Shutdown vs. Prorogation

[cindybubbles]

When I think of the US Government Shutdown, the only thing in Canada that I could come up with is prorogation. That's when the Prime Minister asks the Governor General to prorogue parliament.

Thing is, the prorogation didn't affect me. So I don't know how to compare it to the recent US shutdown.

So what happens when Parliament gets prorogued, my fellow Canadians? Do federal employees keep working, or are they out of a job until the next session starts? Is prorogation temporary, or can it result in a dissolution of parliament and another election?

[s_stabeler]

when Parliament is prorogued, the MPs go home, but otherwise everything continues as before. It's archaic, and these days, unnecessary, but it was originally to allow MPs to spend time in their constituency. Basically, it's a declaration by the government that the session of parliament has done all it needs to, so the MPs may as well spend time in their constituency catching up with voters. In practice the only time it has ever occurred anytime recently has been by a PM using it to avoid a Motion of No Confidence

[Jetfire]

With the Canadian system in general, we also have ( I believe) mechanisms in place to prevent the logjam that the US system is experiencing now. The Governor General can always basically send the parties back to their corners for a time out, tell the guy in charge that the opposition is now the leader, or just send everyone back to the polls.

In the mean time I think (but I'm probably wrong) that the way our budgets are set up, government will continue going at the previous funding levels until a new budget is passed. Since financial bills like the budget are automatically Confidence motions, they either have to pass, or we go back to the campaign trail for a month, vote again, and give the new guys a chance to pass a budget, and repeat as needed.

The cost of elections, voter fatigue and so forth will usually mean a budget WILL get passed fairly quickly.

Plus since we don't have a Primary system, we can go to the polls as often as we want; an election is a 'simple' 3-6 week affair that anyone can step up as a candidate for. So throwing everyone out and having a new election is a lot easier to do than it is in the states.

[mikoyan29]

Sometimes I wonder if we would be better off with a parliamentary system of government instead of what we have. At least that way there isn't the bickering between the executive and legislative branches.

[Gravekeeper]

You cannot shut down the Canadian government.

Its designed so that any failure in the government basically trigger an election and the Governor General, on behalf of the Queen, functions as a back up system. If Parliament fails, it gets reset and as mentioned our election cycle is a matter of weeks. Not years like the US.

Basically, being an MP in Canada is like having a real job. If you fail at it, your job is in jeopardy and you're at the mercy of voters as to whether or not you get to keep it. =p

As for the budget in Canada, it cannot be stopped so to speak. While our system is similar to the US in this regard: The House makes the spending proposals and the Senate approves it. There's a third pass from the Governor General ( Who approves it after the Senate on behalf of the Queen. ). Which is the key.

If the House and the Senate fail, the Governor General has the power to overrule both. The GG can issue a Special Warrant without the approval of the House or Senate. Which continues to fund the government while a re-election takes place. This can only occur when 3 triggers are met: Parliament has been prorogued, the lack of funding will affect the public good and the president of the Treasury Board reports we're outta cash.

So, basically, if the same situation in the US happened in Canada, an election would be immediately triggered ( For EVERYONE, not just the Prime Minister. We don't vote on individuals like that in our system ). The Governor General would then take over the budget and keep things running until the election was over and a new, better Parliament could over.

In a nutshell, if our politicians fail to govern, the system automatically kicks them out. Don't do your job you lose your job.

Novel concept, isn't it? ><

[Rapscallion]

Novel concept, isn't it? ><

For politics, sure. Odd how often those who set the rules make sure their jobs are safe if they don't do them.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

It's true. There is no comparison to the shutdown in Canadian, and considering the near-total power that party-leaders hold over their MPs, the fact that parliament is essentially unicameral (Yes, I know that Senators exist, but they rarely do the sober second-thinking they're supposed to) it's extremely unlikely that it ever would happen. From a technical perspective, it is POSSIBLE for the Canadian parliament to not pass a budget, or for the Senate to reject it, but it's quite unlikely. they likely would continue operations as normal, as the US did in shutdowns under Tip O'Neil prior to 1980. The shutdowns only occur as they do now because of a 1980 Justice Department memo on interpretation of the Antideficiency act. Even if Parliament refused to pass a budget, and the Governor General didn't simply remove the Prime Minister and call an election, the government would almost certainly continue to function as normal.

Essentially, no country outside the US, that I know of, has had a shutdown like this in the last several hundred years. Most, in fact, COULDN'T.

[cindybubbles]

I'm glad, then, that I live in Canada, and that we have the Governor General to serve as our Mommy/Daddy Dearest.

[Panacea]

Unfortunately, fixing the problem in the US system would require a Constitutional change.

It could be done; we could pass a Constitutional amendment requiring Congress to pass a budget; failing to do so would trigger an election for ALL seats, and the government would be automatically funded until the new elections were held.

It would stop the partisanship, but it would take the shells out of the shotgun that BOTH parties have held to our collective heads: the government would continue to be funded, meaning our reps would either have to make compromises or explain to voters why they can't. And none of them would really want to take that kind of electoral risk.

[Gravekeeper]

Even if Parliament refused to pass a budget, and the Governor General didn't simply remove the Prime Minister and call an election, the government would almost certainly continue to function as normal.

As I mentioned, under Canadian law if a budget is not passed the Governor General has the power to issue a Special Warrant that grants access to funds from Consolidated Revenue Fund. Aka, Canada's bank account where all revenue/taxes are deposited. Basically, the GG can write can a cheque to keep everything operating until the situation is resolved. Not only that but the law requires that Special Warrants from the GG be publicly announced and published in full detail within 30 days of being issued. So it is 100% transparent to the public.

Its part of the Financial Administration Act. The exact wording of the Act is thus:

In a very special circumstance, the Financial Administration Act allows the Governor in Council to ask the Governor General to issue a Special Warrant [300] permitting the government to make charges not otherwise authorized by Parliament on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, provided that the following conditions are met: [301]

Parliament is dissolved;

A Minister has reported that an expenditure is urgently required for the public good; and

The President of the Treasury Board has reported that there is no appropriation for the payment.

This provision of the Act makes it possible for the government to continue its work during a dissolution. Special Warrants may be used only from the date of dissolution until 60 days following the date fixed for the return of the writs after a general election.

[Duelist925]

Unfortunately, fixing the problem in the US system would require a Constitutional change.

It could be done; we could pass a Constitutional amendment requiring Congress to pass a budget; failing to do so would trigger an election for ALL seats, and the government would be automatically funded until the new elections were held.

It would stop the partisanship, but it would take the shells out of the shotgun that BOTH parties have held to our collective heads: the government would continue to be funded, meaning our reps would either have to make compromises or explain to voters why they can't. And none of them would really want to take that kind of electoral risk.

It would make perfect sense to do, and remove a major sword hanging over the Peoples heads.

So, of course, it will never be done.

[Panacea]

Agreed, it's not too likely. Passing a Constitutional Amendment is very hard.

Congress has to agree on the language of the Amendment by a 2/3rd majority in each House. Then, the Amendment must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states (via their legislatures) to take effect. Proposed Amendments cannot be modified or amended by state legislatures; it's a straight up or down vote.

There is another method called an Article V convention that is seldom used. The states themselves can call for a convention to propose an Amendment if Congress won't act. It takes 2/3rds of the states to force this convention, and Congress has no control over it. The states elect delegates to form the convention. Each state has its own laws on how many delegates it will send and how they are chosen.

If such a convention is formed, then it takes 3/4ths of the convention's delegates to ratify a proposed new Amendment.

Article V conventions have been used only once: to repeal the 21st Amendment (ending Prohibition), and it was used to ratify the Amendment once Congress passed it. It's never been used to actually propose an Amendment.

We still have Amendments that were passed but never ratified. Unless Congress imposes a deadline for ratification in the Amendment's text, there is no deadline. The 27th amendment (keeps Congress from changing its salary until the next election) was proposed in 1789 and not ratified until 1992. It's the excuse, btw, that Congress uses to get paid during the shutdown. They can't change their salary during their terms. That's BS: they're not changing it, they're just not funding it during a shut down.