As you can tell, I’ve been reading Peter Aucoin et al’s book, Democratizing the Constitution, over the summer and have really enjoyed it. Like any good book, it provokes important discussion and debate.
One of the strengths of the book is its analysis of prorogation, a most welcome and timely analysis given the events in Canada over the last four years.
On page 224, they write:
I think it’s worth considering giving Parliament an enhanced role in determining when a government can prorogue Parliament. However, I’m not convinced that a prorogation vote should require a two-thirds majority vote in the House. If a non-confidence vote (and every other vote in the House) requires 50%+1 to be successful, then it seems logical that the same rule should apply to prorogation votes.
Still, the ideas in the book about prorogation are valuable contributions to public debate and should be read widely and discussed.