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

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.

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.

"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".

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.

 

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.

contrarianna wrote:

martin dufresne wrote:

 ..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"? 

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.

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?

 

 

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.

George Victor wrote:

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.

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.

 

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'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'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?

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. 

N.Beltov wrote:

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.

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?

tostig wrote:

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?

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.

Draco wrote:

...

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'm sure he'll think of ways around those too.  If he tries to appoint senators and she refuses, he can start a publicity campaign against her stating ... (what else?)... the appointed GG is refusing the decision of the democratically elected PM.

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.

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.  

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

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.

The GG's decision to prorogue as evidently released some of Harper's MPs onto this forum.

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.

tostig wrote:

Draco wrote:

...

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'm sure he'll think of ways around those too.  If he tries to appoint senators and she refuses, he can start a publicity campaign against her stating ... (what else?)... the appointed GG is refusing the decision of the democratically elected PM.

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.

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”.

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?