything Mr Harper went on about last night was hogwash and political spin, nothing else. This is the way it is SUPPOSED to work in a system such as ours.



BTW, the coalition is between the NDP and the Liberals, with the Bloc only agreeing to support them. They are not part of the coalition per se.



The agreement between the parties has them sharing cabinet posts. The Liberal leader will become PM, and the Finance Minister will be a Liberal. I'm not sure how they will divvy up the remaining posts, but they have undoubtedly worked that out.



I think it's a great example of democracy at work, a refreshing change from the boredom of the past couple of years.



EDit: actually, it is bill w's post which attempts to twist the facts. He apparently does not understand the way the Canadian political system works. As one university professor said yesterday (I paraphrase) "Mr Harper may prefer that we elect a Prime Minister directly, but we do not. If he wants it to be that way, he needs to change the constitution. As it stands now, the government governs only through maintaining the confidence of parliament."



That is our system, that IS how it works, and I repeat, this current coalition process is EXACTLY how it is supposed to work.
?
2016-01-31 09:14:58 UTC
prorogue government
Bridgette
2008-12-06 08:58:55 UTC
basically, it means to freeze it. Like all the members will stay where they are, but all the unfinished bills will vanish and will be non-exisistent
2008-12-05 10:05:35 UTC
It means Stephen Harper is as big a Fascist as George W. Bush and apparently can do whatever the hell he wants to stay in power.
Wicked's beast of burden.
2008-12-05 10:16:33 UTC
it means to assist in the killing of in this case the government...



oh wait



sorry



that would be promorgue...


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...