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.
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.
Thanks wilf, several sections there on what the GG could do.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
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?
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.
She can't!
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reading the link wilf provided, and its attendant links, could have been useful to you red teeshirt.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
At minimum, it would appear that she was letting herself get bullied if she acceedes to Harper's demand.
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"Not expected" by whom? Still doesn't indicate the source for the assertion.
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"
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.
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"
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.
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.....
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"
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".
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.
Okay, we will have to agree to disagree, but I am correct. ;)
Okay, okay I won't argue with my betters.
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"
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."
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.
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...
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.
Bookish Red and Yellow creates Orange.
Orange and Red creates-- deeper Orange-- and fine by me.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Right.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
I think the G-G should say:
"You will have my reply on December 9."
:)
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.
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.
I will never again be softened by the word "nice". It's too easily made duplicitous and so meaningless.
Layton and Dion will explain it after they meet with her, I am sure.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
I am very disappointed, but, frankly, I don't think that Jean was strong enough to bear the brunt of all the hatred being spewed by the PCC 'bots and pundits at the Coalition. She could not save our asses alone. It is a fact that only the population can exert sufficient authority in these straits and give Harper the boot. The GG's authority is one of principle, it doesn't carry that much weight in realpolitik.
Indeed, there may be a silver lining: this 7-week hiatus may give the Coalition time to find more stability and long-term vision, giving the NPD time to influence developments, e.g. Coalition v. Liberal Party as the future.
If she's not strong enough, she should have stepped down. She would have been better off staying in Europe.
Not exactly a great moment in the history of parliamentary democracy.
Its the right decision.
Allow Harper the reflect on his follies and allow the proposed coalition to get their policies in order. Economically, it is better to react to Obama's stimulus plan than to propose a canadian plan that may be rendered a failure by American incentives.
Harper is incapable of change and needs to be replaced. Proroging parliament is the sensible course that will allow all the members to reflect on their duty. Personally, I think it time for the PC members of the CPC to jettison both Harper and the CPC - joining ranks with the Liberals under Rae or IGGY and the Dippers to form the governing party.
This solution circumvents awkward separatist ambitions and dilutes the chance of radical social engineering in uncertain times.
As I said in the other thread, this precedent-breaking decision now makes it easy for any weakling government to simply run away when their power is threatened. Mission accomplished, as far as Harper's concerned. The dismantling or undermining of parliamentary democracy in Canada can only serve to undermine Canadian sovereignty. I'm beginning to think this is his true goal.
Quite an irony, too, in light of the "Banana Republic" slogans that were being thrown around yesterday.
"If she's not strong enough, she should have stepped down."
I meant that the GG's position isn't strong enough, structurally - it's a honorific position, with no representativity to back up any strong stand. Michaelle Jean herself isn't the problem.
The basic problem remains that 1) so many Canadians are voting for and electing CP candidates, regardless of Harper destructiveness, and 2) that we have no historical precedent or symbolic receptvity to ruling by coalitions, so it becomes easy for Dad to browbeat Canadians with talk of a "coup d'État".
At least, now we have a stellar example in support of the old line "If voting could change the system, it would be illegal."
bert
Allow Harper the reflect on his follies and allow the proposed coalition to get their policies in order. Economically, it is better to react to Obama's stimulus plan than to propose a canadian plan that may be rendered a failure by American incentives.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economically, bert?
You mean, after the pres. has said he is going to give x$billions to the big three (which already have wrung concessions from UAW workers), we will go to the CAW and say "look, sorry your asses are on the line, but you'll have to make x$ cuts in wages and benefits or else."
I have lost confidence in both the GG and bert, today. Felt sure you both had the best interests of Canadians in mind.
But only SOME Canadians, eh bert?
And what do you think the chances are of getting a Bob Stanfield back in the fold? (I keep buying his underwear just out of nostalgia). Not that I ever voted for him, mind. But we need a Dalton Camp to remind us of what we lost with Peter's big sell.
...I don't think that Jean was strong enough to bear the brunt of all the hatred being spewed by the PCC 'bots and pundits at the Coalition...
This sounds like sexism to me.
Would you apologize for a pathetic male GG who couldn't "bear the brunt of all the hatred" as regrettably "not strong enough"?
The reality is that GG's don't have a very highly developed sense of ethics to be willing to become employed as the mouthpiece and smiley face for whatever crap, for whatever "My Government" manifests.
This unprecedented proroguing was not her only option.
Desire for the money, perks and fame are the main determinants of the GG job. I wouldn't be surprised if hints by Harper of a "democratic necessity" of ousting her from her luxurious lifestyle was the determining factor in her decision.
Beyond politics, the GG's role is to promote stability within the country. With this decision, there is at least a few weeks of relative calm available between east and west, to allow a coalition more time to prepare for bringing down the government in a more substantive manner, through a confidence motion that cannot be avoided when the budget is tabled. Historically, GGs have avoided being placed into the position of making a decision which could add to political turmoil and division.
Except that she's only just bound herself further to him by keeping him around. Going against his wishes would have ousted him - no longer a threat. This is what I don't understand.
Is it possible that some Liberal insiders might have also been advising her?This sounds like sexism to me. Would you apologize for a pathetic male GG who couldn't "bear the brunt of all the hatred" as regrettably "not strong enough"?
He subsequently mentioned in a later post that he was referring to the institution of the GG's office, not the individual. Martin has somewhat of a teflon reputation in this regard, so an apology would not seem to be required.
There should be a much earlier opportunity. Parliament once prorogued would have to start up with a new throne speech would it not. If so, that would be the first and better opportunity.
What do I think of the Governor General's decision? It sucks.
It sucks big time!
The only silver lining I can see in this decision is that any and all problems, especially the current economic crisis, will be the Conservatives' problem. And, like Bob Rae in Ontario, they will not be rewarded with re-election.
I'm also wondering, can the Governor General pro-rogue (intentional misspelling!) parliament again and again to avoid an election? Are there no limits?
My heart aches.
What's worse is that the subsequent performance of M. Dion was terrible... late for the immediate lobby scrum and leaving the impression that Harper can recover his confidence with a "monumental" change.
I'm sorry. I was giving Dion the benefit of the doubt because the mission of the Coalition is so right. But with Dion as leader I despair.
Someone please restore my hope.
A timid Governor-General has allowed a lame-duck Prime Minister who lacks the confidence of the House to prorogue the session for purely partisan political reasons. What a stupid precedent to be saddled with!
WWQED? What would Queen Elizabeth do?
I bet she'd tell the phony PM to prove he had the confidence of the House before she would rubber-stamp his request.
Now, there can be no doubt that Jean will drop the election writ as soon as the Harper government falls. For her, it's the "safest" course.
And for Harper, it will mean finally getting the majority he has craved.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
What does "strong" have to do with anything?
The Governor General didn't have to DO anything.
All she had to do was NOT do something. All she had to do was NOT intervene on Harper's behalf.
As I understand it, she didn't have to approve a coalition government either. She could have simply let a non-confidence vote take its course, rather than preventing such a vote.
And I agree with the honourable poster directly above me: Dion screwed up unforgiveably. Tough to say what effect his feeble and pathetic performance did or didn't have, but it's pretty clear that he's no leader.
bert
Allow Harper the reflect on his follies and allow the proposed coalition to get their policies in order. Economically, it is better to react to Obama's stimulus plan than to propose a canadian plan that may be rendered a failure by American incentives.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economically, bert?
You mean, after the pres. has said he is going to give x$billions to the big three (which already have wrung concessions from UAW workers), we will go to the CAW and say "look, sorry your asses are on the line, but you'll have to make x$ cuts in wages and benefits or else."
I have lost confidence in both the GG and bert, today. Felt sure you both had the best interests of Canadians in mind.
But only SOME Canadians, eh bert?
And what do you think the chances are of getting a Bob Stanfield back in the fold? (I keep buying his underwear just out of nostalgia). Not that I ever voted for him, mind. But we need a Dalton Camp to remind us of what we lost with Peter's big sell.
No, George that is not what I meant. Waiting for the Americans to announce their stimulus plan first allows Canada to institute a plan that can ameliorate potential harmful affects.
In the longer term, Canada's stimulus must be directed at embracing technologies that conrtibute to sustainability and a lowered consumption footprint rather than throwing money at the failing industrial strategies of overconsumption that got us in this mess in the first place.
I agree with funds directed toward ICF construction; geothermal, groundsource, photovoltaic etc energy development; electric vehicles and advanced technology battery development but I do not agree with funds directed toward building consumer products that incorporate gimmicks like video players and cameras in vehicles to entice consumers into replacing vehicles every three years rather than using the full utilisation of the product.
If auto makers or any other manufacturing entity wants support, they must make a contribution to progress, rather than maintaining the status quo.
Take photovoltaic cells for example:Solar panels can be profitably manufactured for $1/watt but profit dictates that $5/watt for smaller quantities and $4/watt for bulk quantities can be extorted from the marketplace. Directing public funds into resolving the technical problem of voltage drop exiting the panel could make PV cells cost effective.
Coupled with LED lights, PV cells can reduce power consumption significantly. Both from reduced consumption and reduced transmission losses.
This crisis is an opportunity to put sustainability fimly in place but only by slaying the consumerist mentality that markets the sheeple into 'must have gimmickery'
There is a joke about marketing that refers to the next target age group as 'twetuses' after discovering that 2-4 year olds can recognise 300 brand themes before they can recognise speech.
Seeing some of the pictures of the GG this morning, I'm not surprised - she looked terrified. She didn't sign on for this.
Emtionally in the back of my head I feel very angry. Tis is Naomi Klein all over again. But mainly I ask "Now what?"?
I guess the answer is to brace for a media war.
Mme Jean's decision is a travesty and we all should be royally pi**ed off at her.
She's not fit to be GG and when we take power we should have her dismissed on account of this decision alone. She has one job: to identify and recognize majorities in the House. She not only refused to exercise that function she instead chose to confirm the minority in the House as the government or executive. We are being governed for the next 2 months by the identified and expressed minority of our elected reps. Our governemnt is now utterly illegitimate. You want to talk about a coup d'etat, now's the time.
The well-rewarded, but cowardly, Mme. Jean has struck a heavy blow against one of the scant few democratic practices by which we are supposed to be governed and caved in the face of pressure of an entrenched minority. For this, she has secured for herself, at least in my mind, forever a badge of particular and irrevocable ignominy.
Former GG Ed Schreyer in thursdays Globe&Mail:
"Ed Schreyer said in an interview yesterday that granting a wish for the prorogation of Parliament at this point would constitute an evasion of the process of Parliament and should not be done.
“I'll put it this way and I will make this a plain-spoken sentence. Nothing should be done to aid and abet the evasion of submitting to the will of Parliament. I think one can stop there. It's about as basic as that.”
With a new Parliament having just opened, the only circumstances to justify prorogation, Mr. Schreyer said, would be a genuine emergency. “The only emergency seems to be a desire [of the Harper government] to avoid facing Parliament. That is not an emergency.”
Related Articles
Ms. Jean is under no obligation to listen to Mr. Schreyer, but his observations go to the heart of a problem she faces. No governor-general should be seen to be in the business of closing down Parliament for the crassly political reason of saving a government from almost certain defeat on a confidence motion...."
Today’s actions by the PM and GG have seriously damaged our democratic system of government. The decision made by the GG opens the door to future abuse by PMs to avoid facing the wrath of the house whenever it suits them. I believe that, since the GG is appointed by the PM and virtually always accedes to his requests, Mme Jean felt that she was bound by this tradition to err on the side of caution. I completely disagree with this line of thinking. All of our elected and unelected officials should hold the betterment of the nation at the core of all of their decisions (not realistic in most cases I know) but in this case the GG has utterly failed this test. The parliament was unfolding as it should. An arrogant bully was to be put in his place. Any right-wing blather about a coup or socialist/separatist plot can safely be ignored as can, unfortunately, the near complete lack of knowledge in their own system of government displayed by my fellow citizens.
When the coalition does become the government, after dealing with the deteriorating economic situation, they should begin proceedings to revise the constitution to eliminate the possibility of a PM abusing the GG in this manner again. I actually like the position of GG, unelected as they are, because they can be appointed from non-partisan elements in society to fulfil a necessary but largely ceremonial function. They should not hold the nation’s future in they’re unqualified hands as we have seen today.
I asked this question in another thread and still haven't seen an answer - other than the Byng affair is there any other case where the GG has NOT followed the advice of the Prime Minister in Canadian political history?
I'm afraid to speculate what was said in the meeting. If only knowing Harper of the last few days are any indication, he would have spewed the same lies we all heard. Surprisingly, even after adamantly clarified and corrected by the broadcasters, alot of the public still goes with what Harper and the Conservative Yes-men are saying.
The GG is only human and might not catch the airwaves like the rest of us.
Secondly, if one were to know Harper of only that past two years, you'd wonder what harsher things he may have directed at Her Excellency.
Yesterday, as I skimmed through an article from the G&M about all of the PM's options, I saw something like replacing the GG before the official end to her term.
I quoted the remarks of a lawyer/prof from the U of Ottawa Law Faculty on this issue on another thread. Here is the quote ....
Edward Ratushny xxxU of Ottawa Law Faculty
"I don't think it's really a precedent. I think if she (the GG) had gone the other way it would be a precedent because the normal process is for the GG is to listen to the PM and follow the PM's advice. Now the circumstances here were rather unique, but the GG doesn't get into the circumstances. The GG looks at the bigger picture."
"I think that it was a good decision, that it was the right decision and the vote will come. It can't be put off indefinitely. Tactically,as well, it was good because she kept up her position of being a non-elected official - the Head of Government - but she listened to the PM, followed his advice, and the next time, when she doesn't, it will make her all the more credible."
Ratushny made the remarks on Don Newman's show today. They can be listened to on the CBC website in their entirety.
I've also heard the one about "follow the PM's advice." So how many consecutive times can the GG prorogue Parliament before she realizes how he's making a mockery of the parliamentary process. What if he doesn't get a majority in the next election? Can he recommend to the GG to dissolve Parliament again because it would clearly be dyfunctional?
Not that I am aware of.
Now answer my question: has the GG ever shut down the house against the will of the majority on the eve of a definite non-confidence vote? Or try this one: has the GG ever kept in office a PM who clearly does not have majority support in the House frustrating or delaying the recognition of a government in waiting which does clearly have majority support? Didn't think so.
And finally which questions and answers are the more important?
The Law Prof makes a distinction between requesting to temporarily suspend Parliament - with a set date to resume - and requesting to shut down Parliament altogether and get the GG to call an election. I got a very strong impression that the GG will be in a very strong position to say "No" to the PM, should he take this latter course of action, although other GGs, like Shreyer, take a different view and feel that the current GG could have and should have rebuffed Harper's "advice".
It should be said that Law professors, like lawyers in general, fill their heads with a variety of dangerous legal fictions. It's my view that that is the result of a legal "education" in this country. And I still think that what Harper has done is to do permanent harm to Canadian democracy by putting it into disrepute, confusing the public with a lot of demagogory, and so on. But, going just by the constitutional "past practices", perhaps the prof is right. Harper will get his comeuppance, if the coalition can stick together, in January.
ANd I hope to God that they blow him the fuck out of the water and send him whining back to Calgary, or Washington, where he can continue his grinch-like activities in the private sector, where he, in any case, belongs.
I have also been listening to alot of consitutional experts on the radio and reading their Q&As on line. The vast majority said agreeing to prorogue would be highly unusual but possible citing a dangerous precedence. They also said it would be unlikely to dissolve Parliament so close to the last election. Most stated she would allow the Coalition because that's part of the process, clearly written in the constitution.
One person said that all the GG has to ask is "Does the government have to confidence of the House of Commons?" If he answers "no" the choice is clear. If he answers "yes" he's lying or she should wonder why she had to cut her trip short.
Who woulda thunk?
ANd I hope to God that they blow him the fuck out of the water and send him whining back to Calgary, or Washington, where he can continue his grinch-like activities in the private sector, where he, in any case, belongs.
Interestingly, like a lot of neo-con charlatans, Harper has never worked in the private sector. He is an economist in name only, and with a nod to Galbraith, let me say that his economic forecasting has served to make astrology look respectable.
My opinion of her decision depends a lot on whether she put restrictions on Harper's government during the prorogation. I heard a lot of speculation on whether she would, but nothing since. Then I got to thinking, how would we know? Harper is our only source for what happened in the meeting, and he said he can't discuss it. If she put restrictions on him, makes his action look much worse, so he could just refuse to tell us. As long as he didn't try to make any appointments or exercise other restricted powers, how would we know?
Then again, from looking at the general public response, concern over the 2 month suspension of responsible government is definitely in the minority viewpoint. Apparrently after 141 years of having a government accountable to our elected representatives, we're ready for a "time out" to "cool down."
The third scenario is that she puts restrictions on him and he ignores them. How would we know? And how can she enforce those restrictions?
What's worse is that the subsequent performance of M. Dion was terrible... late for the immediate lobby scrum and leaving the impression that Harper can recover his confidence with a "monumental" change.
I'm sorry. I was giving Dion the benefit of the doubt because the mission of the Coalition is so right. But with Dion as leader I despair.
Someone please restore my hope.
Harper and Dion seem to be competing in all sorts of ways.
Who can behave most like an editorial cartoon version of himself? Advantage: none. Harper's trying to combine Scrooge and the Grinch into a new level of grouchy Christmas animosity. Dion's ongoing comic bumbling is beginning to make people wonder if, just perhaps, puffins do occasionally fly by and poop on him.
Who can shock the country by doing the most ostensibly undemocratic thing? Advantage: Dion, unfairly. While Dion's coalition may very well be political suicide for his party that leads to a Conservative majority, it's perfectly legitimate and democratic. Harper, on the other hand, is getting a free ride for governing in defiance of our democratic representatives.
Who can pose the greatest threat to the cohesion of the country? Advantage: Harper. Working with Québec's elected representatives, even those of sovereigntist leanings, actually turns out to be fairly constructive, compared to Harper's nation unity strategy of insulting them and calling them illegitimate.
Possibly the only time I'll ever agree with David Frum is when he described this situation as "competetive suicide."
At least some of the restrictions would relate to the PM's executive powers which run through the Governor General - appointments to the Senate and judiciary in particular. He needs to her to, literally, sign off on those things.
She made the decision to suspend the session, knowing she has to deliver a speech from the throne Jan. 26, and that the government could go under right after. She would not have granted a dissolution of parliament, and Harper knew it, so did not press for an election.
The GG had to make a call: was the coalition a solid bet? If yes, it will still be there in 6 weeks, can defeat the government, and ask to replace it. If not, and she had handed over power, and the coalition had fell into dispute, we were looking at another election right away.
The safe decision was to go for the cooling off, which could of course go the other way into a trench war, which I hope it will. Harper can not win the argument over democracy, and he has lost Quebec for his party. The biggest problem is that they will overthrow their leader and leave the coalition without a target.
At least some of the restrictions would relate to the PM's executive powers which run through the Governor General - appointments to the Senate and judiciary in particular. He needs to her to, literally, sign off on those things.
The GG had to make a call: was the coalition a solid bet? If yes, it will still be there in 6 weeks, can defeat the government, and ask to replace it. If not, and she had handed over power, and the coalition had fell into dispute, we were looking at another election right away.
The safe decision was to go for the cooling off, which could of course go the other way into a trench war, which I hope it will. Harper can not win the argument over democracy, and he has lost Quebec for his party. The biggest problem is that they will overthrow their leader and leave the coalition without a target.
I'm already sounding really pessimistic because we now know what Harper is capable of. Today, we're already hearing grumblings from within the Coalition and Harper is sure to take advantage. He's been known to bribe people to cross the floor so all he needs is about 19 members. Power seekers are finiky. The Liberals had the power in their grasp. The Conservatives are sure to easily sniff out the softies. Six weeks is a lot of time.
After following this mess quite closely I'd have to say I think the GG made another mistake, her second in just a couple of months.
She should not have granted Harper an election without proving he had lost the confidence of the house (being defeated) and she should not now allow him to run away from the house because he is afraid of that kind of defeat. In both cases I believe her decisions did not serve either Parliament or the Canadian people, just the Prime Minister.
This time Ed Shreyer got it right, nothing should have been done to help Harper evade the will of Parliament. I'd love to know what he thought about the earlier decision, but I didn't see anything on that.
The GG did a Awesome job today....God Bless and God Save the Queen!
Screw the Left Wingnuts and all you that Support the BQ!
Kiss me Arse! :)
I totally agree. It is sickening to hear harper talk about backroom deals as if it is something he disdains.
He is probably assessing liberal mp souls right now and finding the most corupt ones to buy.
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.
I am not sure that the GG's decision was wrong.
For one the support for the coalition publicly is tepid at best. Secondly the GG has an obligation to see that there is continuing governance and can consider future strains on the alliance. I think Dion's position at the helm off the coalition was a serious problem. There is no indication that dion could in fact keep it together or that there would not be a firestorm from Canadians about his leadership. Lastly, without a clear positive response on the issues I raised how does an unelected position like hers turn down an elected one in this context.
As for the previous decision, if a legal challenge could not stop the calling of an election, the GG could not have refused Harper's request for an election.
The main check on the PM's actions is political-- now we all have a lot of questions to ask of ourselves about how Harper's support could rise during this period and only answers to those questions should allow us to move forward.
One possibility is that dealing with the BQ has gotten more difficult with it perhaps completely unacceptable in the rest of Canada. That is a serious development as it certainly complicates management of the House and introduces considerable danger with respect to the unity of the country.
Certainly it is clear that dealing with the BQ with a weak leader who is already on the way out and who has been rejected by a majority of Canadians is too much.
For Dion I have some sympathy. In part he has made serious mistakes and has proven unfit in spite of being likely basically fair-minded. On the other hand, his character has also been assasinated from the start by a coordinated machine from Harper's office. Any other leader of a second party will get the same attempt be it NDP or Liberal.
The coalition has utterly failed to project a message that explains what it was trying to do and why. There may be many reasons for this but put bluntly, the coalition failed to secure the confidence of the people of Canada. This will come up again and this will need to be addressed. I think an ongoing education campaign is required and likely a good long quiet time before attempting anything new.
Unless the confidence of the people has been won, the coalition may be best backing off for now rather than deliver a massive majority to Harper as it is unlikely the GG will refuse an election within a couple months especially if the government can get a budget through but perhaps even there as well.
The GG's decision to prorogue as evidently released some of Harper's MPs onto this forum.
I think it is a daft decision. A signed agreement for a coalition for an agreed length of time versus suspend parliament in a time of economic disaster?
And Harper is not dealing with that problem at all.
And the whole equal pay for women roll back? I guess her gender is not a big deal for her. Perhaps harper shouted his orders at her and she got scared and had to obey?
Nope. I cannot comprehend it. If the coalition was just talk, fine. But it was a signed agreement. She have just prolonged this economic crisis and harper is turning it into a national us or quebec war.
Harper is dangerous. Make no mistake on that. He could yet lead us like milosovic into civil war. See the hate with which he spits out "socalist" and "separatist". The real harper is using the shock docterine to destroy canada and Jean is ok with it.
I think he is the canadian right wing version of hugo chavez. A wing nut with an enormous ego and totally self rightous. Totally focused on his power trip. To hell with everyone else. Harper wants power. Baby wants, baby gets. Wish there was a few Garth Turners left in the Con party to stop him.
But he got rid of anyone with any dissent in their character a long time ago.
She made the decision to suspend the session, knowing she has to deliver a speech from the throne Jan. 26, and that the government could go under right after. She would not have granted a dissolution of parliament, and Harper knew it, so did not press for an election.
The GG had to make a call: was the coalition a solid bet? If yes, it will still be there in 6 weeks, can defeat the government, and ask to replace it. If not, and she had handed over power, and the coalition had fell into dispute, we were looking at another election right away.
The safe decision was to go for the cooling off, which could of course go the other way into a trench war, which I hope it will. Harper can not win the argument over democracy, and he has lost Quebec for his party. The biggest problem is that they will overthrow their leader and leave the coalition without a target.
I looked in Hansard and found the text of the prorogation. There is a tiny sliver of good news there for precedent. Normally I believe prorogation is sine die and the recall of Parliament is up to the Prime Minister. In this case there is a specific date of recall built into the proclamation, in fact there are two proclamations, the recall proclamation is already issued.
Given the date we are looking at missing 2 weeks of sitting. In the future the precedent will be that a Prime Minister can use prorogation to stall for a short period of time (at least in terms of how Parliament counts time) not indefinitely.
The safe decision was to go for the cooling off, which could of course go the other way into a trench war, which I hope it will. Harper can not win the argument over democracy, and he has lost Quebec for his party. The biggest problem is that they will overthrow their leader and leave the coalition without a target.
The trench war may turn out to be within the Liberal party. The Conservatives may overthrow Harper, but it is far more likely the Liberals will overthrow Dion prior to Parliament reopening.
At least some of the restrictions would relate to the PM's executive powers which run through the Governor General - appointments to the Senate and judiciary in particular. He needs to her to, literally, sign off on those things.
I don't think he would bother. It's only a couple of months. It also weakens his democracy argument if he tries to appoint Senators; he wants elected Senators.
"By allowing a prime minister to shut down the House of Commons to duck a confidence vote, Jean has set a precedent that will trouble all those who care about the vigour of Canada's democratic life.
That life is less healthy as a result of her decision."
http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/548845
If anyone should resign, it's Jean.
Well, my reactionary side says that I hate Canadian politics cause when they’re not boring, they’re stupid. But interesting, if stupid, is more engaging, I’ll grant.
On the primary question of this thread I feel that the GG’s position was one of damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. And, sloppy knowledge of the law that I have, my guess is that arguments for precedent-setting, constitutionality, etc. versus "too interventionist", etc. will likely be pretty equal sparring partners. And I’m sure there’s lots of people that love to tease such things apart. More power to them.
There are two things I’ve not seen mentioned (and I apologize for not doing my homework by perusing other threads). First is the passing of last week’s Speech from the Throne. That was the obvious, and conventional, moment to challenge the government. I assume, perhaps incorrectly (though the 1985 Ontario govt “coalition”-lite might serve as a good precedent), that Harper would then have had to go before the GG and ask her to dissolve parliament to which she could have responded by asking if anybody else had the confidence of the house. This might have put unrealistic pressure on the opposition to form the coalition in short order. (And, given how shaky the thing is, perhaps it’s good that it has time to sort itself out better.) But the failure to challenge the government suggests strongly that the opposition, in typically Canadian-fashion, chose to play it safe, avoiding the risk of being blamed (which surely the Harper-Tories would have done) for calling a new election. A riskier course of action, admittedly. And all easy to say in hindsight.
The second thing is the role of the GG itself - which seems quaint and archaic to many, of course. I think it is a role and state relationship whose time is almost up. But, regardless of any power that the GG may have (symbolic or not), I suspect that it has served an important function in that it has excluded, in Canadian politics, any contest for head-of-state. Sure the PM acts like the head-of-state. And many, if not most, Canadians still think they vote for the PM despite that they cast a ballot only for their local MP; and despite that political campaigns are run as if we were all voting for a head of state. But that is not how our system works. And , perhaps the thing that I find most discouraging in all this is how poorly Canadians (and I include a lot of Tory MPs in this) understand our own system of democracy.
I may not like that Harper is using the prorogue maneuver but if it’s in the rules then, like it or not, it’s part of our democratic process. I do believe that Harper’s intention is, in fact, anti-democratic (not to mention cowardly, bullying, - and hateful when it comes to how Quebec is demonized,- etc.). But to fault him for using a rule that is available to be used sounds like whining to me. If we don’t like the rule we should change it. As well as all sorts of other rules we don’t like (can anyone say PR?). Nor, by the same reasoning, is a coalition anti-democratic, as I’ve heard so many saying. I would have liked the GG to have decided differently. But, with due respect to the economic crisis, I can see some value in having time for the coalition to pull its act together. And, maybe someday Canada will be a republic. Or maybe we can revisit what a con-federation could be in the 21st Century. Meanwhile, I think the GG, in following the safer course, may have preserved stability for her office – one that continues to serve an important function as a placeholder that prevents a form of politics that, I think, might long since have made us a “51st state”.
...I don't think he would bother. It's only a couple of months. It also weakens his democracy argument if he tries to appoint Senators; he wants elected Senators.
I don't think so either, but you never know. Harper has been known to enact what he was previously said he was against - remember he bribed Emerson to cross the floor, and Fortier wasn't even elected.
But aside from just appointing Senators, we were discussing what else Harper could do that would be breaking any restrictions of his prorogation? Since nobody knows what was said in their meeting nothing is verifyable or enforceable.
Do we know that Harper asked to prorogue?
We think so because that is what he said he would do but what were they talking about. Perhaps he went in asking for an election and got this instead as a compromise that might allow the coalition in 7 weeks. With the PM asking for dissolution, the GG may have had less option in agreeing to this.
It is possible that Harper at the last minute decided to look for dissolution with some polls in his back pocket egging him on-- and it is possible he could ahve done that as a strategy. It is also possible that he proposed a showdown over her job-- but something took the time they were in there as they are not friends.
We'll have to wait for her memoires won't we?
I know it would be unprecedented, but I think that deciding to overturn 140 odd years of responsible government behooves an explanation by the GG for the Canadian people.
We can expect Harper to push the envelope as far as he possibly can. Until electoral reform enters in to this discourse, Harper will maintain the upper hand in the public relations war. To the extent that first past the post does not produce legitimate governments and representation for the majority, none of the options are truly legitimate. For one, the 6.5% who voted Green in the last election get no representation either way.
One of the biggest dangers I see is that by positioning coalitions as undemocratic, illegitimate and "un-Canadian", they are poisoning the well for proportional representation before the debate even begins.
I sent this short comment to a couple of newspapers' letters editors, but they didn't publish it - surprise!
The other day, the Tory caucus broke into a rendition of "O Canada". I was reminded of Samuel Johnson's comment that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
I guess the headline now should be: "Governor-General Pro Rogues"
Given the date we are looking at missing 2 weeks of sitting. In the future the precedent will be that a Prime Minister can use prorogation to stall for a short period of time (at least in terms of how Parliament counts time) not indefinitely.
That is the limitation on Jean being "pro rogue", if she can be considered to be at all. She will be if she allows a repetition in similar circumstances in January, but the circumstances won't be similar and Harper would just ask for dissolution either before or after a VONC. Whether she is theoretically right or not, she may have saved the opposition parties from themselves, especially if she would have acceded to a request to dissolve parliament (we won't know that until at least January).
It may be seen in hindsight as the right decision practically if not theoretically. Certainly it is a popular decision amongst Canadians generally.
Hillarious. Valpy, who yesterday wrote that a precedent is not a precedent, continues flacking the Jean PR offensive by claiming that not having the confidence of Parliament is having the confidence of Parliament:
"Ms. Jean made clear to the Prime Minister that she was not a rubber stamp for his request to shut down Parliament until late January; that it was within her constitutional discretionary power to turn him down.
Constitutional expert Peter Russell, who has met the Governor-General several times, said Friday she has a forceful personality and would not have been intimidated by the Prime Minister. “There is no doubt at all about that,” he said.
. . . .
Prof. Russell told the law school symposium: “She has to have ministers who can govern with the confidence of Parliament. It [prorogation] was a very tough judgment call and, God bless her, she has the best interests of Parliament and the country at heart.”"
http://tinyurl.com/6nwyxp
Last night I cooked Perogies for dinner for us and the kids. I followed it by a Banana soufflé to celebrate our status as an official banana republic.
I too read the Valpy article yesterday. I was particularly struck by one phrase in the following opening sentence "In her historic meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Governor-General Michaëlle Jean discussed Canada's economic situation, the viability of an alternative coalition government and the mood of Parliament.". They discussed "the viability of an alternative coalition government". Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, but isn't that like letting the fox guard the chicken coop? What do we think the PM's advice or opinion was on the viablity of an alternative coalition government? I'm also not a constitutional expert, although I've read the constitution, but should the GG not have asked the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for advice as well? Isn't he and his shadow cabinet there as a government in waiting?
What do I think of the GG's decision? I'm against the decision but not simply because it allowed the PM and the conservatives to avoid their responsibility to the people of Canada through a vote of confidence in the House. I'm against her decision because she did not take the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. I believe she should have at least met with the leader and then made her decision. When the Frank Miller government in Ontario lost a vote of confidence in 1985, shortly after the election, the Lieutenant-Governor allowed the Liberals through an accord with the NDP to governor. They governed for 2 years.
So, I've sent a letter, by snail-mail, asking the GG to resign as I believe she failed to seek the opinions of others before accepting the PM's.
This is disappointing, the Governor General should have assesed the situation more meticuously before proroguing parliament. It was not in the country's best interest for such a move especially in times of economic woes, we need a functioning governement as we speak. We had a coalition, constituting 62% of the Canadian vote that seems stable and Harper did not hit base on the issue of the economy. Instead, GG decides to grant Harper's request which is simply outrageous, I mean if it wasn't for the stirred outrage of the opposition we're looking at a man who did not even have the economy at the top of his agenda. Sure come the end of January, he's going to prepare a minimal stimulus package proposal that will not be sufficient. He will claim he is trying to appease opposition and will continually mock Canadian governance with the silly antics of right-wing politics. I just can't stand Harper and his cronies, and I mean Jim Flaherty is just a complete joke.
Closing for length