Argument In Relation To Prorogation In Canada

Prorogation is much alike a complex acronym to Canadians. We understand that it conveys meaning in some way, yet the majority of us are not familiar with the term. Developed during the Tudor period, prorogation is a healthy alternative to dissolution; however, today prorogation is a process that once approved by the Governor General, the acting Prime Minister may cease the current parliamentary session, effectively clearing the parliamentary agenda and ending proceedings for a set period of time. In recent years there has been a growing controversy in relation to prorogation in Canada. This is largely due to the 2008-2009 parliamentary disputes between the Conservative minority government and the opposition governments; however, that is addressed later on. My intent in

After all, in giving the PM the power to prorogue we are able to hold him more accountable for his actions if the prorogue is unsuccessful, or has partisan intent.
While it may be true that with great power, comes great responsibility, power is not always the best solution to the problem. In every example of Canadian partisan prorogation, prorogation is used as a last resort. Without the option to prorogue, the PM must address the situation instead of prolonging it for their personal gain. There is simply no good reason to allow a leader to prolong the inevitable collapse of their government.
It could be reasonably contended that if this reform was put into place, a two-thirds opposition government could use prorogation to their partisan advantage. Though incredibly unlikely, this is a phenomenon that could occur, and so it must be addressed.
Only one collation government has ever existed at a federal level is post-confederation Canada. This combined with the sheer unlikelihood of an opposition gaining two-thirds of the seats discredits the arguments merit. Though it is possible, it is incredibly