Cory Morgan: Governor General Intervention in Current Deadlock Would Set Non-Democratic Precedent

Commentary

While polls are indicating a significant majority of Canadians feel it’s time for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to move on, citizens are discovering it’s quite difficult to remove an unwilling prime minister from office.

The Bloc Quebecois, the Conservative Party of Canada, and the NDP have now all committed to bringing down the minority Liberal government if given the opportunity to. While not eager for an election, many Liberal MPs are openly calling for Trudeau’s resignation. Despite a collapse of support from all directions, Trudeau has so far not announced a decision, and could conceivably remain there until October 2025.

As frustration grows among the opposition, politicians are seeking procedural methods to try to break the deadlock. Conservative MP John Williamson, who chairs the Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts, has scheduled a meeting to be held on Jan. 7 where a non-confidence motion would be put forward and potentially voted upon in the House of Commons on Jan. 30. Parliament resumes on Jan. 27. If the motion passed, a general election would be triggered.

This puts a hard deadline in front of Trudeau where one of three things can happen: He could make a deal with the NDP to withstand a non-confidence vote, a non-confidence vote could pass and Canada would head to the polls, or Trudeau could request that the Governor General prorogue Parliament and buy himself some time. Theoretically, the Governor General could decline the prime minister’s request, but that won’t happen.

Many people hold misconceptions about what the Governor General can or can’t do. On Dec. 20, Pierre Poilievre played on those misconceptions with a bit of political theatre in calling upon Gov. Gen. Mary Simon to recall the House of Commons so a confidence vote could be held. Poilievre is well aware the GG would never intervene in government matters, but his request helped highlight the intractability of Canada’s system.

Technically, Simon could grant Poilievre’s request even if the prime minister opposed it. It would set a dangerous precedent if a Governor General began taking marching orders from an opposition leader, however, and could trigger a constitutional crisis. Theoretically, Simon could act unilaterally and dissolve Parliament at her discretion. She has the authority to do so, but would we want to see an appointed person exercise such power?

The Governor General has reserve powers that are supposed to act as a safeguard of democracy. If an elected government truly has gone out of control, the GG can use that reserve power to override the prime minister. However, no Canadian Governor General has ever exercised reserve powers. In the King-Byng Affair 100 years ago, Gov. Gen. Lord Julian Byng refused to dissolve Parliament at the request of Prime Minister Mackenzie King and offered the role of government to the Progressive Conservatives if they could establish confidence. That wasn’t a case of exercising reserve powers, though, and it’s as far as any Governor General has ever gone in defying a prime minister.

The position of Governor General is ceremonial and completely controlled by the Prime Minister’s Office. While the King appoints the Governor General, he does so on the advice of the prime minister and never deviates from that. While the Governor General appoints cabinet ministers, senators, and Supreme Court justices, she does so at the behest of the prime minister and again, never deviates from that. The office is a nod to colonial days gone by.

During the truckers’ Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa, a faction of the protesters felt the Governor General could or should dissolve Parliament. Petitions were filled and letters and calls flooded Rideau Hall, but it was a waste of time. There was no way Simon would dissolve Parliament due to demands by protesters, nor should she.

And the same argument applies to the current situation with Trudeau, which doesn’t justify having the Governor General breaking convention and interfering with the elected government.

The current deadlock has exposed a flaw in Canada’s system. Canada has no impeachment mechanism or 25th amendment like the USA has for removing a leader who has lost control. It has always been assumed the Parliament could govern itself or that an election would suffice.

It would take constitutional reform to create a trapdoor for removing unwilling prime ministers, and nobody is eager to open that can of worms.

If Simon stepped in and dissolved Parliament, what would that mean for the next government? Would we prefer an elected prime minister who could be removed on a whim by an appointed person? How does that keep the government accountable to citizens?

It may feel interminable to some, but the prime minister will eventually be replaced. Opposition parties are better advised to have patience, because if we invoked the theoretical powers of the representative of the monarch over those of our elected parliamentary members, we would be bringing about a cure worse than the disease.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Source link