With the Governor General's 'time-out' proroguing of Parliament in its second month, the Faculty of Law's David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights brought scholars together to share additional insights in advance of the highly anticipated budget vote scheduled for the end of January. The panel discussion was a continuation of the December 5 event that included Liberal MP Bob Rae and law professors Lorne Sossin and Lorraine Weinrib.
More than 75 alumni, faculty and students - including some of the most prominent scholars and litigators of constitutional law in Canada, such as Peter Hogg -- attended the panel discussion, which was webcast live for those unable to attend in person. U of T Law Professor David Schneiderman was joined by U of T political scientist Professor Emeritus Peter H. Russell, and Professor Emeritus C.E.S. (Ned) Franks of Queen's University. The discussion was moderated by Mary Eberts, who taught law at the University of Toronto and was a partner at Tory's before establishing her own practice in constitutional and equality law.
Professor Schneiderman presented a number of points of comparison between the Canadian and American systems of governance, noting that recent research and opinion polls showed that more than 51 per cent of Canadians falsely believe that the Prime Minister of Canada is directly elected by voters. By convention, the leader of the party winning the most seats in Parliament becomes the Prime Minister, with the executive and legislative powers being fused in the office of the PM. In the United States, the Electoral College voting system results in the indirect election of the President, yet the presidential executive powers are separated from the legislative. He noted, however, that a concentration of power in both systems can have the unintended effect of creating a 'friendly dictatorship' within a democracy.
The proroguing of Parliament, said Professor Franks, was not dissolution of Parliament. "It was more like a 'time-out' for the Canadian people and politicians to think about what we want to do, and where do we want to go," he said. It was, in his opinion, a useful tool used by the Governor General, who gauged that public opinion was running against the coalition. He suggested that the unpopularity of then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion worked very effectively for the Conservatives -- and that it is possible that Stephen Harper may have won a majority government because of the "Dion effect" if the Governor General had dissolved Parliament and called for new elections.
Professor Peter Russell said that one positive aspect of the crisis is that it has made many Canadians really think about the constitutional foundations of parliamentary democracy in Canada.
"Who has the right to govern?" he asked the audience rhetorically, suggesting that it is high time to address the unwritten rules, the "ghosts of parliamentary democracy that rattle in the attic." Russell suggested that the time has come to codify constitutional conventions.
"It's not good for democracy to have an open rift on crucial issues like who is to govern," he noted. Codifying conventions would be a time-consuming process, he said, but one that is critical for the country and must be done in a non-partisan fashion.
A webcast of the event is available.
An additional, live session with faculty experts is being planned by the Asper Centre For Constitutional Rights, coinciding with the budget reading and possible confidence motion at the end of the month.
In March, the University of Toronto Press is set to release a book of essays from eminent jurists and political scientists, many of whom participated in the pair of panel discussions at U of T that examined the historical parliamentary events that unfolded in the latter part of 2008.
