Can the PM replace the Gov. Gen. before her term is over?

[kiwi]

Been following this political drama with some interest.

A question, can Harper dump the Canadian GG and replace her with someone who will do his bidding when it comes to a decision on letting the other Canadian parties form a government ?

I take it like NZ the PM of the day picks who will be the GG ?

Or would that be too cynical even for politics ?

[mikedavid00]

Harper is finished with. A retired poltical jersey.

Harper is not in a position to attempt to further corrupt our system because that's what it would be if he did that. He's done this 1 time too many and I feel it's wrong. I've spoken out about it in the past.

He's not a good leader and never has been if you look at his lackluster track record at actually winning elections.

Rae on the other hand...

Edited December 2, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Smallc]

Been following this political drama with some interest.

A question, can Harper dump the Canadian GG and replace her with someone who will do his bidding when it comes to a decision on letting the other Canadian parties form a government ?

No, the GG serves at the pleasure of the Queen.

[Slim MacSquinty]

No, the GG serves at the pleasure of the Queen.

I agree sort of, she is the Queen's representative in Canada, she is picked by the sitting PM for a term or 5 years (I think) and rubber stamped by the Queen. No GG has ever been ousted and that would be a constitutional crisis as the Queen could technically say no.

[Smallc]

I agree sort of, she is the Queen's representative in Canada, she is picked by the sitting PM for a term or 5 years (I think) and rubber stamped by the Queen. No GG has ever been ousted and that would be a constitutional crisis as the Queen could technically say no.

You are correct from what I know.

[Bryan]

Can Harper dump the Canadian GG and replace her with someone who will do his bidding when it comes to a decision on letting the other Canadian parties form a government ?

It's not quite that simple, but yes he can. He simply wouldn't.

The Governor General's role is very complicated. In some ways her role is purely ceremonial, and she holds no real power at all. In other ways, she holds all the power. The PM can replace her, but technically only on her own advice, and on approval of the Monarchy. Even the Monarch's role is mostly ceremonial. They have the authority, but at the same time, they will ALWAYS decide to do what the PM "advises".

The PM can also refuse to step down if the GG decides on this coalition. He never would, but he could.

[Smallc]

It's not quite that simple, but yes he can. He simply wouldn't.

The PM can also refuse to step down if the GG decides on this coalition. He never would, but he could.

I'm not sure your correct on these points. The GG does not answer to the PM, its the other way around.

[August1991]

No, the GG serves at the pleasure of the Queen.

Smallc is correct although the Queen works under the advice of the PM. (Incidentally, this is the same in NZ where by tradition the GG's term is also 5 years.)

If the PM were to recommend that the Queen choose a new GG before 5 years is up, particularly under circumstances as now, then there would be a constitutional crisis.

Harper has other, easier solutions if he cares to take them.

[ToadBrother]

Been following this political drama with some interest.

A question, can Harper dump the Canadian GG and replace her with someone who will do his bidding when it comes to a decision on letting the other Canadian parties form a government ?

I take it like NZ the PM of the day picks who will be the GG ?

Or would that be too cynical even for politics ?

Actually, you ask a very interesting question. That's exactly what a sitting PM tried to do in a country not so far away from you. The last time anything like this happened in the Commonwealth was the Australian Constitutional Crisis in 1975, when Gough Whitlam apparently was pondering getting the Queento dismiss GG Sir John Kerr before Kerr dismiss his government and give the Liberals in Australia the keys.

[Oleg Bach]

Actually, you ask a very interesting question. That's exactly what a sitting PM tried to do in a country not so far away from you. The last time anything like this happened in the Commonwealth was the Australian Constitutional Crisis in 1975, when Gough Whitlam apparently was pondering getting the Queento dismiss GG Sir John Kerr before Kerr dismiss his government and give the Liberals in Australia the keys.

Welcome.

[reasonoverpassion]

There's another "showdown" between a PM and GG in Canadian History between Lord Byng and William Lyon MacKenzie-King (known as the King-Byng affair)

Essentially the PM wanted the GG to dissolve the house but Byng refused to do so. King wanted the house dissolved to avoid being defeated on a motion of censure. King felt he no longer had the confidence of the house (this was a Liberal minority government with Progressive Party support) and wanted an election.

Byng felt it was his duty to offer the Convervatives a chance to form a government which they did. The Liberals were able to re-enage their Progressive allies and defeat the new Conservtive government.

So the GG has real power under some circumstances which is supposed to be above the political process. Firing her would be seen as an afront to the role of the monarch and dragging her role down to puppet of the ruling party rather than Queen's representatve.

[Smallc]

So the GG has real power under some circumstances which is supposed to be above the political process. Firing her would be seen as an afront to the role of the monarch and dragging her role down to puppet of the ruling party rather than Queen's representatve.

Unless she went insane, I don't think the Sovereign would allow her to be fired.

[Wilber]

Been following this political drama with some interest.

A question, can Harper dump the Canadian GG and replace her with someone who will do his bidding when it comes to a decision on letting the other Canadian parties form a government ?

I take it like NZ the PM of the day picks who will be the GG ?

Or would that be too cynical even for politics ?

It might be possible but that would be an even dumber move than the one that got him in this fix in the first place. I'm getting the impression from talk radio around here that many are looking at our parliamentarians as the lowest thing on the food chain these days. That's my feeling as well.

[Oleg Bach]

It was others that hired the GG - as if the Queen made a call and said that this disloyal french island girl that shared the bed of a domestic terrorist who is black - would make a fine GG - the Queen was not involved - someone else stuck the Queen with this appointment...and by the way - what has the GG as a supposed black woman done for the suffering blacks in Toronto? Nothing! You can fire her because the Queen did not hire her...ask the queen privately if she wants the GG to continue? Logic dictates that if she were not a slave to protocol....GG would be dancing the brass pole...............she so our Obama , a ruse amd a wind bag with a sweet face ----a con like Obama....I say fire her - the Queen will not mind - nor will she protest.

[ToadBrother]

Unless she went insane, I don't think the Sovereign would allow her to be fired.

It's an academic question, because so far as I know, it's never been done in a Westminster country with a regal (reigning British monarch) or vice-regal (Governor General) head of state. Like I said, Whitlam probably came closest when he almost made the call to the Queen to dismiss Kerr in Australia in 1975. Would the Queen have done it then? Technically, as someone pointed out, the Governor General is the Queen's representative, not the Government's. Constitutionally, the GG is bound to accept the advice of Her Majesty's Government, but in a situation like this, where the essential claim is that that government no longer enjoys the support of Parliament, I'd say the GG has little choice.

[ToadBrother]

It was others that hired the GG - as if the Queen made a call and said that this disloyal french island girl that shared the bed of a domestic terrorist who is black - would make a fine GG - the Queen was not involved - someone else stuck the Queen with this appointment...and by the way - what has the GG as a supposed black woman done for the suffering blacks in Toronto? Nothing! You can fire her because the Queen did not hire her...ask the queen privately if she wants the GG to continue? Logic dictates that if she were not a slave to protocol....GG would be dancing the brass pole...............she so our Obama , a ruse amd a wind bag with a sweet face ----a con like Obama....I say fire her - the Queen will not mind - nor will she protest.

Do you actually believe this? I mean, have the Conservatives do divorced themselves from reality that they think somehow the Queen is going to dislodge her representative so a minority government can remain in power?

[August1991]

Actually, you ask a very interesting question. That's exactly what a sitting PM tried to do in a country not so far away from you. The last time anything like this happened in the Commonwealth was the Australian Constitutional Crisis in 1975, when Gough Whitlam apparently was pondering getting the Queento dismiss GG Sir John Kerr before Kerr dismiss his government and give the Liberals in Australia the keys.

The OP offers a different scenario than the crisis in Australia in November 1975 or Canada's King-Byng affair.

The OP asks whether Harper could change the GG in the middle of her "term" in order to get someone more favourable. I think this would require the approval of the Queen and hence would create a constitutional crisis.

In the case of Whitlam-Kerr or King-Byng, the issue was who had the right to call an election - the PM or the GG. In the case of Australia, this was further complicated because the election concerned the upper house. (Mulroney faced a similar problem as Whitlam since the upper house was stacked with politicians from the opposing side.)

-----

Anyway, I think Harper would rather prorogue the House until the end of January and then present a budget. If the coalition were to defeat Harper's budget then, we might have a constitutional crisis like Australia if Harper wants an election but the GG refuses and instead asks Dion to form a government.

This is a very likely scenario.

[ToadBrother]

The OP offers a different scenario than the crisis in Australia in November 1975 or Canada's King-Byng affair.

I'm not saying they're identical.

The OP asks whether Harper could change the GG in the middle of her "term" in order to get someone more favourable. I think this would require the approval of the Queen and hence would create a constitutional crisis.

My understanding is that Kerr was actually concerned that Whitlam would in fact get the Queen to replace him. This certainly would be much similar to an attempt by Harper to replace Jean.

In the case of Whitlam-Kerr or King-Byng, the issue was who had the right to call an election - the PM or the GG. In the case of Australia, this was further complicated because the election concerned the upper house. (Mulroney faced a similar problem as Whitlam since the upper house was stacked with politicians from the opposing side.)

-----

Anyway, I think Harper would rather prorogue the House until the end of January and then present a budget. If the coalition were to defeat Harper's budget then, we might have a constitutional crisis like Australia if Harper wants an election but the GG refuses and instead asks Dion to form a government.

This is a very likely scenario.

Except that it's quite possible that the GG won't agree to this either. We're stepping into some weird constitutional territory. I think Harper proroguing Parliament might actually produce a major crisis.

[Alta4ever]

Harper is finished with. A retired poltical jersey.

Harper is not in a position to attempt to further corrupt our system because that's what it would be if he did that. He's done this 1 time too many and I feel it's wrong. I've spoken out about it in the past.

He's not a good leader and never has been if you look at his lackluster track record at actually winning elections.

Rae on the other hand...

Further corrruption??????? Who hell got caught fulleling money, who held most of the political appointment liberals. Hell Liberals wouldn't even appoint the senators that Alberta wanted to send.

Our system became corrupted by successive Liberal governments.