An interesting headline I stumbled upon at The Hill Times today (so much so that I actually purchase the week’s electronic edition to read the whole article). Basically, it’s an editorial that argues that given the unique circumstances of the last few years, it should in fact be Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada, who should decide whether the current vice-regal term should now come to its end or be extended.
The rationale for this statement is the fact that twice during the last two years, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister of Canada, has placed Her Excellency in very constitutionally-tenuous positions. Normally the Governor General’s constitutional role is straight-forward enough, when the requests that are made of Her Excellency are routine and uncomplicated. The prime minister’s recent requests, unfortunately, have been anything but “routine and uncomplicated”.
In December of 2008, the prime minister asked the Governor General to break with tradition and grant a prorogation, even though there was a question of confidence left unanswered before the House of Commons — previous vice-regal precedents indicated that there were grounds to refuse such a request. In December of the next year, a prorogation was again requested (this time over the phone, again breaking with the tradition of courtesy between the Governor General and prime minister), this time for the clear purpose of interrupting the work of a House of Commons committee.
The Governor General has travelled our murky constitutional waters admirably, and has come to understand her constitutional role much better than many of our past governors general have ever had occasion to. For the prime minister to replace Her Excellency now, when another minority Government is very likely in the near future, would be a mistake. It would make sense for us to keep a seasoned Governor General in Rideau Hall, at least until after the next general election — one who knows how to handle the further exceptional constitutional circumstances that are sure to crop up until we have some stability in the House of Commons.
Source:
The rationale for this statement is the fact that twice during the last two years, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister of Canada, has placed Her Excellency in very constitutionally-tenuous positions. Normally the Governor General’s constitutional role is straight-forward enough, when the requests that are made of Her Excellency are routine and uncomplicated. The prime minister’s recent requests, unfortunately, have been anything but “routine and uncomplicated”.
In December of 2008, the prime minister asked the Governor General to break with tradition and grant a prorogation, even though there was a question of confidence left unanswered before the House of Commons — previous vice-regal precedents indicated that there were grounds to refuse such a request. In December of the next year, a prorogation was again requested (this time over the phone, again breaking with the tradition of courtesy between the Governor General and prime minister), this time for the clear purpose of interrupting the work of a House of Commons committee.
The Governor General has travelled our murky constitutional waters admirably, and has come to understand her constitutional role much better than many of our past governors general have ever had occasion to. For the prime minister to replace Her Excellency now, when another minority Government is very likely in the near future, would be a mistake. It would make sense for us to keep a seasoned Governor General in Rideau Hall, at least until after the next general election — one who knows how to handle the further exceptional constitutional circumstances that are sure to crop up until we have some stability in the House of Commons.
Source: