At 10 AM, eastern standard time, Prime Minister Steven Harper will walk into Rideau Hall in Ottawa and ask the representative of a foreign Queen to shut down the Canadian Parliament. This is, in fact a coup d'etat in our closest neighbor. Anything can happen.
There could be riots if he gets away with it, and riots if he doesn't. However, the danger just as big either way.
Few people outside of Canada give a shit about Canada. Sure, everyone in the United States have heard of Canada, but beyond that, few know anything about it. We get much of our oil there. They have a British style government, presided over by the representative of a foreign Queen, that of England. Of all the countries on the planet our neighbor to the north is the closest to us in so many ways. In fact, the biggest difference between us and them is that they're not us. But that's beside the point.
There comes a moment in a country's history that somehow defines it, A moment in time in which history can turn 90 degrees and go off in a different direction. Tomorrow may be Canada's. The importance of this cannot be overstated. As stated above the fold, Prime Minister Steven Harper is going to address his nation at 7PM, and if the Globe and Mail is correct, announce that he's going to Prorogue, or shut down the parliament in order to prevent a vote of confidence that he's going to lose. This is a coup
But legally, he cannot do it himself. He needs the seal and signature of the Queen of England, who is also Queen of Canada. But the Queen of England is in England and hasn't been in Canada for years. Instead she has a permanent representative called the Governor General,a and for the time being, that person is Michaëlle Jean.
At ten o'clock, eastern standard time tomorrow morning, Harper will walk into Redeau hall, the residence of the Governor General. The Monarchist League of Canada puts it this way....
....a) As Monarchists, we have no opinion as to which party or grouping of parties might best handle Canada’s economic affairs. As citizens, of course each of us does have such an opinion. But in commenting on or recommending a course of action to the Governor General, we have to be careful to divorce our partisan and economic views from our analysis of what role, if any, the Crown should play in the current and fast-evolving circumstances.
b) All the political players should bend over backwards to avoid putting the Crown in a position where it has to use its independent authority.
c) However, if this cannot be avoided, we should remember that the Crown is not a china doll, but a robust Canadian institution whose reserve powers are seldom used but which can be efficacious in unusual circumstances. The Canadian Monarchy will not be imperiled if indeed Her Excellency needs to act independently, although reasonable people (and probably, some unreasonable ones, too!) will inevitably disagree over those actions, just as economists and politicians disagree over the degree of seriousness of the economic conditions Canada faces and the measures that should be taken to address them.
d) The Crown’s role remains, as always, first, to ensure that the will of the electorate is carried out when its voice is clear, as it was, for instance after the last election when it was obvious Mr Harper would continue in office; second, to enable the national will to be expressed by means of an election whnever that seems the best course - as Her Excellency would not wish under most circumstances to substitute her judgement for that of the electorate; and third, to enable The Queen’s government, that is the day-to-day governance of Canada - especially in any time of crisis - to continue in the most uninterrupted way, the acid test for governance in Canada being the ability of a government to command the confidence of the House of Commons.
e) Should Mr Harper’s government be defeated, he has several options in his role as Prime Minister and therefore as Her Excellency’s sole Constitutional “Advisor” (though of course the Governor General has access to any Constitutional and legal scholars she may choose to consult). He might i) advise her to dissolve Parliament and cause an immediate election to be held; ii) advise her to summon one of his colleagues to form a government (eg, a Conservative more acceptable to the House) which course seems unlikely as the differences are apparently centred on policy issues or iii) he could choose to resign. If iii) eventuated (which could also happen if Her Excellency refused his request for a dissolution), he could give such advice as he pleased to the Governor General, but no longer would such advice have the same standing.
f) The GG has discretion to consider Mr Harper’s advice in light of both the current economic situation and the recently-held election. Amongst a plethora of possible scenarios, she could agree to an immediate dissolution; she could ask Mr Harper (or another member of the current government) to form another administration which might command the confidence of the House; or she could accept his resignation and then consider the offer which is on the table from a possible alternative government. In respect of the latter, Her Excellency could invite the putative coaltition to form a government, but - as Malcolm Fraser was told by the Governor General of Australia after the dismissal of the Whitlam government (1975) - in doing so she could say to Mr Dion that she would only give him a Commission on the basis that he would quickly pass a budget and other urgent financial measures through the House by a date certain and then immediately ask her for a dissolution so that the people could choose their government...
In normal circumstances, the Governor General would be forced to take the Prime Ministers advice, but shutting down the parliament in circumstances such as these may in fact free her to use her so-called reserve powers, real royal power from the days of old when knights were bold and Kings could lop off the heads of advisors they don't like. The Queen, or in this case, the governor general, has dictatorial power which must never be used except under the close supervision of the elected representatives of the people...or to save it from a rogue Prime Minister staging a coup.
As far as I can tell, and I've checked, Governors General have refused to formally follow the Prime Minister's advice exactly twice since the post of Prime Minister was created in 1867, both times the PM had just lost an election and refused to resign. This is different. Mdm. Jean can be unleashed this one time, but a wielding of real power in the political realm by an unelected representative of a foreign queen can be dangerous, very dangerous. If she does her duty and fires Harper, she may not appoint a successor immediately and then what? The problem is that any of Harper's possible replacements may have less legitimacy than he did.
The PM in waiting, Stephane Dion, was only a caretaker because he blew it so badly in the election two months ago. Exactly what Mdm. Jean will do is as yet unknown, but anything she does can be taken the wrong way and Harper, in his stupidity and arrogance has put the entire system of government in jepordy.
This isn't fun anymore. Someone, commenting on another daiary stated that this isn't the place to talk about this as this is an American site. That isn't so. This is the perfect place.