The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Governor General Micha'lle Jean faces an awful choice: call an election no one wants or bring in an unstable minority government kept in power at the whim of a party dedicated to the destruction of Canada. Fortunately, there is a way out of this box. She can just say no. Many commentators argue that the Governor General in fact has no choice at all, that if the government of Stephen Harper loses the confidence of the House of Commons, he must resign and the Governor General must call upon the leader of the official opposition to see if he is prepared to form a government. However, the constitutional precedents are very few and far between, and generally lack any contemporary relevance. The constitutional wisdom tossed about is often thinly veiled partisanship where the commentator begins with the desired partisan outcome and then twists constitutional theory to fit that outcome. The argument for constitutional determinism, that the Governor General is simply a robot who must act in a particular way, ignores that the beauty of her position, and also the difficulty of her choice, stems from the fact that she has discretion. We donÕt have a rigid constitutional formula because we know that in some circumstances, judgment must be brought into play. This is one of those times. So, what is the nature of her decision? LetÕs begin by stressing that her duty is not to decide what is best for the economy or whether we need more or less stimulus for the economy. This is a policy decision that rests with the political process and not with the CrownÕs representative, even in circumstances such as these when party leaders across the board have abandoned any interest in whatÕs good for the economy. Dumb decision Certainly Mr. Harper did not think about the economy when he made his dumb decision to bundle the elimination of public financing for parties into his financial update. For their part, the opposition parties are not to be taken seriously when they argue that what they are proposing, either plunging the country into an election or forming a government that effectively gives the keys to the national treasury to a party committed to the destruction of Canada, would be in the best interests of the economy. No, the Governor GeneralÕs duty is to ensure that Canada has a government capable of governing in the national interest in the circumstances of the time. In the event that HarperÕs government loses a confidence vote in the House, her initial choice boils down to accepting the prime ministerÕs inevitable request for a new election, or calling upon Stphane Dion to form a government. Unfortunately, neither option is compatible with good government in trying economic times. Canada does not need another election to be called less than two months after the last campaign ended. However, the option of a Liberal-NDP coalition is no better. The problem is not the nature of the two parties themselves, but that such a coalition could only govern with the consent of the Bloc. Every action of the coalition would therefore be measured against two touchstones: does it transfer enough money to Quebec (ÒenoughÓ being defined by the Bloc) and does it lead in the long-term to the destruction of Canada? To place every act of Parliament in the hands of a party dedicated to the end of Canada would be folly. Fortunately, there is a third way, and one that has a good deal of constitutional precedent. The Governor General could simply refuse to accept Mr. HarperÕs resignation, just as prime ministers in the past have refused to accept letters of resignation from cabinet ministers. The Governor General could say that accepting HarperÕs resignation is not in the best interests of the country because it would set in motion a choice between two unacceptable alternatives. In effect, the Governor General would send Mr. Harper back to negotiate an economic package that could secure majority support in the House. She would implicitly instruct the opposition parties to make this Parliament work. She would exercise the discretionary power that the Constitution has wisely placed in her hands. She would just say no.
