That was me. Actually, I was thinking “proroguing for a whole year” as my “things could get worse” scenario, but firing Jean would be a LOT worse. Like, a million times worse.
However, all indications are that he meant proroguation. Jean is near-certain to allow proroguation until the budget is tabled in January. That is certainly Harper’s plan.
If he tried to fire her I would drive to Ottawa and join in the protest march on Parliament.
I’ll pick you up on my way through.
Good. My car’s in awful shape. Is yours big enough to hold my “HARPER SUCKS” and “RESIGN, ALL OF YOU” signs?
How is it Harper’s right to fire Jean? It’s actually the other way around, in a crisis at least. If Harper officially asks for a prorogation and Jean refuses, I think Harper would have no choice but to resign on the spot. If the Crown won’t even follow the Prime Minister’s advice, the Prime Minister has lost all constitutional legitimacy.
This is why I believe Harper will unofficially ask Jean for her opinion on a prorogation before officially asking for one. But I haven’t been following the most recent developments, so maybe I’m off on this.
It’s not precisely clear how exactly this works, but, technically, I think he can fire her. Of course, he’d then have about as much a chance of ever commanding Parliament as does Glenn Quagmire, but it is possible.
If the Prime Minister requests Her Majesty that the Governor General be removed, she has little choice but to do so.
If this suggests to you that our Constitution is, perhaps, not exactly perfectly designed, you’re right.
I’ll meet you guys at the Honest Lawyer - we can practice lining the interns up before we move onto the Hill.
I would have no problem if after the election and we have the same seat distribution with the GG asking the coalition to form the government rather than the Tories.
I’m not quite sure what this means, but I am interested, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
It looks like Harper is going to ask to suspend Parliament tomorrow morning (Thursday) at 9:30 EST.
link
If the GG says “yes”, I feel that this would be a terrible precedent to set. Imagine - in the future, any time a prime minister thinks he’ll be facing a non-confidence vote that will bring the government down, he can just suspend parliament. What happens next time? Suspend it for a year? I don’t like this. It stinks.
Harper is going to visit the Governor General in the morning to ask that Parliament be prorogued.
He is doing the constitutional version of sticking his fingers in his ears, closing his eyes, and shouting “Lalalalalalalalalalalalala” to this crisis, hoping it will all go away by the time he opens his eyes & ears again.
RickJay would you have a link to this article. I believe this is quite different to the Australian situation in 1975. The then Governor-General of Australia was John Kerr who was appointed by the Whitlam Labor government, which he ultimately ended up dismissing to appoint Malcolm Fraser as caretaker PM of a Liberal(conservative)-National Country Party coalition. The coalition held the majority in the senate and had been defering supply bills that apropriated funds for government expenditure. I do not believe that Prime Minister Gough Whitlam ever asked Her Majesty to dismiss the Governor-General.
Agreed 100%, however some might argue that PR enables undesirables(BQ) to gain a voice in politics.:rolleyes:
Another side effect on this little brouhaha, is that the PQ may increase its number of seats and maybe even win Monday’s election. To the point that, yesterday, Premier Charest has asked the ROC to stop the (perceived) Quebec bashing.
It’s from the Globe and Mail from a few days ago. Here it is.
Has anything remotely like this been proposed since the King-Byng Affair? Would she dare say no to a democratically elected Prime Minister? I wonder what the consequence to the Monarchy’s role in Canada would be - I’ve not always been all that comfortable with it, and this would, I guess, be an appointee deciding the future of the country. Then again, I suppose you could argue that if she “sides” with the majority in parliament, she’s reflecting the will of the electorate…?
Given the attention Canadian politics is getting these days around here, its fairly clear that Canadians are struggling with the issue of who should lead the country. We still have laws that the GG has to follow, and the clear head of a carefully chosen appointee will provide a constitutional path out of this crisis.
As far as bringing up the distinction that she is an appointee, her role in determining who will lead the country will be much less invasive and more constitutionally valid than the appointed Supreme Court role in the US back in 2000.
Thanks Kid_A, I contend there is no precedent for dismissing the Governor-General. And, if there is any precedent set by the Australian situation in 1975 that it would be for the removal of the PM and putting a place a caretaker coalition government.
Well, CBC is reporting that the Governor General has acceded to the Prime Minister’s request for prorogation.
I’m disappointed. It’s her call to make but it was irresponsible for him to place her in this position.
To quote former Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam “Well may we say “God save the Queen” because nothing will save the Governor-General.”
I see why she did it, and I respect that. I can see a really good argument for not allowing a person appointed to a position to refuse the request of the PM.
However, I can’t believe our country has come to this. Our government has been suspended because they were about to make a call the PM didn’t like. I realize I’m veering towards hyperbole, but this is just a little bit tyrannical and dictatorial.