This is Michaëlle Jean, the Governor General of Canada. She acts as Canada's Head of State. The Prime Minister is the head of government.1 Sometime in the next few days Michaëlle Jean is going to have to make some serious decisions. She will have to decide whether to invite the Liberal-NDP coalition to form a new government if Stephen Harper and his Conservatives lose a vote of non-confidence next Monday. I think that's a no-brainer—she has to turn to the coalition.More importantly, what will she do if Stephen Harper asks her to delay parliament for six weeks (the technical term is prorogue)? Everyone knows that Harper will only do this in order to avoid the non-confidence motion scheduled for Monday. That has never been done before and it is contrary to the standards of a parliamentary democracy. However, it is also important that the Governor General not put herself in the position of second guessing the advice of the Prime Minister. In my opinion, she will have to accept his request to prorogue parliament because to do otherwise is to set a dangerous precedent. The Governor General, like the Queen she represents, is a figurehead and not an active participant in government.
Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and Harper won't abuse his position by requesting that parliament be suspended. Harper brought this problem upon himself by acting like a petulant, childish, bully and it's time for him to accept his fate and behave like an adult. That goes for his supporters as well.
Grow up Conservatives. You were stupid enough to force the opposition into a corner where they had only two choices, surrender and die, or unite against an unethical minority government. Much to your surprise, they were able to unite and now you must suffer the consequences of your own stupid mistake. Accept it with grace and dignity and stop acting like crybabies [Canadian Cynic].
1. America is one of the few democracies that combine these two jobs.
For all the yammer from certain quarters that what the Coalition is doing is undemocratic, proroguing Parliament is about the least democratic (and most irresponsible) thing any of the players could do at the moment (I mean Harper of course: I agree that the GG has little choice if he asks).
ReplyDeleteGeorge in Oregon
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The USA does combine the head of state and the head of government. We combine the head of the executive branch of government and the head of state.
Our branches are quite separate and there is no head to the whole shebang.
Wait we are the headless horsemen, maybe that explains a few things.
Did you really need to call all Conservatives crybabies, and tell all conservatives to grow up?
ReplyDeleteThis is why I stopped reading Canadian Cynic. He is an asshole (even if I do agree with he most of the time), and he contributes nothing to politics.
I would hate to see you walk down the same path Larry. Intelligent discussion does not resort to name calling.
"Harper brought this problem upon himself by acting like a petulant, childish, bully and it's time for him to accept his fate and behave like an adult."
ReplyDeleteHe won't. He'll act like himself; a childish bully.
anonymous says,
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The USA does combine the head of state and the head of government. We combine the head of the executive branch of government and the head of state.
Sorry. I forgot mu US Constitution.
The President is the head of the executive branch of government which is completely separate from the legislative branch according to the Constitution.
That's why the President never proposes laws and never runs on promises that he will change things in Washington. His only job is to carry out the wishes of Congress. Right?
If you believe that then I'd like to talk to you about a bridge I have for sale in New York City. It's a very pretty bridge.
Phil says,
ReplyDeleteDid you really need to call all Conservatives crybabies, and tell all conservatives to grow up?
Yes, it appears that I do. Unless, of course, you can point me to some prominent Conservatives who have spoken out against Harper and who dare to disagree with the Conservative talking points.
Would it even be legal for Harper to prorogue Parliament if his government has lost confidence? The following is a quote from the Globe:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081201.WBSteele20081201135401/WBStory/WBSteele/
To be legal, an Order-in-Council in Canada requires the approval of the federal Cabinet and the assent of the Queen's representative, the Governor General.
Typically, such assent is a formality. The government has the confidence of Parliament and the Governor General is simply a figurehead.
But what if the government demonstrably does not have the support of Parliament?
What if the Governor General has received a letter signed by a majority of the MPs in the Commons stating they have lost confidence in the government?
Would the Governor General then grant prorogation on the basis of the government's authority?
Or would the Governor General demand that the government first test its confidence in the Commons before it may exercise its privilege to order prorogation?
This, it strikes me, is the fundamental question facing the federal government.
I agree with Fred. The GG's role is to support the requests of parliament, not the PM per se. If there is unambiguous indication that the majority of parliament wants to hold the vote, then it's her obligation to allow it.
ReplyDeleteT Ryan Gregory says,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Fred. The GG's role is to support the requests of parliament, not the PM per se. If there is unambiguous indication that the majority of parliament wants to hold the vote, then it's her obligation to allow it.
It is reasonable to re-interpret the tradition in order to incorporate the idea that it's the will of the House and not of the Prime Minister that should take precedence. However, we risk sliding down a slippery slope if we allow the Governor General that discretion.
I don't want the Governor General to play politics. It should not be up to her to decide whether a request for proroguing parliament is good or bad.
The best solution is for some adults to explain to Stephen Harper why he should not make the request. I don't think he's going to listen.
The second best option is for the Governor General to call for a meeting with all four party leaders and ask their collective opinion on whether parliament should be prorogued. She could use the expected answer (3 no, 1 yes) as an excuse not to receive a request from the Prime Minister.
The second best option is for the Governor General to call for a meeting with all four party leaders and ask their collective opinion on whether parliament should be prorogued. She could use the expected answer (3 no, 1 yes) as an excuse not to receive a request from the Prime Minister.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this.
...will of the House and not of the Prime Minister
ReplyDeleteExplain again about the role of the Prime Minister, as defined in the Canadian constitution?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteExplain again about the role of the Prime Minister, as defined in the Canadian constitution?
An interesting read about it...
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/prime-minister-cabinet-canada
It seems the role was not defined in the original Canadian constitution.
http://198.103.98.49/en/const/c1867_e.html
Looks like the slimy weasel has gotten away with it. I always thought there was a certain irony to the term "pro-rogue". Now it's confirmed.
ReplyDelete