Much has been said about the governor-general’s decision to allow parliament to prorogue. The popular consensus is that she has done the right thing. It has been argued that it was fair. I have even been fortunate enough to get a comment saying that Queen’s University constitutional scholar Ned Franks disagrees with me. I dare say a lot of people disagree with me. Unfortunately the commenter, as you can read for yourself if you wish, only said that the professor disagreed with me. I am not sure what purpose that serves unless it is to say that his PhD trumps my M.A. And ad hominem attacks are a sign of weakness. There are of course others who do agree with me such as former governor-general Ed Schreyer.
I stand by my original conclusion that the governor-general has made an improper decision. She interfered with the proper processes of parliament. How can we have responsible government with a prime minister who does not enjoy the confidence of the House? My conclusion is based on something that until now I did not think was a matter of debate: i.e. that the governor-general is responsible to the will of parliament. The will of parliament in this case was publicly known. Mr. Harper would lose a confidence motion if put to the House. There was a party leader who did enjoy the confidence of the House. If Governor-General Jean wanted to ascertain the will of parliament for herself, she simply had to ask Mr. Harper to stand for a vote of confidence. At that point she would have the decision of whether to dissolve parliament or accept Mr. Dion’s offer to form a government. The appropriate thing for her to do then would be to allow Mr. Dion to attempt to govern. So unless someone can tell me that the governor-general is not responsible to parliament, I don’t see how they can make a credible argument that the governor-general did the appropriate thing. If she is not responsible to parliament then who is she responsible to?
Also I know that some of my colleagues do not take this breech as seriously as I do. A constitution is more than a dusty old bunch of documents. It is the fabric upon which a society is built. Once rent it may never be fully repaired. Already this whole incident is raising the ugly divisions which percolate just under the surface of our society: East vs. West, French vs. English. If we cannot abide by the rules that we have set in place then it is time to change them. I see this as an error in the 1982 patriation. We should then have included clearer indication of the role of the governor-general and how she should react to given circumstances. Of course as I have already said, I had assumed that the fact that she was responsible to parliament was a clear given. I guess I was wrong about that.
So I take this seriously and I stand by my original analysis until someone can prove my premises incorrect. I also believe in doing something rather than sitting back and accepting whatever the powers that be decide. Canadian’s legendary quiescence is no service to our country at this point. And I have never been much of a quiescent type.
So certainly feel free to disagree with me. I don’t take stands because they are popular, I take stands because I believe in them.
