Article content continued

On June 28, Clark assured reporters, “It’s not my intention to advise (the lieutenant governor) whether she should call an election. That’s her decision.” Yet, she continued, “I’ve gotta be honest: you’ve seen what I’ve seen this week. It isn’t working.” Undoubtedly recognizing that a new election would be unpopular but her only chance to regain political power, Clark evidently wanted to perpetuate the fiction that any new election would be the lieutenant governor’s doing.

Clark’s incoherent comments to the press the following day contradicted her earlier message. She acknowledged that she’d asked Guichon to dissolve the legislature, noting, “the reason I did that is because as we had our conversation it became very clear to me that the risk that would be posed by, you know, what I believe the risk that would be there for changing the rules and really bending the rules of democracy in order to make a government, another government, work.” Clark then explained that Guichon did not grant her request. “She’s chosen another path. I know that she will—I suppose she’ll be able to talk to you about why she made that decision.”

As Clark would—or at least should—know, the lieutenant governor will not explain the reasons for her decision. It is a long-standing tradition that the representative of the Crown does not explain reasons for any decision, whether she accepts the advice of a premier or prime minister or not. Any statement emanating from a viceregal office, such as who has resigned or who has agreed to form a government, isrestricted to the bald facts. As historian Peter Neary acknowledges, “That is not always an easy fit with today’s 24/7 news cycle but it is crucial nonetheless.” Robert Hawkins, a constitutional law scholar, has observed that any attempt by the representative of the Crown to justify a decision by offering reasons “could completely destroy the utility of her constitutional role” and magnify the risk of politicizing the office. Adrienne Clarkson, in 2003, famously described her role as governor general as “above politics.” The remark drew much derision, but is in fact accurate.