Hrothgar: Well told. There are a few differences mind you and a few similarities. John Kerr took it upon himself to replace Gough Whitlam and had also consulted with Malcolm Fraser before doing so. In other words, he just took it upon himself, invited the Prime Minister over, fired him and invited Mr. Fraser to form the government. Unknown to Mr. Whitlam, Mr. Fraser was actually sitting in the next room when he was let go.
The Governor General is not permitted to seek council with the opposition but may only accept advice from the first minister.
The liberals hold the majority in the Canadian senate also. They do stall as many bills as they possibly can but Mr. Harper rattles their cages every once in a while, threatens to put the dissolution of the senate to a referendum and they get back to work. There are 18 vacancies in the Senate and Mr. Harper hasn't seen fit to filling them. It his stated intention to fill those seats with elected senators rather than appointments but he can't do that with a minority government. I'm sure even the Harper bashers here would approve of that move.
Public opinion basically followed peoples political leanings and there was no public outcry of any consequence.
Sir John Kerr resigned within a year, was given a foreign Ambassadorship in some other country (China or Singapore, Can't remember now) and basically plunged into the depths of alcoholism.
Loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen was also a passion for some in Australia at that time though certainly not for all. That's not even on the agenda in Canada.