Difficult position for the GG to be in, particularly with a PM who has demonstrated that he is ready to drive the country into a constitutional crisis if not an interscene regional war. Now the air war commences over the next two months with a ground war being fought by special warrants of public money.
It is a truly bizarre for the first time in Canadian history we have a situation where executive does not enjoy the support of the parliament.
Given that the GG’s power flows through the house I just do not understand (on a purely logical level) how the GG could accede to the request for porogument. It had to be clear that Harper was using proroguement to avoid a confidence vote which meant that the GG should have said to Harper “as long as your support in the house is in question I am not obliged nor can I accept your request for poroguement.”
The only way I can make logical sense of it is that the GG decided that the last vote was a confidence vote and since there had not been a subsequent vote the GG had no choice but to follow the formal fiction that the PM standing before her enjoyed the support of the house even if it was substantively false. That at least keeps the principle, but not the spirit, of responsible government in tact. If that were her logic than I would have to agree with the choice. Technically, in law, Harper did have the support of the house (as long as he did not have to face it). And it is the in law status that the GG would probably have held as sacrosanct.
It is too bad we will never get know what logic was driving the GG’s decision