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

Another piece of the puzzle

by Aaron Wherry on Sunday, October 3, 2010 9:30am - 0 Comments

Peter Russell discloses another consideration within Rideau Hall that December day.

In fact, though, Jean did believe there was a Plan B and that it did involve going over the head of the governor general — not to the Queen, but to the Canadian people, as loyal Harper cabinet minister John Baird had warned in a CBC-TV interview. Plan B, Jean and her constitutional advisers believed, would involve a direct, public-relations assault on the legitimacy of the governor general and her decision. That, and not an appeal to the Queen, was far more concerning to Jean on Dec. 4, 2008.

Tags: coalition, coalition government, Governor General, John Baird, Michaëlle Jean, Peter Russell, prorogation, Prorogue, Rideau, Rideau Hall, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

…

I have no doubt, it would have been an 'assault'.
I remember that interview with Newman. Good try Baird, way to not know how things work.

Blacktop

More nonsense.

LaxAtlDfwYow

I certainly hope the principals and I live long enough for the historians to write the full story. Russell's tidbits are seductive but only a single perspective and certainly incomplete.

Still, what Russell is saying is completely plausible. I doubt that PMSH would have directly threatened or even hinted to the GG of such a public attack. However, by sending Baird out to do just that, there's no doubt that Rideau Hall got the message.

So, any guesses who'll be the first to come out with a book on the whole affair?

Reverend_Blair

I'd like to see Jean come out with a book on the whole affair, although I doubt she will.

My guess is that it will be a political aide from the PMO, and that it won't show the Harper regime in a good light at all.

cam

A lot of us in Ottawa saw this coming if Jean didnt grant Harper a prorogation.

Harper was willing to lead the overthrow of the monarchy in Canada if it meant he could cling onto power for another 18 months.

Blacktop

Being in Ottawa does not grant you any special vision, but clouds it.

burlivespipe

Tinfoil apparently clouds yours. Make sure you get your mechanic to change it every 40,000 km…

LaxAtlDfwYow

Assuming that Jean did indeed fear a public assault on the legitimacy of the GG's office (in the case where she denied PMSH's request), then by granting a request did she damage or strengthen the office?

Gayle

I don't think she hurt the office. The problem was with Harper abusing his authority, not with the GG acceding to his request.

sourstud

How, exactly, did Stephen Harper abuse his authority? He's certainly not the first PM to request prorogation, nor the first to do so for political convenience.

It was the opposition who put the GG in a tough spot by suggesting Harper's request for prorogation was anything but routine.

Mike T.

AS far as I know he is the first one to request a prorogation to avoid a confidence vote which would have unseated him – which quite obviously puts it another category from any prorogation that went before.

sourstud

Jean Chretien used prorogation to avoid comittee hearings in exactly the same way. And Harper didn't AVOID any confidence vote, he simply delayed it but the spineless opposition had already caved at that point. And it could just as easily be argued that he simply wanted to save the Canadian people from having a second election in 2 months because the Liberals were throwing a hissy fit because they were going to lose their precious subsidy.

And if everybody really thinks that coalitions are so legitimate and wonderful, why won't Iggy embrace the idea? It is, after all, the only way he has any chance of getting into government. But he knows that the population thinks the idea is completely disgusting, and thats why he will have nothing of it.
Mike T.

There is simply no equivalence between Chretien's pro-rogue and Harpers.

Anyone who says otherwise is selling snake oil.
brooster

As I recall, he also needed time to craft an effective fiscal response to a rapidly-emerging economic crisis, which he and Flaherty had chosen to blithely ignore.
TJCook

"And if everybody really thinks that coalitions are so legitimate and wonderful, why won't Iggy embrace the idea?"

You're confusing the legitimacy of coalitions in general with their current poor political showing.

Just because a coalition is a political non-starter at this time doesn't mean they're illegitimate in principle.
Blacktop

That's right
Gayle

I think it is obvious why Ignatieff will not "embrace" a coalition. It is the same reason why Harper so desperately wants him to do so.

Ignatieff wants the liberals to win as many seats as possible. He knows he needs to steal votes from the NDP. Hard to do that if you are saying at the end of the election you will govern with the NDP, because people might just as well vote for the NDP then. At the same time, Harper needs those votes to stay with the NDP because that is the best way to ensure the LPC win fewer seats – maybe too few to have a coalition government.

After the next election Ignatieff will do a seat count to figure out what he has to do. If he wins a majority there will not be a coalition. If he wins a strong minority he will not likely need a coalition either. If his minority is not so strong, or if Harper has a minority but the seat count between the NDP and the LPC outnumber the CPC, my guess is there will be a coalition.
Blacktop

And if fishes had wings they''d fly. As much as I don't want to see a conservative majority (Harper's religionists lurking in the background) neither can I see Ignatieff having sufficient appeal to outscore him. No, I think the coalition possibilities will be much the same. Liberals too weak to challenge Cons without NDP being in the bag and sufficient support from the Bloc for crucial votes. A possibility that will make most Canadians react as they did in 2008 – vomit.
Gayle

Maybe, but I was simply responding to a question about why Ignatieff is not "embracing" a coalition. No one can actually predict what the seat count will be after the next election until there is an election.
brooster

I can't think of any historical example of two or more parties forming a coalition BEFORE an election. It makes absolutely no sense and there's no reason for the opposition parties to even contemplate such a move. Moreover, elements in both the Liberal and NDP would stoutly resist it.

I could, however, easily imagine a scenario where an opposition party (in this case, the Liberals) encourage voters in specific ridings to vote strategically, i.e., "Don't split the anti-Harper vote and allow the CPC candidate to come up the middle. Vote for the candidate mostly likely to defeat the CPC nominee.

This is, in a sense, the opposite of a coalition.
McC_

"I can't think of any historical example of two or more parties forming a coalition BEFORE an election. "
There's the Liberal-National coalition in Oz.
Style

Harper's first choice wasn't to prorogue. It was for a snap election. It's exactly analogous to King. Except Harper was more sensible.
brooster

"Except Harper was more sensible."

He certainly didn't appear "sensible" when was standing in the House practically frothing at the mouth, finger-pointing across the aisle and screaming at "the socialists and separatists". He looked like he'd lost his mind.

I remember watching on TV at the time, dumbfounded, and thinking "Yikes! He's left nothing behind but scorched earth for his party in Quebec".

Which is pretty much what has happened, if polls are believable.
Holly Stick

Is that bit on youtube?
brooster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5jUBLTqZoI

Dion is equally inarticulate with rage in this clip. What I recall was wondering at the time how Harper's performance was playing out in Quebec which includes a large swathe of "soft" nationalists, i.e., people who are willing to accommodate their nationalist aspirations within the framework of the Canadian confederacy.Those people include many traditional Conservatives who once found a home in Mulroney's party. I don't think, after this episode, they'll ever feel welcome in Harper's version of the party and, without them, he has very little prospect of winning enough seats in Quebec to get a clear majority in the house, IMO.

Gayle

When was the last time a PM prorogued a few days after the first Throne Speech after an election in which he won a minority government and when he was facing a confidence vote that could very well have resulted in a new government?

There were many prorogations in our Parliamentary history, but the majority took place at a time when the only way to end a session of Parliament was to prorogue, therefore it was routine to do so before the summer break. THAT would be a routine prorogation. Avoiding a vote of non-confidence would not.

Style

I think it was right after the last time a coalition government was formed a few days after the opposition voted confidence in the Throne Speech. Interestingly, the coalition was going to be led by a PM who had lost the confidence of his party after leading it to its worst electoral results in its history.
Gayle

Now Style, don't pretend there was nothing that came after the Throne Speech. You know perfectly well why the opposition parties formed a coalition.

Ignoring facts does not make your argument more persuasive.
Style

The Fall Update that came after the Throne Speech was consistent with its priorities, except for cutting subsidies for political parties. But that wasn't why the coalition was formed, was it?
Gayle

Since Harper withdrew the subsidy clawback and the coalition pressed on, I think the answer to that is "no".
Style

Then what came after the Throne Speech that explains the coalition?
Gayle

Stop playing dumb. It is beneath you.
Style

I do not know why you think the opposition parties formed a coalition. I have no idea why you think I would. What do you think was the reason(s)?
Pat

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. However, in case you are not perhaps this statement from Stephane Dion about why he was proposing a coalition goverment might help you understand things.
http://www.canada.com/business/story.html?id=1028…
Style

And here's the legislative agenda he voted to support two weeks earlier: http://www.speech.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1383

It does not commit to any of the stimulus he demands in the speech you provided. The Fall Update followed the outlines of the Throne Speech. Why did Mr. Dion support that agenda on Nov. 18, then decide to withdraw his support within two weeks?
Pat

I can hardly speak for Mr. Dion, however a broad, general statement like the Throne Speech can hardly bind an opposition to supporting every measure enacted by the government, even if they did support the Throne Speech.

You are trying very hard to suggest what Prime Minister Harper did was not unprecedented. It is not working.
Style

I'm not trying very hard at all, and I'm not suggesting anything about whether his behaviour was unprecedented. I'm pointing out that the opposition supported his legislative agenda one week, then withdrew its support for that agenda the next week, proposing a coalition government that would be led by a PM who had lost the confidence of his party after leading it to its worst electoral results in its history. If there's a precedent for that, please let me know.
Pat

I think you need to consider the way this thread started, which was a claim that Harper abused his authority. By voting non-confidence and working in a coalition with another party, Dion did something that was neither unprecedented nor abusive of his authority. By choosing to prorogue parliament in order to avoid this vote of non-confidence, Harper did something that was both.

The fact that Dion resiged as leader is interesting, but it is no more relevant than saying Dion was the first former university professor to propose a coalition.
Style

Gayle asked "When was the last time a PM prorogued a few days after the first Throne Speech after an election in which he won a minority government and when he was facing a confidence vote that could very well have resulted in a new government? " I pointed out that if Mr. Harper's actions were unprecedented, they were in response to an unprecedented action by the opposition. This then led to people claiming the opposition had some justification for this – but nobody's actually explained what it was.
Gayle

Except the actions of the Opposition was not unprecedented, and in any event, my question was directed to the commenter who asked how Harper was abusing his authority.

Context Style, context.
Style

Great – I look forward to your example of a Canadian opposition withdrawing its support of the government's legislative agenda a week after the Throne Speech and proposing a coalition government to be headed by a PM who had lost the confidence of his party after leading it to its worst electoral results in its history. Context, as you say, that would explain why Mr. Harper took unusual action (although hardly outside his authority).
Gayle

Sigh…

Like Pat said earlier, some things just are not relevant. First, as has been pointed out numerous times to you now, the Fiscal Update provoked the coalition. I have read your link, and agree with Pat that the fiscal update was general in nature and did not provide ANY of the details that were found in the fiscal update.

So yes, no opposition has ever voted non-confidence just a few weeks after passing a Throne speech. No opposition leader named Dion has ever done so either. Neither point is relevant.

Dion did not abuse his authority. Harper did. Nothing else matters.
Style

What in the Fiscal Update provoked the opposition? You have made this claim several times, but have offered no details. Pat suggested Mr. Dion explained it in his Dec. 3 speech. But that speech focused on the lack of stimulus spending in the Update. The Throne Speech set out the government's priorities two weeks earlier, and stimulus spending was not included. You may feel it is not relevant that the opposition supported that Throne Speech, but the GG, Peter Hogg and numerous others disagree. And the GG does need to consider the context when she's exercising her discretionary powers. You are suggesting that Mr. Harper abused his authority, you claim this is demonstrated by the fact that his actions were unprecedented and then you set aside the fact that he was in an unprecedented situation when he took unprecedented action.
Pat

I should point out that your link takes me to a page that says this:

"The Minister of Finance will provide details on our Government’s approach to economic and fiscal management in the Economic and Fiscal Statement to be delivered next week."
Mike T.

Try again.
Style

What do you disagree with?

Stewart_Smith

At the time, notable pundits such as Coyne were backing the government's case, i.e. by using the term illegitimate with a new meaning coyned just for the occasion. It was a much more dangerous time than many recognize, nor will they ever recognize.

The subtle brilliance of Jean's approach was that simply by taking a while to cave in the Harper, she forced everyone to acknowledge (after the fact) that she really did have a decision to make. (The Conservative talking point was that she did not.) Further, the concept of a coalition as a legally, legitimate government is now fairly well set. (Although some dunderheads will no doubt still argue.)

Overall, she minimized the damage done by some fast & loose play by the politicians. Sometimes dodging a bullets is enough… it sure as hell beats getting shot.

LaxAtlDfwYow

Agree. Like the medical profession, one might say the GG's role is to first, do no harm.
Blacktop

I don't think the concept of a coalition was not real, it's a natural product of the parlimentary system. It was just the concept of the Liberals teaming with the NDP (persih the thought!) with even their continuance relyiing on the support of the Bloc. THAT is what the Canadian Public could not swallow and Conservative propaganda had little effect on that idea – it was a public idea.

While there is some sympathy for Quebec in the ROC there is NO sympathy or agreement that the Bloc has a legitimate place in paliament, let alone as it being the key in a tacit agreement to the survival of a coalition, as weak as it was.

TJCook

Yeah, I remember when Stephen Harper 2004 proposed a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc. I bet Stephen Harper 2008 would have hated that guy if they had ever met.

" there is NO sympathy or agreement that the Bloc has a legitimate place in paliament"

…except that they're the duly-elected representatives of the people in their ridings. We don't get to decide on "legitimacy" based on party policy, as revolting as it may be.

Blacktop

They have as much legitimacy as the Irish Home Rule cats had in Britain. That doesn 't mean they are morally acceptable to the people – but possibly to Ontario folks who fear a departure of Quebec that the Bloc espouses would be the end of Ontario too, but not necessarily the West.
TwoYen

Stephen Harper did not propose to form a coalition government. Go back and look at the facts.
frobisher

It is undeniable that the word 'coalition' does not appear in the letter signed by the three oppo parties in 2004. What then was the purpose of the letter? Because 'all available options' referred to therein are pretty limited: Hand the reins to us or let the Liberals dissolve parliament and off to the polls. If it was to be the former, how or why would such an arrangement between the Conservatives, 'socialists' and 'separatists' not represent a 'coalition'?
Style

Think it through, the LIberals aren't currently in power and the Conservatives aren't currently in a coalition. Perhaps there would have been a supply and confidence accord with the other opposition parties, but that hasn't been necessary so far.
frobisher

And if the current Opposition entered into "a supply and confidence accord" the Conservatives would say those are just high-falutin' elitist words that mean – what else? – Coalition.
Style

Perhaps. But the opposition actually proposed a coalition government and the Conservatives haven't even needed a supply and confidence accord. Which is what justifies the suggestion that the opposition is willing to form a coalition and the assertion that the Conservatives could govern with neither a coalition nor an accord.

Gayle

I think what the public could not swallow was the notion of Dion being Prime Minister. If I recall correctly the poll numbers supporting a coalition were going up as time went on. I stand to be corrected on that.
BGLong

So we should seize the passports and withdraw the citizenship of all who vote for the Bloc ?
It's all fine to advocate against the stated desire of the Bloc to withdraw from Canada but they
are a Canadian political party attracting votes from Canadian citizens and, as such, are no more or
less worthy than any other group of Canadians.
And, I believe, any and all efforts to treat them as 2nd class citizens only persuades them that they
are right to hold their views.

Blacktop

I don't think they are a "Canadian"party at all. They are a potentially revolutionary party. The Communist party was banned, after all and it attracted votes from Canadian Citizens.

I think the easterners go along with it because they think the Bloc strategy is to threaten separation so the federal government will give over more goodies. It worked with the Liberals, after all, and will probably work in the future for any party who don't want their priorities mucked up by the irritation of separatiiost activities. Meanwhile the Bloc only makes noises when they are looking for goodies.

I am not sure that view is right and will backfire some day. The Bloc is a revolutionary party in essence and I believe it unwise to support its existence by such mollycoddling talk, given their ambition to cancel out their loss of their own country in 1763. The Liberals always sucked up to Quebec as long as the votes were there to make them the eternal ruling party, I think this accounts for the not-quite-complete- success of the Reform/Conservative movement. The West were treated as colonies not only by eastern oriented governments, but by business interests. The shoe seems to be moving to the other foot – perhaps slowly, but inevitably by demographics.
BCer in Mtl

"The Liberals always sucked up to Quebec "

Name me the one federal government in Canadian history that included known separatists, even in Cabinet.

Here's a hint – See: Mulroney, Martin Brian; Bouchard, Lucien; Meech Lake Accord; Birth of Reform Party.

sourstud

"the concept of a coalition as a legally, legitimate government is now fairly well set."

How do you figure that? Most Canadians at the time were vehemently opposed to the coalition, to the extent that it struck such fear into the Liberal leadership that they refuse to this day to even acknowledge that they were supportive of the idea. While most Canadians may recognize a coalition as a legal possibility now, most still see a coalition involving the separatists as completely illegitimate. Of course we'll never know, because Iggy is terrified that even mentioning the word will be the end of the Liberal party of Canada. And he's probably right.

Out There

While most Canadians may recognize a coalition as a legal possibility now, most still see a coalition involving the separatists as completely illegitimate.

The coalition did not include the separatists – the BQ just agreed not to defeat it for a specified period of time. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one – if the Liberals, NDP and BQ wanted to form a coalition to take power, they could have done so at any time during the last two years, as the three parties have held a majority of seats.

It's also worth mentioning that Harper himself suggested the possibility of an alliance with the NDP and the Evil Separatists to defeat Paul Martin's Liberals. Of course, this piece of history is conveniently forgotten by the Conservatives, who sometimes like to think that the Canadian electorate were all dropped on their heads as babies and thus suffered damage to their ability to retain long-term memories.

In retrospect, the biggest problem with the coalition of 2008 was that Stephane Dion, a man repudiated by the voters and by his own party, would have had to become PM.

Mike T.

Oh, he knows. Trust me.

brooster

It could be argued that that particular coalition lacked moral authority because it involved a two-year detente with the BQ (although I personally don't buy that). However, it was, and still is, misleading to claim that it was constitutionally illegimate or illegal in a parliamentary democracy.

In propagating that interpretation and the assertion that coalitions can't include "losers", the Cons were either conveniently ignorant or willfully deceitful (i.e., lying).

Blacktop

I think you are right on there in terms of para 1 but imagining things in para 2; it is not that they were losers, but that their highest objectives don't include Canada in their future. .

brooster

"Losers" was Harper's term, not mine. He tried to claim, incorrectly, that a legitimate coalition must include the party with the greatest plurality and implied that a coalition of "losers" was, somehow unconstitutional.

TJCook

Harper didn't just imply it, he explicitly told Canadians that a coalition was unconstitutional in his television address.

I have yet to hear anyone with credible knowledge in the matter agree with him.

Mike T.

YOu can also say the coalition lacked moral authority because Ignatieff has bushy eyebrows.

Out There

At the time, I recalled thinking that civil unrest was a real possibility if Harper had not gotten what he wanted. There was a lot of inflamed rhetoric going around – the coalition's attempt to take power was called a "coup" by some, even though it is perfectly legitimate under the Westminster system of government.

Since Harper gives the impression of being willing to do whatever it takes to retain power, I shudder to think of what actions he would have taken had the GG not prorogued Parliament.
Emily

So now we have a PM planning to overthrow the monarchy in Canada…because a few Cons were willing to scream that coalitions were illegitimate???

Blacktop

What vivid imaginations these people have. Now Turner (of the book) is pretending he is a fly on the wall, just like some of our other bloggers did when the Libs were in power. Or maybe there is a special room off the cabinet room where MacLean's coloumnists hid. Obviously Harper doen't let them into it.

Emily

The whole idea that coalitions were illegitimate, or like a coup was a product of the vivid imagination of Cons.

LaxAtlDfwYow

So now we have a PM planning to overthrow the monarchy in Canada…

Emily, please argue based on the facts as we know them. Don't make up your own. Russell neither said nor suggested any such thing.

Emily

I suggest you read the item

http://nottawa.blogspot.com Mark

How does John Baird get re-elected? Honestly.

Bryan

NDP and Liberals split the vote in his riding in 2006 and 2008. Honestly, go look. In 2006, the NDP achieved their highest ever votes in the riding, in the 2008, their second highest.

Mike T.

Part of me wants to chuckle and think his plan would never have worked. We're just too engaged and level-headed society. But the other part notes Harper has been very successful peddling misleading, disingenuous positions in the past…
Patchouli

So she was bullied into it. Harper's equivalent of "I'll make an accident happen to you." That would have been ugly, and at a time when we could ill afford things getting any uglier.

Blacktop

Wjhat arrant nonsense.

NorthernPoV

So, the circular logic argument:
"Citing the collapse of the coalition as justification for the decision that caused the coalition to collapse."
isn't enough. It gets worse ….
they also (as Patchouli says) simply caved in to the threat of bullying.

wusses
Mike T.

A thought occurs: the last coalition was created when Harper put a large number of major measures on the table which he hadn't campaigned on and the other parties found unconscionable.

If Harper wins another minority, you would think he would want to do something similar, in the hopes of goading the other parties into a coalition, in hopes of using the same ploy yet again. (As I've said before, I believe a coalition IS still a (very remote) possibility, but that it rests with Harper, and he's being deceitful by saying otherwise).

So a vote for Harper will be a vote for an ugly surprise the parties a majority of Canadians voted for won't like.
Style

After the King-Byng confrontation between a Canadian PM and GG, this is exactly what happened, and the GG's powers were redefined as a result. It would have been a perfectly legitimate democratic response. And it would have relied on the failure of the coalition government, which would have demonstrated that the GG had chosen poorly.

Mike T.

I am more hesitant than you to draw firm conclusions about the outcome of the King-Byng thing. If anything, I would say that it does show that the GG may act against the advice of a PM, but should be careful when doing so. Which probably wasn't all that different from how the office was viewed before the event.

Style

But after the King-Byng affair, Canada severed the GG's linkage to the British government – which was a significant change at the time (although not exactly a logical outcome from the crisis). It would have been perfectly legitimate for the Conservatives to propose further reforms in a 2008 or 2009 election and to implement them if they were returned with a majority.

Mike T.

But not until 1982, so I'm not sure the link is all that strong. The conservatives may very well propose and implement changes (through regular law or constitutional amendment, I suppose, depending on exactly what), but until those changes take place I posit we would be in the same murky waters as both now and then.

Style

1926. 1982 repatriated Canada's constitution, or something.

"Much was made of the 'Byng–King Thing' during the election campaign, which King conducted rhetorically as a campaign for Canadian independence from Britain…the Liberals were returned to power with King as Prime Minister. Once in power, King's government sought at a Commonwealth conference to redefine the role of Governor General as a representative of the Sovereign and not of the British government. The change was agreed to at the Imperial Conference of 1926."
Mike T.

I take your distinction. I am not sure you can say that it practically alters what a governor general may or may not do, though.
Style

I'm not sure I did say that though. I was just pointing out that PMs have appealed directly to the Canadian people when there's been a conflict with the GG, and there were consequences for the GG's office. Separately, some scholars think the conventions guiding the GG's role also evolved following the King-Byng affair.

Mike T.

If the coalition had been implemented and failed, it wouldn't have meant the GG chose poorly – it would have been their own fault. But as I keep saying, I think the main factor should be procedure and the ability to maintain confidence, not speculation about future effectiveness.

Style

I wouldn't blame the GG for the coalition's failure, but she would be responsible for dismissing one PM and then inviting another who had a tenuous grip on confidence to form a new government. Since the dissolution of the coalition would have implied that Harper could have continued to govern as a minority government, it would mean she had chosen poorly in dismissing him (or forcing him to test the House's confidence that week – which I don't think is her prerogative) during the immediate crisis. The problem is the frailty of the 2008 coalition – which would have been suspected by the GG and her advisors, particularly if they had spoken to Michael Ignatieff at any point (as Brian Topp suggests they had). To put it in procedural terms, she does not have a clear mandate to force the PM to face a confidence vote at any particular time. If there was no hope that Mr. Harper could regain the confidence of the House, then maybe she should have forced the issue. She should not have allowed him to call and election without facing the confidence vote. But neither of those things happened, so both procedurally and conceptually, she made the best choice.

Mike T.

I admit I had always thought the GG could require a confidence vote as a natural extension of the office's powers, although I admit I have no basis for my belief.

And even if you are right about the tenuous grip, remember, the choice would have been between a coalition government with tenuous grip, and a conservative government with absolutely no grip at all. And even if it hadn't lasted very long, the worst thing that could have happened would be an eventual election, which is hardly the worst disaster which can befall a state.

Style

I'm just recalling what Peter Hogg apparently said, according to another exchange on these boards.

I think you're overlooking the fact that Mr. Harper had the confidence of the House next time he faced it. Since the GG can't compel the PM to face the House at any particular time, it's hard to see what was wrong with the process. That's also a good indication that Mr. Dion's coalition was not a realistic alternative government – because nothing Mr. Harper did following prorogation differed from what he had proposed to do before prorogation.
Mike T.

I think you're overlooking the fact that Mr. Harper had the confidence of the House next time he faced it.

***

And I think you're overemphasizing it. We have no idea what would have happened had the GG told Mr. harper he had the confidence of the house before he could exercise prime ministerial power.
Style

He had the confidence of the House – his Throne Speech had just passed.

Bruce

No shortage of Leftist Mental Disorder on this thread………….

brooster

To say nothing of irrelevant, vacuous "right-wing" comments…………..

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

A legal scholar I am not, but wouldn't this come close to sedition? Political legitimacy in this country is dispensed through the crown, and a government that publicly denounced the legitimacy of the crown would be seditious.

Emily

Actually it would be treason.

hosertohoosier

So should we round up these traitors: http://www.canadian-republic.ca

Style

If you campaigned on ending the monarchy and making Canada a republic that would not be sedition. Neither would criticizing a specific decision of one GG.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

You, I and organized anti-monarchists have slightly different responsibilities, constitutionally speaking.

hosertohoosier

As a monarchist, I would oppose any such stance by Harper, but I don't think it is somehow beyond the pale to attack the legitimacy of the governor-general or the Queen. Indeed, opponents of the monarchy already do so. Would Harper succeed? It is not actually clear to me that he would. Launching such an attack would make him, not the coalition, the principal agitator for disorder (while also costing him the support of constitutional conservatives). While King was able to campaign in a similar manner in the 1920's, Gough Whitlam was manifestly unsuccessful in Australia when he campaigned against the machinations of Australia's governor-general. Moreover, it is very difficult to amend the Canadian constitution, which is what Harper would have to do (I presume) in order to axe the governor-general. However the bottom line is that we do have a process for constitutional change.

The reaction of some here is hyperventilation. Just because Harper does things does not mean they are necessarily evil. Harper, after all, breathes air and stuff. Please try to think without partisan blinders on once in a while.
Mike T.

Has Andrew Coyne (who had the bizarre notion that Martin lost a non-confidence vote even though the vote was clearly not a vote) ever weighed in on whether Harper was governing legitimately during the pro-rogue? It would be an interesting double standard if he had.
Style

Peter Hogg doesn't seem to. Look, all the Liberals had to do was vote down the next Throne Speech. That's the only test anyone set for them. I submit that they not only failed that test, it was evident to the GG and her advisors that the Liberals were very likely to fail it. Mr. Harper didn't get the election he wanted and Mr. Dion didn't get a coalition he couldn't maintain. An unfortunate side effect was Mr. Ignatieff's accension to the Liberal leadership.
Style

Alright, let's use your logic in rebuttal. He asked to prorogue. That's within the PM's authority. Nothing else matters.

Pat

I don't think Gayle was suggesting it was not in his authority to prorogue. I believe she was suggesting that he was abusing that authority.

Style

It's within his authority. Many PMs have prorogued in the past. There's nothing unusual, or abusive, about that.

Pat

I am at a bit of a loss to understand why you have been posting things for 2 days if you were going to come right back to where this started. I am not going to continue with this discussion since the points you raise here have already been addressed by Gayle.

I will, however, point out that while I am not sure if you are trying to suggest it is impossible to abuse authority, if you are I beg to differ. There are plenty of legal examples where courts have found people or institutions have abused their authority.

Style

This conversation is where it started because it hasn't gone anywhere. You and Gayle say Harper abused his authority because he did something unprecedented. But if you strip out the context, which you both insist on doing when we discuss the opposition's actions, he hasn't done anything unprecedented. I agree this has been a fruitless discussion.
Gayle

I am not saying he abused his authority because it was unprecedented. I am saying he abused his authority because he exercised his authority in a manner that allowed him to escape a confidence vote.

The argument about it being unprecedented (which it is) addresses the notion that somehow this was routine (which it wasn't).
Style

We're not having a conversation. I could answer your point with some observations about what was unusual about the upcoming confidence vote that left proprogation as the most reasonable option for the PM and the GG, but you will simply reply that confidence votes are routine. I am therefore going to reply that prorogation is routine. Hopefully, my email filter will send any further replies from you directly to junk mail.

Marlene Stobbart

However it was what it was and the nice thing was Madam Jean, our Governor General, gave the correct and necessary decision. It can be acknowledged the country was already in an uproar and incensed that politicians would attempt to do a coup, taking over the government after a free election. She was, imho, well aware of that fact and perhaps by having PM Harper await her decision he also realized our country, Canada, was worth far more then nasty politicians and he, himself, must have been very grateful. They both served and serve Canada well, imho.
YYZ

imho

There is nothing particularly humble about an opinion that described three parties who earned more than 60% of the popular vote entering into an agreement to form a government as a 'coup.'

I disagreed with coalition as well. But if you can't see the other side of the debate, look harder.