Why doesn't Canada have government shutdowns?

January 12, 2019 8:15 AM

(Besides the fact that we're more sensible.) I thought I knew the answer to this (in very general terms) until I read this piece in Slate, "The Shutdown to End All Shutdowns" -- the main point for me being that a continuing resolution to renew funding, in the absence of the passage of a money bill, might go on forever. Automatic CR legislation might be written in a way that gives one party in particular a reason to prefer it over passing a budget.

So what is it in the Canadian constitution or in parliamentary precedent or procedure that prevents shutdowns from happening in Canada (thank God!)? I have a layman's familiarity with Canadian government.

posted by feelinggood to Law & Government (6 answers total)

Two reasons, which are related:

Shutdowns are phenomenon of the President, House and Senate being in opposition to one another on some key budgetary issue. Parliamentary systems can't usually have such divided government, and Canada does not (Trudeau is Prime Minister because he has majority support of the House of Commons, and the Senate at least by custom does not have the power to block a budget).

Also, in Westminster systems such as Canada's (i.e., British and British-descended) defeat of the budget is customarily a vote of no confidence, resulting in the Prime Minister's resignation or new elections.
posted by MattD at 8:30 AM on January 12, 2019 [17 favorites]

I assume it’s our election system: not passing the budget usually triggers a non-confidence vote, which leads to an election. So a different part of the government gets shut down.

The American system of scheduled elections means that the government can’t fall, like it would here.

Disclaimer: not a political scientist, just a Canadian.
posted by Valancy Rachel at 8:32 AM on January 12, 2019 [3 favorites]

Here's an explainer from a few years ago. In addition to the reasons cited above, there's this:

So, what happens if a government falls without a budget in place? Wouldn't that cause a temporary shutdown, at least?

No, it wouldn't, but it would require the Governor General to issue a Special Warrant -- basically, a short-term line of credit, which allows the government to continue to draw money from the consolidated revenue fund without the authorization of Parliament, albeit very specific, and limited conditions:

- Parliament is dissolved;
- a Minister has reported that an expenditure is urgently required for the public good;
- and the President of the Treasury Board has reported that there is no appropriation for the payment.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 8:46 AM on January 12, 2019 [2 favorites]

The joke right now is that we have the benighted Phoenix payroll system to handle that. (Not a joke to federal civil servants.)
posted by warriorqueen at 9:44 AM on January 12, 2019

It did actually happen once in Australia in the 1970s. Long story short, the Governor General dismissed the Prime Minister, dissolved parliament, elections were held, and everything was fine.
posted by fso at 10:01 AM on January 12, 2019 [2 favorites]

It's happened in Canada as well.
posted by quaking fajita at 11:14 AM on January 12, 2019 [1 favorite]