Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead
I can find changes in the form of the Belfour Declaration of 1926 (which made the Governor General at representative of the Crown only, as opposed to the Crown and British Parliament) and 1931 Statute of Wellington which stated that no longer would British law automatically extend to the Commonwealth. But I can't see where any of the Governor Generals powers were curtailed.
Do you have the references handy, I'm curious about it now.
|
Certainly the most significant was the Belfour declaration, making the GG the representative of the Crown only, not the British Parliament. That, in effect, means the GG has roughly the same sway here as the Queen does in England - which is to say very little.
You are correct in saying that, according to the letter of the law (consistution), the GG does have some broad discretionary powers. However, as others have pointed out, the GG will not use them or it will be seen as the Queen exerting her will over the elected representatives of Canada. The Queen, or GG, is not elected and never has to face the people in a vote. If the GG did anything but what the PM recommends, there would be a great hue and cry from the masses that the Queen is medling in the affairs of Canada, and we wouldn't be a consistutional monarchy much longer. The Queen knows that very well and I'd expect if the GG didn't take the PM's advice, that the Queen would remove the GG pretty much on the spot.
Those on the Libs/Dippers/Traitors side that want the GG to step in and do anything but what the PM recommends are suggesting a very slippery slope.
The GG gets to make one decision - post election she gets to decide who is PM. From that point until the next election is concluded, she pretty much HAS to do what the PM recommends. If post election there is no clear winner (i.e. one party with a majority of the seats) she needs to determine who likely has the best chance to achieve a majority of the house's support. When one part has 140 some seats and the next closest is 70 some, it is a pretty easy decision. IF, and that's a big IF, the Libs/Dippers/Traitors had an agreement prior to her picking Steve, they might have had a chance. Personally, I think the support of the Bloq would have had to be more formal as the Libs + Dippers still doesn't equal the Conservatives, but at least the arguement could have been made.
Look at it this way... Steve will have to face the people again sometime. Technically, he only has to have the parliament sit for one day a year, so he could use that wild card. He could prorouge almost indefinitely. If he does, he'll certainly lose the next election in a landslide. That's why PMs don't do these things often, nor should they. It is hardly the first time a PM has ducked a confidence vote though. Does no one remember 3 and a half years ago and Paul Martin cancelling opposition days and any vote that might be remotely a confidence vote, despite the fact he had lost several other critical votes (none of them officially 'confidence' votes, but it was clear he had lost the confidence of the house). He delayed and delayed until he could bribe a member of the opposition to switch sides and save his hide. Where was the great Liberal outcry for that one?