The ugly side of Jean's jobCraig Offman, National Post December 03, 2008
Gary Clement on the crisis in Ottawa, cartoon: Gary Clement/National PostAs Governor-General Michaëlle Jean returns on Wednesday to settle a once-in-a-lifetime political crisis, this unelected official possesses a Solomonic power, one that will determine the country's fate.
With all the dysfunction on Parliament Hill in the past five years, and certainly in the past five days, the position of governor-general has arguably inched past the requisite motions of ribbon-cutting and rubber-stamping. It is now floating in the more foggy, but much more influential and problematic, realm of what is called reserve power, or a head of state's discretion to reject the advice of a prime minister.
Detractors may see this process as a latter-day version of kingmaking, while supporters say the options before Ms. Jean call on her using the full range of the office's power.
Should she postpone the parliament's business, allow a coalition of erstwhile rivals to seize power from the Conservatives, or dissolve parliament and call an election?
One leading constitutional expert who has advised Ms. Jean's predecessors offered another option -- albeit with a royal flourish: "In 1931, there was a world economic crises, worse than the one we're in," explained Ted McWhinney. "And King George V–who was not an imaginative man–said we've got to have coalition government of all parties, and he formed them."
While leading Liberals such as Pierre Trudeau and John Manley used to question the job's usefulness, the recent spate of minority governments that have wobbled into power have begun to change all that.
In fact, the role might be more pivotal, and more controversial, than ever.
Governor-General watchers say that Ms. Jean has done an impeccable job since being appointed by Paul Martin in 2005. In Canada, she courted little controversy when she allowed Stephen Harper to call an election last fall, despite his promises to hold off. She has also proven to be an engaging emissary abroad.
Yet she has taken a few knocks for being too active in her role by dismissing sovereigntists and intimating support for the war in Afghanistan.
"Whatever she does, she will be criticized heavily," said Louis Massicotte, a political science professor at Laval University.
Experts say that Ms. Jean's quandary is unprecedented in Canadian history, yet still there are parallels from other countries to draw from, cautionary tales about symbolic heads of state who tried to stretch their job descriptions. While they do have a certain amount of discretion when governments are threatened, they have to act in the public's best interest of stable government.
Yet historians of the Westminster System -- a parliamentary-style government with a figurehead nominally in charge -- could bring up Sir John Kerr of Australia as an example of the office gone awry.
In 1975, Mr. Kerr, the Governor-General at the time, dismissed the government and replaced it with the opposition, which then called an election soon after. The set of events led to accusations of interventionism and collusion, precipitating to the greatest constitutional crisis in the country's history and Mr. Kerr's ostracism from political life.
Reports had rivals still bickering over the event, called the Dismissal, at his funeral in 1991.
In Ms. Jean's case, her major decision will mark a sharp departure from her typical duties, which are called royal prerogatives, usually performed at the prime minister's request. They include signing treaties, passport issuance, or the formal appointments of Cabinet ministers.
But then comes the new set of circumstances, in which the Liberals have tag-teamed with the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois to form a coalition. In order to let them take power, Ms. Jean must gain assurances from this motley alliance that they plan to stay together for the long haul. Or else she could send Canadians back to the polls, or call off parliament for at least another month, which is what Prime Minister Harper might request.
If she rejects his request, she'd be flexing what is called her reserve of power.
"These are things that the governor-general or monarch can do without advice of prime minister," explained Ned Franks, a noted constitutional expert. "In other words, 99.99% of the time, the things a governor general does in a constitutional-legal sense is on advice of the prime minister. We're in 0.001% territory."
There are a few examples of the exercise of reserve power, mostly notably in 1979, when Prime Minister Joe Clark asked Ed Shreyer to dissolve parliament, and rather than instantly agreeing, the Governor General made the Tory leader wait for up to an hour until he gave his verdict.
No formal advising body guides the head of state to make these kinds of critical decisions.
When Adrienne Clarkson faced the possible fall of Paul Martin's government, she spoke to a range of legal experts. "She did a pretty thorough job of it," said Mr. Franks. "But now we get to Michaelle Jean, who was in Europe when all of this came up, and she has to decide by Monday on whatever has to be decided."
He added that the first person he'd call if he were in Ms. Jean's position would be her fellow CBC alumnus, Ms. Clarkson.
While the Privy Council might offer its services, Ms. Jean might also call on the constitutional experts, friends, or her predecessors for their confidential assistance. "She might call on her hairdresser. Louis XI of France said that the man whom he most trusted was his barber," said Ted McWhinney, who also advises other Westminister-style countries.
Mr. McWhinney cautioned, however, that she could not seek advice from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who acts as her deputy when is abroad. "The Chief Justice might have to rule in the event that a court case is established [against her]. So she's really in a bind."
He thinks that the role is "outdated," pointing out that other countries such as India and Ireland have done much to further democratize it.
Ireland, for example, directly elects its president, or titular head of state.
When asked if recent events might bring about change for Canada, however, he sounded a little less sanguine. "Maybe, but it will probably take 17 years."
It's all up to Governor General Michaelle Jean
