Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T17:19:15.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parliament's Power to Advise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

Eugene Forsey
Get access

Extract

No one questions the power of Parliament to approve or condemn the actions of the Queen's ministers. But has it or has it not also the power to advise, to ask the Crown to take or not to take some particular action? May says that the British Parliament, at any rate, has: “An Address to Her Majesty is the form ordinarily employed by both Houses of Parliament for making their desires and opinions known to the Crown.” The subjects of such Addresses “have comprised every matter of foreign or domestic policy; … the administration of justice; … and, in short, representations upon all points connected with the government and welfare of the country.”

Edward Blake was equally clear and emphatic that the Canadian Parliament also possessed this power. Replying on April 30, 1890, to Sir John Thompson's contention that it would be unconstitutional for the Government to disallow a provincial Act after announcing that it would not disallow, Blake said flatly that this was wrong, because Thompson's doctrine might

thwart, annul or affect the power of Parliament to express its opinion by Address, requesting His Excellency to exercise his power to disallow. … The Parliament of the country has a power not merely to approve and to condemn, but it has also a more important power with reference to every political and executive act-it has a power to advise. … Neither the approval nor the condemnation of an accomplished act serves any purpose save that of criticism. The power of advice is the great power of Parliament, a power to be exercised with reserve, but to be maintained in efficiency; and to preserve effectively that power, it is necessary that we should deem that it has not passed beyond the domain of Parliament to advise within the twelve months, no matter what the Executive may do. … It is of very little use for Parliament to say to Ministers, who have decided that they think an Act ought to be allowed: “Gentlemen, we think you are wrong; we condemn you; we censure you.” Are we to be told that if the twelve months still remain unexpired, we may condemn the Administration, forsooth, but the Act must remain operative; that we cannot make our advice effective; that we cannot take a step which will cause that to be done which the great council of the country decides in the interest of the country ought to be done? The power of Parliament itself would be thwarted by the proposition of the hon. Minister of Justice.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , May 1963 , pp. 203 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 SirMay, Thomas Erskine, Parliamentary Practice, 16th. ed. (London, 1957), 828–9Google Scholar; italics mine.

2 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 1890, pp. 4211–12.Google Scholar Hereafter cited as Debates.

3 Ibid., 1960, p. 2120.

4 Beauchesne, Arthur, Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th. ed. (Toronto, 1958), 135–6.Google Scholar

5 Debates, 1960, p. 2121 Google Scholar; italics mine.

6 Commons Journals, 1869, pp. 163–4Google Scholar; ibid., 1882, pp. 307–09; ibid., 1886, pp. 231–8; ibid., 1887, pp. 34–39, 57–62; ibid., 1889, p. 347; ibid., 1892, p. 351; ibid., 1903, pp. 87–9. Cited hereafter as Journals.

7 Ibid., 1875, pp. 69–70, 74–7; ibid., 1877, pp. 254–5; ibid., 1886, p. 265, and Debates, 1886, pp. 1258–60.Google Scholar Note also an interesting article in The Times, 02 16, 1961, p. 13, by Mr.Iwi, Edward F..Google Scholar

8 Journals, 1918, pp. 128–9, 311–13Google Scholar; Debates, 1918, pp. 468–518, 2342–74Google Scholar; Journals, 1919, pp. 171–2, 252, 286, 293–5Google Scholar; Debates, 1919, pp. 1441–81, 2696–748.Google Scholar

9 Debates, 1878, p. 1879.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., 1879, p. 251.

11 Ibid., p. 289.

12 Journals, 1872, pp. 134, 155, 175–9Google Scholar; Debates, 1872, pp. 707, 710.Google Scholar

13 Macdonald, Cartier, Tupper, Tilley, Langevin, Galt, McDougall, Gray, and Cockburn.

14 Journals, 1873, pp. 345, 347–8.Google Scholar

15 The Mail (Toronto), vol. II, no. 353, 05 15, 1873, p. 4.Google Scholar

16 Macdonald, Cartier, Tupper, Tilley, Langevin, Mitchell, and Cockburn.

17 Macdonald, Cartier, Tupper, Tilley, Langevin, Mitchell, Chapais, and Campbell.

18 Blake, in 1875, explicitly upheld the “competence” of the House to pass Costigan's motion. Debates, 1875, p. 1005.Google Scholar

19 Journals, 1889, pp. 199–201, 203, 205–07Google Scholar; General Index to the Journals, II, p. 417 Google Scholar; Debates, 1889, pp. 811–910.Google Scholar

20 Debates, 1897, pp. 493–6, 545.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., 1886, p. 383.

22 Ibid., 1893, pp. 1618–69.

23 Ibid., 1907–8, pp. 6644, 6854–70.

24 Journals, 1916, pp. 353–5Google Scholar; italics mine; Debates, 1916, pp. 3618–21, 3677–733, 3734–826.Google Scholar

25 Debates, 1916, pp. 3692, 3694–5Google Scholar; italics mine.

26 Ibid., 1960, pp. 387–8, 1587–8, 2122.

27 Ibid., 1959, pp. 1677, 1779, 1832–3, 1866, 1966, 2227, 4106, 5409.

28 Ibid., 1882, p. 558; 1894, pp. 4717–8; 1907–8, p. 6644; 1922, p. 2992; 1931, p. 640; 1938, pp. 243–4, 759–60, 3384; 1939, pp. 994–5, 1628; 1945 (second session), pp. 376–7, 423, 495–6, 831–2, 1074, 2445.