Quote:
Originally Posted by old-fart
The GG made the only decision she could. Those complaining about it really don't understand our system of government I think. If the GG had gone against the recommendations of the PM, she would in effect be exerting the will of the Queen (she is the Queen's representative in Canada) over the will of the people's elected representative. Do we all really want the Queen to run our politics? I know the Queen doesn't want that, because she has said as much in relation to other commonwealth countries (Australia specifically I believe). If the GG had denied Harper's advice there would a consitutional crisis not just in this country, but in every commonwealth country. I expect the Queen would have removed the GG and Harper would have been able to "recommend" a new one to the Queen.
|
I disagree. She could have made LOTS of different decisions.
The fact of the matter is any decision she did make was going to set some sort of a precedent. In this case, there is now a precedent that a First Minister can prorogue the session when at risk of being defeated in a confidence motion. But she had many constitutional experts advising her, and in this case I'm kind of glad there was a person who was able to try and make the decision with the best interests at heart and not just trying to save their job or feather their own nest in some way.
Now I personally agree with the decision, but I also think her other options could have also had compelling, and valid, arguments made.