Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

If all else fails, call the Queen

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:25am - 0 Comments

So perhaps, as reported in Lawrence Martin’s new book, the Prime Minister contemplated the possibility of appealing in some way to the Queen in the event that the Governor General refused his request for prorogation in December 2008.

While the source of that claim says the information he offered was “torqued,” the Prime Minister’s Office is going after the author’s credibility.

Tags: coalition, coalition government, Michaëlle Jean, prorogation, Prorogue, Queen Elizabeth, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com doug_rogers

"It doesn't have to be true, it just has to be plausible."

Mike R

In this case it's neither.

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com doug_rogers

So, Kory Teneyke is an unreliable reporter and John Baird is talking out of his hat?

MostlyCivil

"When contacted, Mr. Teneycke declined comment."

Thought that was an Onion story for a moment…
tobyornotoby

" the Prime Minister’s Office is going after the author’s credibility."

There must be something to this then.
Standing By

So once the Queen refused to save his sorry ass, what was Harper's next move?

Call in the troops to keep Parliament from meeting?

LynnTO

He could try, but the GG could overrule him on that, being the commander-in-chief of the armed forces as she was at the time.

Mike T.

Any other PM in history – I would scoff at the idea.

This one? Maybe.
Emily

Did he tell the GG if she didn't give him what he wanted, he'd call her boss?

I can see that when all this is over with, we are going to have to write down, and pass as law, a great many actions and procedures that heretofore have been conventions, traditions and gentlemen's agreements….so this kind of political mayhem never happens again.

NorthernPoV

sure, just like the USA fixed their clusterf**ked system after Gore won in 2000.

Emily

I hope we do better than that. Sigh.

Kevin

They have set the bar rather low, haven't they.

Emily

Yeah….at 'anything goes'.

BCer in Mtl

"OK enough of this . . . . I demand to speak to your supervisor!"

(Taken from the prorogation help line, which records calls to monitor quality)

John W.

Although Harper watchers surmised most of this, it still has to make one increasingly fearful of what could happen in this country if Harper ever gets a majority. I would like to hear from Wells on this book.
Style

I don't know if they had any intention to go directly to the Queen, and they should have known our GG would consult with the Queen if appropriate, but rather than seeking to over-rule M. Jean, they could have replaced her.

Throughout the crisis, Kerr did not tell Whitlam of his increasing concerns, nor did he suggest that he might dismiss Whitlam. He believed nothing he said would influence Whitlam, and feared that if Whitlam perceived him as a possible opponent, the Prime Minister would procure his dismissal from the Queen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitut…
Cats

"No polls show a Conservative lead"

Whoa! You're still hanging about ? After being called out ? You haven't been severely chastened ?

Another poll came out today showing a CPC lead..

Cats away!

Emily

Go play in your litter box.

Cats

No retraction ?

You just make one of a series of factually incorrect statements, ignore it, move on and pretend to have any credibility left ?

Time to own up to some of your errors. You've been called out and severely chastened. The fact that you are unaware of your shame is even more shameful.

Cats away!

Richard_S_Argent

If there's one thing the steroid saga in baseball has taught me it's this: the guilty will always attack their accuser, and not the charges.

I'm guessing the PMO doesn't want the image of Harper going to the principal when the teacher punished him. (not a perfect analogy I know, but you get the idea)
Style

She serves at the PM's pleasure.

Emily

Then we don't need a GG.
madeyoulook

While more or less true, is it not more correct to state that she serves at the pleasure of Her Majesty, on advice of the prime minister…?

Mike R

Yes, but subject to the proviso that no governor general has been dismissed by a PM – even when, as in the "King-Byng Affair", the PM may have wished to do so. It seems pretty unlikely that any PM would even contemplate the proposal (short of a GG going completely bonkers and being unable to function – and even then, as when Governor General Leger was ill, there is a work-around.
The story is simply idle speculation – but, no doubt, comforts those who see Mr. Harper as the source of all evil in the world.

tobyornotoby

My impression is that Mr. Harper doesn't mind that we think he is an evil genius as long as we believe he's a genius.

wellwell

WRONG! Once again, Style over substance.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Well, the PMO is flat-out denying it. And a "journalist" who happens to be a liberal ideologue would be more likely to engage in a biased attack, wouldn't they?

gottabesaid

I must have gotten a different report than you… I didn't hear a denial, just a statement that folks should take Martin and his book with a grain of salt. Simply saying that someone is an ideologue doesn't answer whether what the ideologue has stated happens to be fact.

LynnTO

There was a follow-up…Wherry's posted it in another blog entry.

With that being said, I don't much care one way or another if they did consider asking the Queen. Someone should have by now figured out that we need a process by which to address disagreements between the head of state (er, de facto head of state) and the head of government.

And by that I mean, a process better than a political stare-down.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I think the power of the GG is being exaggerated. There was one instance in the history of this country where a PM didn't get their way shortly after an election. Otherwise, GG's do pretty much as they're told.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/09…

craigola

"And a "journalist" who happens to be a liberal ideologue would be more likely to engage in a biased attack, wouldn't they?"

Heh. Martin is more likely than the PMO to engage in a biased attack? Which do you think makes your argument stronger, the quotation marks around the word journalist, or your assumption about that journalist, based on a description of him that comes courtesy of people who ARE likely to engage in a biased attack?

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

You are making a false premise: That I'm basing my own characterization of Martin on the PMO's. No. I'm basing it on years of Martin's public comments and writings.

In fact, the PMO has called him and Graves big-L Liberals. I call them small-l liberal ideologues. It's their biased views of the world that is so concerning to me. Whether or not they actually support the Liberal party is another matter.

craigola

Again, with your assumptions, D_F. When I said, "based on a description of him that comes courtesy of people who ARE likely to engage in a biased attack," what made you think I was talking about the PMO? Couldn't I have been talking about you?

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I'm sorry, since your wording was rather convoluted. I think what you're now saying is that I'm more likely to engage in a biased attack than Lawrence Martin? Is that right? Well, I didn't write a book that suggest Harper is primarily driven by hatred for his opponents, did I? I don't hide my political leanings, do I?

Patchouli

It's important to note that Lawrence Martin is quoting Conservative-friendly people, not people who hate Conservatives. Tom Flanagan, Kory Teneyke, David Emerson — they are most certainly not Liberal idealogues.

PMO is lying. Period.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Yes, HE is quoting conservatives, and it's unclear if he's doing it accurately, in context, or with all the facts at hand. But you go on making your own torqued accusation against governments you resent. I'll suggest that it doesn't bode well for you own credibility, either.

gottabesaid

Personally, I'd like to hear from those folks who were quoted in the book as to whether their views were mischaracterized or misconstrued.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Well, the PMO is being accused of wanting to go to the Queen to settle the coalition standoff, and the PMO is flatly denying it. So, at the very least, Martin appears to be relying on second-hand sources. If he isn't, then you have your answer.
LynnTO

Maybe I missed something, but I thought the entire discussion was about whether or not people in the PMO thought about going to the Queen if a dispute between the GG and the PM reached an impasse.

That's not an accusation of wanting, and even if it were, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Why not consider it? Ned Franks (as an example) seemed rather convinced it wouldn't have worked if it had been tried, but I really don't understand why we're making hay about what people "thought" of doing.

Sidebar: I find it mildly odd that you used the word "torqued" above. It's not the most frequent term I've heard to describe language that may or may not be completely verbatim, and I've seen it used twice today.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

The problem that some might have with being described as having thought about going to the Queen is, wait for it, maybe it didn't happen.

Patchouli

I think the Cons he has quoted can speak up for themselves, don't you?

This guy is a respected journalist, not Kittey Kelly.

You must get so tired defending the PMO. Have they really never done anything you wouldn't apologize for?

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

He's had a hard-on for the Harper government for years now. This latest attack book is the most recent example.

Why aren't people allowed to oppose the left-wing in this country?

Mike R

I don't think either one of them said anything of the sort, but there was a lot of nonsensical talk at the time of the "coalition prorogation" – if anyone talked about going to the Queen it would have been that type of idle chatter – obviously not a plan of the government, since it would, so obviously, have been pointless.

Still, it does make one reminisce about how excited everyone got about that whole episode doesn't it?
Mike R

That reference was likely to Governor General Hollingworth who resigned after public criticism of his failure to prevent child abuse while Archbishop of Brisbane. He wasn't openly facing dismissal, however, since Prime Minister Howard was still publicly supporting him.
The Queen could act to remove a Governor General who was incapable of acting for health reasons, or who had some personal scandal, on the advice of the PM. But the suggestion the PM would have gone to the Queen in dudgeon over a refusal of prorogation is withouth any foundation that I've seen. It would have been a bizarre and futile thing to do.

James Connors

It would have been a bizarre and futile thing to do.

Which pretty much defines Harper as Prime Minister, would you not agree?
Style

Yeah, it seems very unlikely. The only basis is the speculation of GG Kerr during the dismissal crisis in Australia.

LynnTO

When people tack on the word "sympathizer" to party terms and affiliations, it makes me think that someone out there is considering starting up a Commission to investigate Un-"Canadian" activities.
Reverend_Blair

What did Harper think the Queen was going to do for him? I think she'd likely say something along the lines of, "Get back to work, fat boy. We are not amused."

I have no doubt that he would have gone to the Queen…John Baird mumbled about doing that too…but I doubt she would have interfered.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Kind of like how many posters on here bash Cosh, Levant, and various others who write for the Post and Sun, eh?

Personally, I don't think there's any doubt that Lawrence Martin is a liberal ideologue, just like Frank Graves of Ekos polling is. The difference appears to be that conservatives aren't nearly as reluctant to tell people where they personally stand on the issues, or what agenda they bring to the table.
gottabesaid

I'm not sure if this is a big deal whether it's true or not… I do wish, however, the PMO could give a straight answer, like 'Yes, this or true,' or 'No, this isn't true,' instead of a non-answer like 'the book should be read through the prism of Mr. Martin being a big-L Liberal sympathizer and columnist.' Just answer the damn question.
NorthernPoV

yer so far into right-wing fantasy land man, you think "firmly in the center" is left wing

no – left wing is the TYEE or Rick Salutin.

center of the road is simply way to the left of you – and firmly based in reality
gottabesaid

Whether or not Martin is a liberal ideologue or not… it would have been nice to get an answer to the question, don't you think?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

No. In fact, this is exactly what I'm talking about: liberals who want to pretend they're fair and objective, but who obviously have an ideological axe to grind. I'm not saying Lawrence is a far left-winger like those who you mentioned, but at least the latter come out with who they are. Martin and Graves don't.
auntie_em_m

Harper would have suffered another in a series of rejections.
This Queen Mum likes Chretien better than him anyway. ;0)
Reverend_Blair

The answer is that it is true. Baird said on Don Newman that they were willing to go over the heads of Parliament and over the head of the GG. That's what prompted Martin to ask this question in the first place.

The GG would have known the threat going in, so whether Harper explicitly made it during their two hour meeting is a moot point. What we don't know is what part that threat made in her considerations.
BGLong

I won't address that idiotic "far left winger" nonsense but you will be happy to know
that the seat Gwynne Dyer has been holding beside him in the land of the disappeared
is about to be filled by good ol' Rick. So it goes.
Jenn_

If I were the GG, that 'threat' alone would make me really, really want to turn him down, regardless of the other considerations that would go into such a decision. Michaelle Jean gets renewed respect from me for rising above what for me would have been an almost overwhelming desire to see him make such a monumental, international cake of himself, and instead she did the right thing for the country.
Mike R

He obviously meant they would appeal to public opinion, not that they would try to drag the Queen into the matter.
frobisher

Baird did say "they were willing to go over the heads of Parliament and over the head of the GG". But he also said "to the people". Weasel words or motherhood statement, who knows? The tape, as has been disinterred, makes no direct reference to "The Queen", does it? That said, the 'fellow traveller'-type comments towards Martin are both maladroit and distasteful. It would seem there is a concerted and disquieting demonization and systematic delegitimization of unfavoured pressniks occurring.
Mike R

There is no "threat", because in constitutional terms there would be no way in which the Queen would intervene in this matter. The Prime Minister and his advisors would be well aware of that, and had no need, in any event, to consider that type of action. The PM and the GG both actied in accordance with precedent and the constitution and while it may sell more books to try and make the story more apocalpytic than it was, it seems to be unnecessarily gilding the lily. The story is interesting enough without this.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I won't address that idiotic "far left winger" nonsense

That's your characterization, and you won't address it because you obviously can't do it intelligently. Then you have the gall to characterize others as "idiotic". Honestly, some posters make me laugh with their unfounded arrogance.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

What question? Why can't I point out that I think Lawrence Martin is a liberal ideologue? I think it is directly relevant to LynnTO's post that I was addressing.
Pat

How can someone "intelligently" address a figment of your imagination?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

By exposing it as such instead of farting about it. Next.
Pat

Dennis

You are imagining a bias. It does not make any sense. It is also not particularly intelligent to demand someone prove you are wrong about something. If you really think you are proving something by simply stating it to be true, there is no reason to discuss this any further, as it is clear you are the one incapable of addressing the issue honestly. In short Dennis, you have proven my point.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I have made numerous comments on the topic. You are more than welcome to do more than fart on them. If you can't, then why even post about it? You're just proving your own ignorance and desire to shut people up who disagree with you.