In response to my blog post yesterday on the our unwritten portions of our constitution being just as important as the written parts, I had a lot of response over the Twitter Machine, many trying to argue that parties were not an integral part of the system, but historian Christopher Moore took the time out to chastise me for the use of the term “constitutional conventions” when it comes to Responsible Government. But the problem is that Moore is actually wrong in what he tried to argue. To wit:

Smith should look at Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which sets out in plain language that only the cabinet can make and propose the raising and spending of money. That is what defines the role of the cabinet of ministers. It budgets; it plans the getting and spending.  But then there is Section 53, which bluntly states that only the House of Commons can give approval to the cabinet’s proposals for getting and spending.

A few problems with this. First of all, he’s citing the Constitution Act, 1867 and not 1982, and looking at Section 54, there is no mention of cabinet at all:

It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.

As is consistent in our constitution, there is no mention of a PM, or cabinet, because they are part of Responsible Government, which as I pointed out yesterday are part of the unwritten conventions that we inherited from the UK. As is consistent with the rest of the written constitution, only the Governor General is mentioned. And here’s the kicker: the unwritten constitutional convention is that under Responsible Government, the Crown – by way of the GG – acts on the advice of ministers, and for that to happen, ministers must hold the confidence of the Chamber. Ministers via the convention do all executive government in the Queen’s name. It’s not written because it’s a convention, per the preamble, as a constitution being similar in principle to that of the UK. Moore’s contention that it’s not a convention and that it’s embedded in the text does not hold. So while I’m happy to be corrected when I get it wrong (and it happens), this is not one of those times. Also, if you’re going to quote the constitution at me, then quote the constitution. And as for those people on the Twitter Machine insisting that Responsible Government can function without parties, well, it’s possible in a theoretical world with vampires and unicorns, but it will never happen in real life, so trying to disprove it to make a point is pretty much moot. The practice of parties developed for a reason. Maintaining confidence without them is a fool’s errand.

With many thanks to Philippe Lagassé for talking this issue through with me.

Good reads:

• Justin Trudeau talks to Paul Wells about the C-14 debate, and how he feels it passes constitutional muster.
• The Senate will debate C-14 in clause-by-clause in the whole chamber, allowing all Senators to move amendments rather than just in committee starting today.
• The government continues to make the case for “interim” Super Hornets, while the government missed a Joint Strike Fighter Consortium payment.
• On a related note, a government report warned against sole-source procurements, while former DND official Alan Williams lays out why it’s a problem.
• Syrian refugees are telling the Commons immigration committee about issues they’re having in Canada.
• The government has agreed to some interim measures in public sector negotiations until some Conservative-era legislation can be properly repealed.
• Here’s a look at the first legislative session on Parliament Hill that began 150 years ago today.
• Maxime Bernier laid out a platform plank of diminishing the CRTC’s role, and conveniently missed a vote on supporting Supply Management.
• It turns out that Cheri DiNovo isn’t a real NDP leadership candidate – just an “unofficial” one who can’t spend any money because she won’t pay the entry fee.
• Nathan Cullen says that flattery won’t get him into the NDP race.
• Emmett Macfarlane lists reasons why the debate around the constitutionality of an electoral reform referendum is a problem.
• Robyn Urback has some pretty important questions about Niki Ashton’s campaigning for Bernie Sanders.
• Colby Cosh makes some poignant observations about the reluctance to use terms like “unconstitutional” with the Liberals as opposed to Conservatives.
• My Loonie Politics column this week suspects that Trudeau is going to let the Senate “force” him to accept amendments to C-14 and C-7 when the Commons couldn’t.

Odds and ends:

Maclean’s gets to the bottom of that Paul Martin Canadian clothing line in Turkey, which the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin has nothing to do with.

There have been adjustments to the Trudeau household staff – one nanny is out and will be replaced out of private funds. Could it be to give Sophie a new assistant?

Retired Senator Rod Zimmer passed away yesterday. Cue the pearl-clutching about how his much younger widow will collect his pension.