An Offer the GG Can't refuse

Canada's Globe and Mail has an accurate account of the Governor General's ability to refuse the Prime Minister's advice to dissolve parliament and drop the writ for an election:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's apparent plan to call a general election this coming week, in defiance of the government's own legislation fixing October, 2009, as the date of the next federal election, has triggered a good deal of controversy this past week.

A number of commentators have argued that calling an election without waiting for the House of Commons to reconvene on Sept. 15 would violate established constitutional conventions or norms. Some have even claimed that the election call would be illegal, in light of the government's fixed-election date legislation, and suggested that the Governor-General, Michaelle Jean, should carefully consider whether she should accept the Prime Minister's request.

In fact, while the Prime Minister's election gambit may violate political commitments, it is perfectly consistent with constitutional norms and practices, and would not violate the fixed-date election legislation.

The first point to recognize is that, under Westminster-style parliamentary systems such as our own, a prime minister has virtually absolute discretion to determine the date of a general election. While the formal legal power to trigger an election rests in the hands of the governor-general, there is a firm constitutional requirement that she will exercise her powers only on the advice of the prime minister.

Excellent.

Comments

Rich d'Rich's picture

I think there were two key things here.

Firstly, Canada has a written constitution that prevents a change to the powers of the G-G except by constitutional amendment.

Secondly, to comply with this, the law "fixing" the election date did not affect the:
"powers of the Governor-General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor-General's discretion."

Since the G-G acts on the advice of the PM, the fixed term law is advisory only (except as a limitation on terms).

Here in NZ, without a written constitution, parliament could pass a fixed term law (subject to it not conflicting with entrenched powers).

LJ Holden's picture

Indeed - we actually have more flexibility with a unwritten constitution in that respect.

Chair, Republican Movement - contact me online or call on +64 27 699 1350

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Syndicate content