2008 Prorogation: Jean Speaks
September 29, 2010 - 1:22pm
Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean, with her mandate winding down, has broken her silence about the day she saved Stephen Harper's government almost two years ago.
Jean, whose term ends Thursday, said she never meant to keep Canada in suspense when she kept the prime minister waiting two hours before granting Harper's prorogation request on Dec. 4, 2008.
Jean said she felt she needed to make the right choice and took her time in making the final call.
"I had the duty to make a decision. It couldn't be dealt with in just a few minutes," Jean told The Canadian Press. "So I had to analyze, I had to anticipate what my decision would imply - whatever it was."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/29/governor-general-farewell.html#ixzz10wLo6zUb
She speaks
and says nothing.
Very astute.
She should not say anything right now-- she should have explained it at the time in a press release but this week she should just wait until she is not in office and then explain it all -- Saturday would be fine.
Dont hold your breath.
I won't
I laughed when I saw all the posts above. Cynical we all be today yarrr...
I am not happy with Jean. As far as I am concerned she abdicated her duties, regardless of presedents. She has now set one with that foolish decission to not once but twice allow harpy to pro rogue the house. I can expect to see this used for the next 50 years with each side claiming"well they did it too".
There is no reason or excuse other than threat of death that I could accept as a plausible reason(as a thought out process) for what happened.
Unlike Margaret Thatcher, the lady WAS for turning!
I am not happy with Jean. As far as I am concerned she abdicated her duties, regardless of presedents. She has now set one with that foolish decission to not once but twice allow harpy to pro rogue the house. I can expect to see this used for the next 50 years with each side claiming"well they did it too".
I think the two prorogations were totally different form the point of view of what the GG ought to have done. I believe 100% that Jean was wrong to go along with Harper's prorogation in Dec. 2008 since it was a clear attempt to avoid defeat on a bill and his was a newly elected government that had a very flimsy claim to confidence (i.e. he had won one voice vote on the Throne Speech).
I think that the prorogation in Dec. 2009 ewas a very different story. I think harper deserved to be raked over the coals for it in in the political arena. But, the fact is that PMs on average tend to prorogue parliament several times over the course of a parliament and we all know that Chretien prorogued all the time whenever he felt like. There was no good legal or constitutional argument or reason for the GG to deny Harper's prorogation in december '09. In Dec. '08 there was.
The issue is of course as you have previously pointed out that the Liberal prolongations were mostly when the agenda was done; for short periods; and not to avoid the will of the house (since that was assured due to a majority and no caucus revolt).
No Harper also having a revolting caucus but no caucus revolt did not have a majority and therefore could not presume to have House support for the prorogation.
But when Harper asked for the prorogation in Dec. '09 - it was not to "avoid the will of the house" either since none of the opposition parties were proposing to move non-confidence etc... He actually had a perfectly justifiable reason for proroguing - by doing so he could have the new tory majority in the Senate take control of senate committees. We may not like it - but its as good a reason as any.
I agree that we should have a more "consensual" approach to prorogation where it happens upon agreement of the parties and with parliament voting to prorogue itself. But in the meantime we don't have that convention and there is no precedent whatsoever for a GG to refuse to prorogue.
btw: whatever happened with the documents relating to the Afghan detainees? haven't the opposition parties been reading that stuff for the past 4 months? I haven't heard of them finding any smoking guns.
Your second post was the reason-- the House was threatening censure over failure to hand over the docs and his prorogation was to avoid that. The Senators thing was another matter since he did not then have imediate need for the senate majority but did need avoid censure.
To address the other issue the convention of using prorogation to avoid a threat from a majority in the House is one Harper has established-- there was no precident for that.
Harper didn't need to avoid censure...he faced that in April and the speaker ruled on the issue and the Liberals caved in. Had there been no prorogation - the exact same chain of events would have happened a month or two earlier.
In any case, my point is that what Jean did in Dec. '08 was totally without precedent and unjustifiable. What she did in Dec. '09 was very consistent with parliamentary tradition and probably would not have even sparked any controversy were it not for everyone being so aroused by the prorogation to avoid the confidence vote in Dec. '08.
Thats because it was a dead issue by then like the census is now(or at least was when jack asked for debate and was dennied by miliken) Totally unacceptable for haper to pro rogue for months...chretien did id for the summer session. I don't see a big deal because parliament usually winds down by then. I don't remember a lot of contentious issues that got scuttled including their own legislation when it was done.
Stock do you know how much was passed in the last session before summer. I think it was 4 bills. That is a record for futility. There has never been so little passed in a sitting. Including Turner/Clark/Campbell. They killed their own bills and have literally not be in the house for almost 2 years of the last 5. And the shit they do when parliament is shut is the most egregious of stuff. Like the long from census, cancelling the art programs, stuff like that..no debate, no nothing.
I have nothing but contempt. The worst part is she felt like it was a good thing and she did a good job. It is revealing that the cons contemplated going over the GG to the queen as lawrence martin quoated kory the tory in his new book "Harperland". If this had been said to her she should have came out and said she was threatened in this manner. Though who knows what harper said OVER THE PHONE....oh yeah we forgot harper didn't even use proper etiquette(not that its a big deal per say) of being driven a few blocks to ask permission. "Hey Mich, how about a pro rogue again ...k good thanks see you in march". In less than a year.
No excuse for either time it was done.