“The lieutenant-governor always, even in routine decisions made of this sort, would do due diligence and consult constitutional experts,” Anthony Hylton told the Citizen.
“I’m not at liberty to say whom but consultation was certainly part of this process,” he added.
Hylton said “parliamentary tradition” prevented him from giving more details.
But the secrecy surrounding the discussions between Onley and his constitutional experts is wrong and ill-advised, said Dean of Osgoode Law School Lorne Sossin.
“It doesn’t jibe with the culture of accountability and transparency in government that we look for,” said Sossin. “If we are giving reasons it can only clarify the situation and allow for a discussion that is more than just speculation.”
Lack of transparency was also a major fault in the process that led then-governor general Michaëlle Jean to prorogue Parliament in 2008 at the request of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, added Sossin.
“Openness can have a salutary effect and increase confidence in the office of the governor general or lieutenant-governor,” he said.
University of Ottawa political historian Michael Behiels says criticism about lack of openness should be levelled at McGuinty.
“Why not be honest with the people?” he said. “Educate the public. By not doing so, he throws discredit on the whole system. If you’re going to push the limit you have to explain why you’re doing it. Prorogation is there for a reason. It’s an important tool, but you have to tell people why.”
Prorogation, done by a governor general or provincial lieutenant-governor on the “advice” of either the prime minister or premier, ends a session of parliament or a provincial legislature and kills all planned legislation and committees working on that legislation.
McGuinty’s said he was resigning as leader and calling for prorogation because of lack of support from the Conservative and NDP opposition for his freeze on public sector wages.
McGuinty had legitimate reasons for asking for prorogation, said Behiels, but it had nothing to do with dealing with public sector wages.
“That was smoke and mirrors,” he said. “This is about the opposition taking advantage of the situation to bring down the government in the midst of a leadership renewal and that’s what McGuinty should be telling people.
“He needs to say, ‘We can’t afford to have the government fall in the midst of a leadership race.’ And that’s true. It would be catastrophic for the political system and for people of Ontario.”
Whatever expert advice Onley got before proroguing the legislature would likely have been about detail rather than whether to prorogue. Constitutional experts more or less agree that he had no choice.
“Most of the criticism has centred around the ethical considerations and democratic principles of the premier’s request,” said Phillippe Lagassé, a specialist in constitutional monarchy at the University of Ottawa. “But that’s a different issue.
“As much as there might have been distaste on the part of the lieutenant-governor,” added Lagassé, “and the advice might have been to warn the premier that they didn’t approve for large ethical and democratic reasons constitutionally speaking, he had to approve the prorogation request.”
Nor is it likely that constitutional experts could have advised Onley to insist on a deadline for the return of the legislature, said Lagassé.
“The advice he received would have depended on who he asked,” said Lagassé. “Some people see the viceregal as a kind of referee — very much in the game — others see him or her as a fire extinguisher only to be used in emergencies.”
University of Toronto professor Nelson Wiseman agrees that Onley had to agree to prorogation but disagrees that — behind closed doors — the lieutenant-governor couldn’t have extracted at least an end date from the premier.
“He could have said ‘I’ll give you prorogation but I want to know when we’re coming back — how’s Feb. 15 sound?
“But if Onley had asked me for advice,” added Wiseman, “I would have told him, ‘Do as the premier tells you. If you don’t, you’re going to become the subject of scrutiny and criticism and investigation and you will potentially undermine the stature and dignity of the office of lieutenant-governor.”
Historian Michael Bliss says the lieutenant-governor is under no obligation to divulge what advice he received or who he received it from.
“They are not obliged to open their process to media scrutiny and probably shouldn’t,” he said, “because it leads to second guessing. It leads to speculation. It’s not the way our system works.”
Original Article
Source: calgary herald
Author: CHRIS COBB
No comments:
Post a Comment