What do you think of the Governor General's decision?

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rob8305
What do you think of the Governor General's decision?

I am somewhat confused about just exactly how much power Harper has vis-a-vis the Governor General because I've heard conflicting things. So I'm starting this thread to try to get some clarity. Hopefully this will sort things out for me. Here are the questions in my mind:

1. Does the Governor General function merely as a figurehead and a rubber stamp of approval to whowever the Prime Minister of the day is? My guess would be clearly no.

2. Does the Governor General have to prorogue parliament on the advice of Harper or do her reserve powers enable her to deny this request. To me, I could see her telling Harper to demonstrate that he has the confidence of the house and then she would prorogue. I can't imagine her acquiescing to the demands of a government merely intent on saving it's own political stature. That said, if she is required by law, to do whatever the P.M. wants vis-a-vis prorogation, I guess that's it then. But is she? I can see the opposition asking to meet with her or sending her a letter that Harper doesn't have the confidence of the house and doesn't have the authority to prorogue. I can see how that could quickly add to the atmosphere of crisis.

3. Do we have any indications of how her excellency views politics? Is she likely to have a sympathetic ear to any one side while, of course, she remains objective.

Basically, to dumb down my post and point: Does Harper have the power to prorogue parliament by merely advising the GG to do so? If so, the coalition has a lot less chance of becoming reality. This has to happen now.

Wilf Day

Rob8305 wrote:

I am somewhat confused about just exactly how much power Harper has vis-a-vis the Governor General because I've heard conflicting things.  So I'm starting this thread to try to get some clarity.  Hopefully this will sort things out for me.  Here are the questions in my mind:

1. Does the Governor General function merely as a figurehead and a rubber stamp of approval to whowever the Prime Minister of the day is? My guess would be clearly no.

2. Does the Governor General have to prorogue parliament on the advice of Harper or do her reserve powers enable her to deny this request.  To me, I could see her telling Harper to demonstrate that he has the confidence of the house and then she would prorogue. I can't imagine her acquiescing to the demands of a government merely intent on saving it's own political stature. That said, if she is required by law, to do whatever the P.M. wants vis-a-vis prorogation, I guess that's it then.  But is she?  I can see the opposition asking to meet with her or sending her a letter that Harper doesn't have the confidence of the house and doesn't have the authority to prorogue. I can see how that could quickly add to the atmosphere of crisis.

3. Do we have any indications of how her excellency views politics? Is she likely to have a sympathetic ear to any one side while, of course, she remains objective.

Basically, to dumb down my post and point: Does Harper have the power to prorogue parliament by merely advising the GG to do so? If so, the coalition has a lot less chance of becoming reality.  This has to happen now.

We discussed this in another thread. Most of the answers are in this report.

In August Harper told the GG that he already knew the opposition had lost confidence in his government, so there was no need to wait for the formal non-confidence motion before calling the election a year early. She agreed.

And now he is considering asking her to prorogue -- which means governing without parliament, rasing money through Governor-General's warrants -- on the ground that she is still bound by his advice because he has not yet lost a non-confidence motion?

Inconsistent. Dishonourable. Unprecedented.

His duty is to meet the House or resign. Her duty is to make him live up to his.

 

remind remind's picture

Thanks wilf, several sections there on what the GG could do.

Quote:
Her job is always to protect Parliamentary democracy and the Parliament
that the people have elected [has to have] a chance to see if it can
support a government

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

Red T-shirt

I simply can't understand why the GG would agree to prorogue. Isn't this a move specifically designed to allow the house to rest after it has completed the bulk of its intended work?

This parliament hasn't done a damn thing yet. Furthermore we're staring down the barrel of an economic disaster and the opposition specifically says its lost confidence in the government because it refuses to take any decisive action. How could the GG allow the house to rest at a time like this?

longtime lurker

 

Although the office of GG is supposed to be impartial and above the fray people should bear in mind that unlike the British monarch she was actually appointed into office by one of the political parties involved in the current squabble.

remind remind's picture

She can't!

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Red T-shirt

Remind, a bit cryptic there aren't you? Do you mean she can't agree to prorogue, or were you refering to something else?

I know little about constitutional law and the role of the GG. If she really can't agree, please explain why.

Unionist

Look, these issues have been explored at length in other threads, and Wilf has provided some reference. I sympathize with your questions, Red T-shirt, but there are way too many different threads here to start with, let alone having to wade through repetitious ones.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Some wrote that Harper and Jean hate each other, so it will be fun to watch Harper grovelling before the GG, if in fact we see them on TV together. Laughing

Steve_Shutt Steve_Shutt's picture

I wonder if the Governor General wouldn't be wise to meet with her Prime Minister in front of the cameras - given the Conservative's interest in full, taped, disclosure - if only to make sure that her words are not later twisted by the PM.

remind remind's picture

Reading the link wilf provided, and its attendant links, could have been useful to you red teeshirt.

Quote:
6. What are the rights or powers of the Governor
General to dismiss a Prime Minister/government or to replace a Prime
Minister/government?

Just as a Governor General has the legal power to appoint a
government, he or she also has the power to dismiss it. However, this power is stringently limited by conventional rules.

Constitutional authorities generally agree that a Governor General may dismiss a government if it has been defeated on a clear vote of confidence and refuses to resign and call an election, or if another party has won a majority in an election and the existing government refuses to resign.

 

7. How much discretion does the Governor General have to ask a leader to form a government and to interpret election results?

The Governor General clearly cannot appoint a new government until the existing government has resigned or been dismissed (subject to the answer to the preceding question).

If the result of a general election is a plurality (i.e., not a majority for any party), the existing Prime Minister would probably visit the Governor General to indicate whether he or she intends to try to win a vote of confidence when Parliament returns, or to resign.

It is not clear how long the Prime Minister could wait before being required to notify the Governor General of his or her intentions. Neither is it clear at what point the Governor General could require the Prime Minister to make a decision. According to the written Constitution, a sitting of Parliament is required at least once a year.

If the proper role for the Governor General were unclear, he or she would likely consult with his or her own advisers and with other constitutional experts.

The traditional view is that the monarch or the monarch�s representative can consult as widely as he or she wishes, both inside and outside parliament as to whom should be appointed as the new First Minister.(5)

Her job is always to protect Parliamentary democracy and the Parliament that the people have elected [has to have] a chance to see if it can support a government.(6)

8. Must the Governor General accept the advice tendered by the duly appointed Prime Minister(regarding dissolution, forming a government, etc.)?

From the time the Governor General appoints a Prime Minister until that Prime Minister loses the confidence of the House or is defeated in an election, the Governor General must generally follow the advice of the Prime Minister. It has also been argued that the Governor General has the right and duty to use his or her reserve powers to protect fundamental principles of the Constitution, but this is much more contentious.(7)

9.
What options are available to the Governor General in the event that a second dissolution is requested before the House of Commons meets?

There have been occasional suggestions in Canada that after an inconclusive election the Prime Minister would be justified in requesting a dissolution and therefore a second election without even waiting for the Parliament to meet. This view is almost certainly wrong. The House of Commons has been elected, and it should surely be allowed to meet and see if it can transact public business. If it turned out that the House could not even elect a speaker, or if it turned out that neither the Prime Minister nor the leader of any other party could command the support of a majority of members, then there would be no alternative to dissolution; but to dissolve the House
before it had even met would be an abuse of the electoral system, and one which the Governor General would surely be entitled to refuse.(8)

However, the situation might be different if the leaders of parties holding a majority of seats in the House of Commons unanimously asked the Governor General to call a new election before the new House returned, stating that none of them was in a position to achieve the confidence of the House on a Throne Speech.

Andrew Heard gives two examples of new elections being called before provincial assemblies formally met after an election: Prince Edward Island in 1859 and Newfoundland in 1909. In each case, the legislature was unable even to choose a speaker.(9)

10. What was the King-Byng Affair? Is it relevant today?

After the October 1925 general election, the incumbent Liberals (led by Mackenzie King) had 101 Members of Parliament, while the Conservatives (led by Arthur Meighen) had 116 Members. However, the Liberals had the support of the 24 Progressive Party Members, as well as the 4 Labour and Independent Members, and Prime Minister King governed successfully for almost a year.

In June 1926, Prime Minister King lost the support of some Members of the smaller parties. Facing the almost certain loss of a motion of censure, since the government had already been defeated on motions to amend and adjourn, he asked the Governor General, Lord Byng, for adissolution and a new election.

Lord Byng refused the dissolution on a number of grounds: there appeared to be an alternative government capable of governing Canada, as he was assured by the Progressives that they would support a Meighen government through the period of supply; it was less than a year since the previous election; and there was a pending vote of censure which the government was almost certain to lose. In the face of Lord Byng�s refusal, King�s government resigned and the Governor General asked Meighen to form a government.

At the time, it was mandatory that newly appointed Ministers vacate their seats and run in a by-election (the requirement was repealed in 1931). Since Prime Minister Meighen could not afford even the temporary loss of so many Members, he employed technicalities, such as a �temporary ministry� and �acting Ministers,� to avoid the required
by-elections. A motion was brought in the House condemning such devices, and the government lost by one vote. Lord Byng then granted a dissolution to Prime Minister Meighen.

King made the issue a significant factor in the ensuing elections, claiming that it interfered with Canadian independence from the British Empire, and won a majority of the seats.

The matter is still relevant because, even now, senior constitutional experts cannot agree on whether Lord Byng acted properly or prudently. His best-known defender is the late Eugene Forsey. Peter Hogg considers the refusal to dissolve Parliament �at least unwise,� given the requirement that Ministers vacate their seats.(10)

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

josh

As a practical matter, the worst thing the GG could do would be to grant Harper's request for a prorogation.  It would plunge the country into weeks, if not months, of divisive debate, and potentially create a new unity crisis. 

Wilf Day

Any government that fails to win a majority must promptly advise the Governor General whether he or she intends to try to win a vote of confidence when Parliament returns, or to resign. Stephen Harper chose to meet the House, and face a vote. But how soon?

On September 7 the Prime Minister told the Governor General an early election was needed because the opposition parties had lost confidence in his government. To his apparent surprise, this has not changed. To dissolve the House before it had even met would be a blatant abuse of the electoral system. To prorogue before it can vote would be no better. How can he honourably seek to duck the vote he has had a duty to face since October 14?

The Governor General's duty is always to protect Parliamentary democracy. The House of Commons the people have elected must surely be allowed to meet and do its duty. The Governor General should do her duty too, and protect the rights of parliament. To end the session before it can vote would be an unprecedented intervention, when she knows the majority of MPs would not agree with prorogation.

madmax

The GG is expect to support the Prime Ministers Request. Harper is going on TV tonight to tell the public that that is what he intends to do.

He then has a month to scare and provide.

The coalition is asking for TV time. I suggest the get their constitutional gurus active.

 

Rob8305

Ed Shryer was just on CBC Newsworld and said that he would be reluctant to acede to the request of a Prime Minister seeking to avoid the will of parliament.  Jean isn't an automatic rubber stamp here imo.

josh

"The GG is expect to support the Prime Ministers Request"

 

According to . . . ?

 

The GG has precedent on her side to reject the request and let the coalition form government.  She also should factor to the weeks of bitter divisiveness granting Harper's demand would cause.

 

Rob8305

And also,

 I am starting to strongly feel that this is an moral and ethical issue as well as constitutional.  The Governor General simply cannot allow any prime minister to govern without the assent of parliament.  Westminster democracy mandates that the government governs as long as it has the confidence of the house.  Harper no longer has the confidence of the house and simply can't be allowed to continue to govern unless he can show that he does have confidence.  Governor General Jean would be acceding to a dictatorship in all other circumstances.

 

josh

At minimum, it would appear that she was letting herself get bullied if she acceedes to Harper's demand.

 

madmax

Jean, who is cutting short a four-country European trip to deal with the domestic political crisis, is not expected to use the rarely exercised power to refuse the PM's request.

Source For the comment

josh

"Not expected" by whom?  Still doesn't indicate the source for the assertion. 

remind remind's picture

Rob8305 wrote:
Ed Shryer was just on CBC Newsworld and said that he would be reluctant to acede to the request of a Prime Minister seeking to avoid the will of parliament.  Jean isn't an automatic rubber stamp here imo.

No she isn't, and as Shryer has come out and stated that, it is a warning to the GG, that she cannot go down that path, as it would create a constitutional crisis, and would set a parliamentary precident that would shake the foundations of ALL the common wealth countries, not just Canada's.

She will be speaking with ALL the Lt G's, and with constitutional experts, if not the Quenn herself.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Bookish Agrarian

I guess we will find out what she is made off.  She caved on allowing Harper to break his own law, so I am not holding my breath.  If she does allow prorogation, it is time for progressive to get off our collective butts and take to the streets.  We can not leave this field open to the right.

remind remind's picture

No actually, she did not cave on allowing Harper to break his own law. Harper went to her and told her he did not have the confidence of the House should he face a confidence motion, and resigned. She then was obligated, by Constitutional convention, to call an election.

Harper was gambling that he would get a majority, which he had to get, under his own statement of non-confidence to the GG. Because if he did not, and received a second minority, after stating the House had no confidence in him, he must by 2nd minority constitutional convention resign, or face an immediate confidence vote.

 It is just that simple.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

Bookish Agrarian

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I think she had an obligation to ensure Harper had to face a test in the House before an election could be called and had an obligation to ensure the laws of the Dominion were upheld.  To my mind she failed on both. 

So I am not so sure she will do the right thing on this issue.

no1important

I have a bad feeling she will do whatever Harper tells her to do. Afterall she let him break his own election law in the fall.....

remind remind's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I think she had an obligation to ensure Harper had to face a test in the House before an election could be called and had an obligation to ensure the laws of the Dominion were upheld.  To my mind she failed on both. 

So I am not so sure she will do the right thing on this issue.

Okay, we will have to agree to disagree, but I am correct. ;) Why?  Because Harper followed his statement of non-confidence, with his resignation as first minister. The GG under convention cannot ask for a test of confidence, as the first minister has resigned and the majority of the House opposition DID NOT come forward with a statement of desire to carry on, nor did the rest of the CPC come forward with an intent to try to govern.  Thus she was obligated by convention to call an election.

The Harper election laws had nothing to do with it, nor could they be factored in, or considered, once he resigned as first minister, and no one came forward with a proposal to govern.

She has to do the correct thing, or she will create a constitutional crisis that will impact every common wealth country in the world, including the British parliament. And that is not over-stating it, at all.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Buddy Kat

Me thinks revenge is a dish best served in the Canadian cold...Someone jog my memory...When our governor general was appointed, were the conservatives crying "seperatist" like they are now?

I remember some kind of hoopla about it and her husband at that time. Anways I'm sure she won't be fooled by the conservative scare tactics of running around like a cry baby whinning "the seperatists are coming".Laughing

 

Doug

Buddy Kat wrote:

Me thinks revenge is a dish best served in the Canadian cold...Someone jog my memory...When our governor general was appointed, were the conservatives crying "seperatist" like they are now?

I remember some kind of hoopla about it and her husband at that time.

Yes. She had apparently committed the unforgivable crime of having invited separatists over for dinner.

Bookish Agrarian

remind wrote:

Okay, we will have to agree to disagree, but I am correct. ;)

 

Okay, okay I won't argue with my betters.  Laughing

remind remind's picture

LOL, BA! :D

People should have being paying attention to Schryer's statement of today. IMV, it was a pre-statement of the GG's office. No former GG would step out in public and make commentary about parliamentary convention and the way of it, without discussions behind the scenes, as Michaelle Jean would have to discuss this with the former GG's and the Queen. amongst others none of whom would be harper.

Moreover, the Global news here tonight spent about 15 mins indicating where Harper has lied, so I think they realize the gig is up. He has gone to far with his lies and his hate speech against Quebec. Plus, Nathan Cullin's riding office was fire bombed last night and I am not sure they want to be seen linning themselves up with those type of actions.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Charybdis

I think I'm going to have to side with Remind on the issue of how Jean handled the last crisis.

As to this crisis she will be faced with a question of whether to permit prorogation only so that the gov't can avoid a Commons that will almost certainly vote no confidence and which has an alternate gov't in waiting. As many experts in the media have noted, it is almost impossible to find a modern precedent for this situation. But the one (admittedly premodern) precedent we do know of is the case of Charles I (1621-1649) who in the Long Parliament used prorogation repeatedly merely to avoid a parliament he couldn't work with. This is certainly a parallel situation (and we need to remember that the powers of the Prime Minister are still, technical, those of the monarchy in council) and one that absolutely set the mark for the abuse of prorogation.

 

The other issue that has been raised is the extent to which the Prime Minister's will can be thwarted by the GG in modern times. In most circumstances there is little ground but for the GG to acquiesce to the PM's will. But in this instance, as the gov't is still seeking its legitimacy in a new Parliament the rule must be different. At this time, and as Ed Schreyer said, "Parliament must not be thwarted."

Bookish Agrarian

If I hear one more effin Conservative dismiss in the most undemocratic way, the legitimate representatives of Canadian citizens from Quebec I am going to upchuck on any blue clothing I see.

 

If the GG allows the House to perorgue I will be heading somewhere to start protesting.  What colour do you get if you combine red and orange.  I forget my colour wheel.  Whatever it is I am going to be out buying a bunch of scarves in that colour.  The GG holds in her hands whether this is a real democracy or not.  I hope she is up to the task.

Rod Manchee

It seems to me that the correct course for the GG to follow would be to respond to the wishes of the majority of the HoC. So if Mr Harper were to ask for a prorogation or dissolution, and the party that he led was in the majority, she should go along with it. If his party does not command such a majority, she should ask him to supply proof(in the form of a confidence motion) that he does command such a majority. If he does not try, or such a motion fails, then the next step is to ask if anyone else does and if so give them governmental authority. Finally, if no one does,  then an election is required

Thems the rules...

 

Maxx

In a Parliamentary democracy, the Prime Minister is supposed to be the leader of the majority of Parliament.Harper clearly does not speak for Parliament.

Therefore:

1.    The GG has an obligation to refuse Harper's request for prorogation, because his Prime Ministership is in question.  He cannot speak for Parliament if he can't face Parliament.  If the GG accepts the PM’s request, it would truly set a dangerous precedent, where a PM can escape confidence votes by proroguing Parliament, while maintaining executive power.   That contradicts the notion of "accountable government."

2.  If the govt falls, the GG has an obligation to ask the leader of Opposition to form a government.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Bookish Red and Yellow creates Orange.

Orange and Red creates-- deeper Orange-- and fine by me.

 

sofun

If the GG has any courage, she will tell Harper that while legally he can prorogue, using this tactic to avoid losing a confidence vote is unacceptable.  The vote would proceed and the Opposition would then be asked to try and form the government.

I doubt this will happen.

If she feels like being more "activist" (for lack of a better term), she could attempt to force Harper to find a more constructive approach.  This might involve granting prorogation with short time period (say, 2 weeks) as well as a condition to negotiate an economic plan together with the Opposition.

I am certain this won't happen but it wouldn't necessarily be an unreasonable decision to make - forcing all the parties to come up with a solution that avoids:

a) needlessly suspending Parliament;

b)  offering the chance to govern to a coalition whose leader has already announced his resignation;

c) any chance of another unnecessary, expensive election

 Personally I'd prefer to see her tell Harper to go fuck himself and see the Opposition take over, but the above plan isn't unreasonable in my view, just unlikely in the extreme.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

The Monarchist League has suggested a new wrinkle - that the GG dismiss Harper (or accept his resignation) and call on Dion to form a government on the condition that he seeks a dissolution after some defined period of time once he has passed supply.

 

They reference the Whitlam dismissal and Fraser government from Australia in the 1970s as a precedent.

 

Any thoughts on the viability of this?  I've never heard that there were conditions attached to the Fraser ministry.

Jason J. W. Lis...

If the GG is keen to follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution and Westminster parliamentary tradition ....

She should refuse prorogation as the PM has not demonstrated that he commands the confidence of the House.  The Throne Speech vote could be interpreted as a confidence vote, but it has been superseded by the declaration in writing of non-confidence by the coalition.  The only way to settle this is via a new confidence vote.

She should direct the PM to allow the confidence vote to proceed on Dec 8.

Should the PM refuse, he (and his government) should be dismissed.

Should the PM agree, but lose the vote and subsequently request dissolution (and an election), she should refuse this request as well, and invite the coalition to form the government.

If she is prepared to get creative, she could request a solemn promise in writing from the coalition that they will seek an electoral mandate sometime between the expiration of automatic support from the Bloc (18 months hence) and expiration of the coalition accord (30 months hence).  This promise could be entrenched in the Throne Speech and in legislation as necessary.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Doug wrote:
Buddy Kat wrote:

Me thinks revenge is a dish best served in the Canadian cold...Someone jog my memory...When our governor general was appointed, were the conservatives crying "seperatist" like they are now?

I remember some kind of hoopla about it and her husband at that time.

Yes. She had apparently committed the unforgivable crime of having invited separatists over for dinner.

Does that mean it's illegal for the GG to eat dinner with her husband?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Our Demands Most Moderate are/
We Only Want The World!
-James Connolly

Wilf Day

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

If she does allow prorogation, it is time for progressive to get off our collective butts and take to the streets.  We can not leave this field open to the right.

Agreed. 

As Martha Hall Findlay said very well this evening, no government has ever asked for a prorogation under threat of a non-confidence vote. If the GG allows this, it sets a precedent for any future government to duck out of a non-confidence vote. If there is no fetter on such a request, a future PM could prorogue for a year; the only legal requirement is that parliament must sit annually.

Rob8305 wrote:
The Governor General simply cannot allow any prime minister to govern without the assent of parliament.  Westminster democracy mandates that the government governs as long as it has the confidence of the house.  Harper no longer has the confidence of the house and simply can't be allowed to continue to govern unless he can show that he does have confidence.  Governor General Jean would be acceding to a dictatorship in all other circumstances.

Right.

Out_of_the_Country

As my nic implies, I am away from my beloved Canada for almost a year now and about to return.  I am horrified by what has happend to our national Motto: "Peace, Order and Good Government."

 I have been following these threads to try and glean as much information as possible. 

 Am I way out in space by suggesting that:  What Mr. Harper is requesting of the GG, is just plain inappropriate?  It rather sounds as if he is running to his nanny complaining that someone took his ball.

Peter3

I don't think Ms. Jean fits the role of Mr. Harper's nanny.  After everything that was said about her appointment by Conservative partisans, she must be loving this.

She will undoubtedly act on principle. The irony will be lost on the PM.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Jason J. W. Lisenchuk wrote:
...If she is prepared to get creative, she could request a solemn promise in writing from the coalition that they will seek an electoral mandate sometime between the expiration of automatic support from the Bloc (18 months hence) and expiration of the coalition accord (30 months hence).  This promise could be entrenched in the Throne Speech and in legislation as necessary.

Sounds a little like a fixed election date. And we all know how that turned out. LMAO

Okay, levity to one side, by an large an excellent suggestion. 

remind remind's picture

She could never ever ask for a commitment such as that, it would be seen as an interference in parliamentory democracy, which is upheld by the majority of the House.

And if she allows a proroguation tomorrow, the constitutional democracy of ALL Common Wealth nations is too under threat or attack. It would mean that a dictatorship, would essentially be allowed for a year.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Bookish Agrarian

Here is a copy of an email I sent to the GG last night
Won't do any good I guess, but it made me feel better.

Excellency

If media reports are correct, today the Prime Minister will be requesting that you assent to proroguing Parliament. I respectfully request you deny this request.

Since the acceptance of Lord Durham’s report Canada has enjoyed responsible government. Central to that responsible government has been the promise by our Sovereign that Her Ministers will demonstrate that they have the confidence of the people. Our current Prime Minister is clearly attempting to avoid a test of that confidence and will be asking you to assist him in that avoidance.

Canadians recently chose a Parliament. A majority of our Members of that Parliament have indicated that the Prime Minister does not have their confidence. Attempting to avoid a test of that confidence, for no other conceivable reason than to avoid a defeat of the current government, would deny my right, and the right of all Canadians to responsible government. Accepting a request to porogue Parliament would set a dangerous precedent and deny the subjects of Her Majesty our recognized right of a government that is responsible to our elected representatives in the House of Commons. I respectfully submit that you have a duty to ensure that current and more importantly future Canadians subjects of Her Majesty continue to enjoy a government that is responsible to the will of our elected representative in Parliament. As such, I humbly suggest you have a duty to deny any request to porogue and to ensure that the Prime Minister meet a test of confidence at the earliest convenience of Parliament.

Unionist

I think the G-G should say:

"You will have my reply on December 9."

:)

Buddy Kat

Ken Burch wrote:
Doug wrote:
Buddy Kat wrote:

Me thinks revenge is a dish best served in the Canadian cold...Someone jog my memory...When our governor general was appointed, were the conservatives crying "seperatist" like they are now?

I remember some kind of hoopla about it and her husband at that time.

Yes. She had apparently committed the unforgivable crime of having invited separatists over for dinner.

Does that mean it's illegal for the GG to eat dinner with her husband?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Our Demands Most Moderate are/
We Only Want The World!
-James Connolly

 

No it means the conservatives accuse everyone of being a seperatist when it suits them. Including family members ...as long as they are from Quebec or have a french citzenship..they could be seperatist. They are the most racist and bigot infested party out there. I can't see how anyone even votes for them. I hope the governor general does the right thing and sends harper and his band of racist/bigot country splitters packing.

 

Coming to think of it they played the french citzen card on dion also. The conservatives only represent 1 province ..Alberta..the sooner peole figure that out the better.

 

Caissa

The G-G should go on national TV and explain her decision.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Caissa wrote:
The G-G should go on national TV and explain her decision.

 

This is never done as far as I know. The GG would probably just re-gurgitate the "instructions" from the PM in any case. It would be a waste of time. However, it would be very interesting to get the replies from the GG put to her by the leaders of the Opposition Parties. I'd like to see M Hall-Findlay grill the GG on TV. But it will never happen. 

CanadianAlien

We know the essence of the 'advice' given to GG.  It was the same BS that oozed from Harper after he emerged from GG residence.  But Harper is relentless, ruthless even, and Harper no doubt intimated her replacement, Harper's diminishment of her should she not take his 'advice'.  It would've been something like a mob boss giving 'advice' you couldn't refuse.  The reality is that we are now effectively governed by a government with no check or balance on its power.  Parliament is suspended so Government can evade its censure.

George Victor

 

I will never again be softened by the word "nice".  It's too easily made duplicitous and so meaningless.

Pages

Topic locked