Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[g_bambino]

OK, that was the third calling and I have to assume that you have no answer to that clearly stated question.

Well, you could save yourself from assuming by simply reading what I write. I said, more than once, that I wasn't going to answer your loaded question.

No other democracy of the first world grants its executive the privilege to shut down the Parliament for extended periods of time and at will, leaving it completely free of any oversight or accountability, whether under thin guise of "Royal Prerogative" or any other centuries old mumbo jumbo.

True, that makes us unique among the democracies of the developed world just as was said all along.

Your unproven, hyperbolic jibber jabber is not truth.

[myata]

Your unproven, hyperbolic jibber jabber is not truth.

What's unproven though? That the Parliament is being sent to rest, for three months? And for the second time in as many years? Look out that window, will ya?

Or that any PM can send it there for even longer, up to a year at at time (we have TD's expert word on that)?

So what exactly is unproven, hyperbolic etc, would you care to elaborate?

And again, just in case you happened to forget, how common would such situation be among democracies of the developed world?

[myata]

Can't speak to India (they've got the longest constitution in the world, and I don't have time to read through the sections about the Parliament), but Ireland's constitution reads thusly:

Good dig, TB, but the question still remains, whether Ireland PM has the power to suspend (prorogue, etc) the Parliament for a year, like ours?

I doubt you'll find it very different in any parliamentary system. The government, in such a system, almost always formulates policy, the bulk of the legislation, and hence controls the legislative agenda and calendar.

And I doubt that suspension of legislature for extended periods of time is compatible with principles of modern and responsible democracy. This is clearly a subservient role to the government, where the Parliament is recalled when needed, and can be shut down on convenience at any time. Doesn't sound to me as a recepy for transparency and accountability or responsibility no matter how many words are spun.

I guess the only way to resolve our doubts would be to research on the role of the Parliament in the advanced democracies, let see what we can find?

[ToadBrother]

Good dig, TB, but the question still remains, whether Ireland PM has the power to suspend (prorogue, etc) the Parliament for a year, like ours?

I'd say it's pretty much identical to any other Westminster parliament's:

Article 13

2.1. The Dail Eireann (Lower House) shall be summoned and dissolved by the President on the advice of the Taoisearch (Prime Minister).

2.2. The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve the Dail Eireann on the advice of the Taoisearch who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in the Dail Eireann.

2.3. The President may at any time, after consultation with the Council of State, convene a meeting of either or both of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Council of State in Ireland is essentially the equivalent of the Privy Council in Commonwealth countries where the Queen is head of state. My assumption would be that, like the Privy Council, the President would generally be relying on the advice of the current cabinet, for the most part. All this from a constitution that isn't even 75 years old yet.

Why can't you do this your self? I mean, you're making all sorts of claims about "modern true" democracy, and when I show you another democracy, one which in fact has an elected head of state, which still uses fundamentally the same system as ours, with the same sorts of reserve powers as ours, you just cannot admit it.

You could find Ireland's constitution just as easy as I, and while, because it wants to retain some of its Celtic roots, some of the offices are in Gaelic, they clearly are identical in principle and in constitution to those found in other Westminster parliaments.

And I doubt that suspension of legislature for extended periods of time is compatible with principles of modern and responsible democracy. This is clearly a subservient role to the government, where the Parliament is recalled when needed, and can be shut down on convenience at any time. Doesn't sound to me as a recepy for transparency and accountability or responsibility no matter how many words are spun.

You can play this fallacy game all day, but the fact remains that a large number of democracies use a system that in essence is the same as ours. I suspect if I dug through the monster that is the Indian constitution, I'd probably find the same general powers. One thing the Indian constitution makes clear is that the President acts only on the advice of the government.

I guess the only way to resolve our doubts would be to research on the role of the Parliament in the advanced democracies, let see what we can find?

I've done a cursory read of two constitutions in the last 18 hours. Your turn.

Edited February 12, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

What's unproven though?

The part where you said that the government is "completely free of any oversight or accountability".

That the Parliament [has been] sent to rest... for the second time in as many years... [H]ow common would such situation be among democracies of the developed world?

Quite. All countries that are Westminster parliamentary democracies allow it.

[A]ny PM can send it there for even longer, up to a year at at time...

TB has already provided evidence that Ireland does the same; how many others, I'm not entirely sure of, at the moment.

[Oleg Bach]

Odd, all of North America has no government at the moment. Mexico has none to speak of most of the time. Washington has been dealt a server weather blow..and does not exist at this moment - and our government is gone rogue and prorouged themselves out of existance. Kind of nice not having big brother around.

[g_bambino]

All this from a constitution that isn't even 75 years old yet.

Similarly, myata's been harping about this one-a-year minimum for sessions of parliament as though it's been present since the days of the Plague, yet, the provision in our constitution is actually spelled out in the Constitution Act 1982.

[g_bambino]

[O]ur government is gone rogue and prorouged themselves out of existance.

The government can't be prorogued. Parliament is not the government.

[ToadBrother]

TB has already provided evidence that Ireland does the same; how many others, I'm not entirely sure of, at the moment.

Just reading through the German constitution, and it's pretty similar as well. The President has largely ceremonial powers, and while retaining some reserve powers, once again, operates save in certain situations on the advice of the Chancellor and the German Government.

One interesting feature of the German Constitution that I certainly would advocate for ours is the following:

Article 39 section 3 The Bundestag shall determine when its sessions shall be adjourned and resumed. The President of the Bundestag may convene it at an earlier date. He shall be obliged to do so if one third of the Members, the Federal President, or the Federal Chancellor so demands.

This pretty much removes the need for prorogation as a reserve power, moving it completely into the sphere of Parliamentary procedure. It also allows a safety valve of sorts, allowing a reasonable fraction of the German parliament to recall (I'm not sure how exactly that's polled, mind you, when their parliament is adjourned). Of course, you'll note that the Chancellor retains that right absolutely, still making him (or her, as it is currently) effectively as powerful as the President.

[jbg]

Can't speak to India (they've got the longest constitution in the world, and I don't have time to read through the sections about the Parliament), but Ireland's constitution reads thusly:

I like the British constitution. I was thinking about sending one of my associates out to hunt down an archived signed copy of that document.

[g_bambino]

I was thinking about sending one of my associates out to hunt down an archived signed copy of that document.

I can never tell whether you're joking or not, jbg...

[jbg]

Washington has been dealt a server weather blow..and does not exist at this moment

Shows a bit of ignorance. In the U.S. at least, in practice, most day-to-day government is state or local. I suspect strongly that Annapolis, Maryland is the only state capital likely affected by snow. Maybe Dover, Delaware and Trenton, New Jersey.

[myata]

Just reading through the German constitution, and it's pretty similar as well.

Article 39 section 3 The Bundestag shall determine when its sessions shall be adjourned and resumed. The President of the Bundestag may convene it at an earlier date. He shall be obliged to do so if one third of the Members, the Federal President, or the Federal Chancellor so demands.

Similar??! One of us must have a funny idea what the word means, so let's have a closer look:

Here: PM (even minority PM) has an absolutely free hand in suspending or convening the Parliament at any time of their choosing.

Germany: The BUNDESTAG (ie the Parliament) "shall determine" (highlighted for easy reading and hopefully, understanding)

Ireland: gives explicit privilege to the (elected) President to not follow the advice of the Government if its confidence status is in question.

Now with Germany it should be completely clear thati it does not allow a minority PM to dissolve or suspend parliament, unless the Parliament itself so decides.

Is that similar to what just happened to us here? Answer: only in the land where day means night, and lack of Parliamentary independence - supemacy and vibrant and blah, democracy.

Let's move on to the other example, Ireland. There, an elected President is given an explicit discretion to reject the advice of government whose confidence status is in question. How similar would it be to our already just mentioned situation here?

I'll have to begin on a short lecture about democratic legitimacy. See, in a democracy, any sort of sovereign (as opposed to delegated) power has to come from the people, either directly or via their elected representatives. And so, while elected President can be democratically entitled to acts like suspension of Parliament (without saying that I would support such an arrangement for reasons I already touched upon), such an act by a person without democratic legitimacy (like an unelected appointee) would be a big no-no in any society concious and concerned about functioning of their democracy. The reason why we happen to have it this way here of course goes back deep into history when the source of sovereign power was the monarchy, and we just haven't noticed, or didn't care to that in couple of hundred centuries the system has been in place some things have changed around us.

Anywats, we can now move on to the example of Ireland. If there's a conflict of two sovereign democratic powers, namely the government, representing a faction of elected representatives, and the Parliamentary majority that would not extend its confidence to the government, the third and also democratically sovereign power i.e. the President makes a decision which they are explicitly empowered to by the Constitution.

Now, how similar it would be to our situation in Canada? Let's summarise:

There: elected President makes decision explicitly defined in the Constitution;

Here: unelected appointee is granted with a privilege to make an important political decisions with not democratic legitimacy, or any explicit definition or qualification of the privilege (such as the state of confidence).

Does it sound "the same" or even "similar"? Again only in that dreamland where "No" means "Yes" and the less independent democratic institutions one has, the more vibrant and sovereign their democracy becomes.

I've done a cursory read of two constitutions in the last 18 hours. Your turn.

Now TB, I do appreciate your efforts in digging out all that stuff, being somewhat tied up I cannot accomplish something like that this quickly, but I'll do some research of my own on Parliamentary independency and division of power in the modern democracies, and post results as I get them.

[William Ashley]

The government can't be prorogued. Parliament is not the government.

Civil Government actually can be suspended. There is a chain of command and process, the legal

and conventional way of doing these things may be slightly different - however government CAN be suspended.

The courts technically can suspend government operations short of parliament (not withstanding)

by means of mandamus - if the government is not performing its legal duties, or if in violation

of law.

The Governor in Council (who sits at the PM's as per cabinet determination primarily ) could

be ousted or removed - this cabinet could alter or change handling of departments and agencies.

The bills themselves which create the powers to form department (via acts specific to the departments and

agencies could also be repealed.

There are many methods to suspend government - however in reality it would likely take a bill introduced by

parliament to remove all non constitutional obligations of the government.

While constitutional responsibilities would require amending through the constituional ammending formula.

The courts themselves have the power to overrule government in its operations if not following the law

(the acts themselves which establish operations usually set out those guidelines) while there

are some other governmental responsibilities that exist by natural law or convention.

So technically a sitting government CAN be suspended - some of those duties may be abrogated.

The responsibilities of government however must exist in natural law for a legislated government to be ceased.

A state cannot be ceased as long as one member of the state functions - a government can be ceased by divesting the powers of government to the people (for example in the US all powers not divested to the federal government or states are divested in the people... so if the federal powers and state powers were legislated out of existence.. the government would belong to the people rather than a government, the same exists in Canada - EXCEPT in so much as the constitution granting executive authority in the monarch - rather than the people.. however the charter granted equality - thus all Canadians are peer with the Queen of Canada in so much of the powers of executive, as powers undivested in mind of equal powers. The second catch is that the courts (non executive, judicial are divested to the Queen - but for the most part lay with the supreme court - so the exercise of those powers are bound by laws --- laws themselves are legislated or --- in part existing in acts of parliament - (although some housed in common law) there are lots of hitches however.. the courts act for the most part by a house of laws established by parliament and the essential ascended by the queen (or their representative)

so yes technically government can make itself impotent to override the public will (as ironic as that is - since it is suppose to represent the public will)

This rests in part that powers can be resumed by the Queen from parliament (queen as one part of parliament (the other two the senate and commons - in terms of making law) and the Queen as having the supreme court sit to represent her (once again the question of resuming or using standing to judge law also) -- the whole establishment is inpart to divest powers so as to allow function where one person may not be able to do all things of government - but also that along with supporters and staff a more effective government can be administered.

Canada itself being a constitutional monarchy - has powers stem from the constitution - and the monarchy. The powers themselves are divided in the jurisdictions both federal and provincial. We all know that story - but the point is that government sits at the leisure of two forces - the courts, and the legislature. Without these two forces - the government draws their power from those two institutions - an executive without a legislature is dictorial - a executive without courts is despotic. While there is nothing to stop Canada outright of being despotic or dictorial the divestment of powers serves this - should the powers not be despotism or dictatorship they would surely be divested to the people in a form of anarchy - while this is not outright excluded anarchy is only insomuch anarchy as it doesn't recognize its own values or organization - the same true of a despot dictator or the individual.

Edited February 12, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Germany: The BUNDESTAG (ie the Parliament) "shall determine"...

TB said this was something worth considering for Canada, not that Canada and Germany had this in common.

Ireland: gives explicit privilege to the (elected) President to not follow the advice of the Government if its confidence status is in question.

Where did you get the "in question" part? The Irish constitution states (s.13.2.2): "The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve Dáil Éireann on the advice of a Taoiseach who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann," which leaves no questions, and is precisely what we have here: the Governor General can refuse to dissolve (or prorogue, or burn down) parliament on the advice of a prime minister who has ceased to retain the confidence of the House of Commons.

I imagine you can read, so why do you speak as though words that were written never were and words that were never written were? It's really not constructive.

[g_bambino]

Civil Government actually can be suspended.

Um, no; it's constitutionally required:

9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

11. There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the Government of Canada, to be styled the Queen's Privy Council for Canada...

13. The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor General acting by and with the Advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.

Constitution Act 1867

[William Ashley]

executive government is not civil government.

see that general part - where does that come from?

the govenor general is institutionally a martial order of state.

Edited February 12, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

executive government is not civil government.

see that general part - where does that come from?

the govenor general is institutionally a martial order of state.

Before we go any further, I think we'd better decide on the terms here. First and foremost, what is it exactly that you mean by "civil government"? That the GG is command-and-chief is part of her role, yes, but not the entirety of it. That's like saying the President of the United States is somehow a martial position.

[g_bambino]

executive government is not civil government.

Okay, fair enough. But, you spoke of the Governor General being "ousted" (your word) from Council, which relates to the executive goverment.

[ToadBrother]

Similar??! One of us must have a funny idea what the word means, so let's have a closer look:

Here: PM (even minority PM) has an absolutely free hand in suspending or convening the Parliament at any time of their choosing.

Germany: The BUNDESTAG (ie the Parliament) "shall determine" (highlighted for easy reading and hopefully, understanding)

Yes, the German parliament is afforded more powers. I have said this is a useful idea for us. But in large part, the nature of the relationship between the executive and the government in Germany is largely the same as here. I suspect that in part a reason for allowing 1/3 of German parliamentarians to force the legislature back to session relates to assuring that the kinds of tricks Hitler used to take over the Reichstadt couldn't happen again. That hasn't happened in our system since the reign of Charles I, so I'd say our democracy is pretty safe from that.

Ireland: gives explicit privilege to the (elected) President to not follow the advice of the Government if its confidence status is in question.

Can you cite that? I didn't read that anywhere.

Now with Germany it should be completely clear thati it does not allow a minority PM to dissolve or suspend parliament, unless the Parliament itself so decides.

You're using confusing word. "Dissolve" in parliamentary terms means to shut down Parliament and call new elections. Suspending Parliament, which is what prorogation does, is something separate. From what I can tell, the Chancellor can certainly advise the President to adjourn Parliament, what the Constitution affords is a way for the German parliament to be recalled if 1/3 of members want it to. I can't quite figure out how that's supposed to happen, but clearly there must be a way for German parliamentarians to make their will known even when parliament isn't sitting.

Is that similar to what just happened to us here? Answer: only in the land where day means night, and lack of Parliamentary independence - supemacy and vibrant and blah, democracy.

Let's move on to the other example, Ireland. There, an elected President is given an explicit discretion to reject the advice of government whose confidence status is in question. How similar would it be to our already just mentioned situation here?

I'd like a cite on that.

I'll have to begin on a short lecture about democratic legitimacy. See, in a democracy, any sort of sovereign (as opposed to delegated) power has to come from the people, either directly or via their elected representatives. And so, while elected President can be democratically entitled to acts like suspension of Parliament (without saying that I would support such an arrangement for reasons I already touched upon), such an act by a person without democratic legitimacy (like an unelected appointee) would be a big no-no in any society concious and concerned about functioning of their democracy. The reason why we happen to have it this way here of course goes back deep into history when the source of sovereign power was the monarchy, and we just haven't noticed, or didn't care to that in couple of hundred centuries the system has been in place some things have changed around us.

At the end of the day, your ideological notions aside, there is little difference between a parliamentary government where there is a president or where there is a monarch. The powers won't be identical in any two countries. You can claim our system is somehow less legitimate than, say, Finland, but that's simply an ideological judgement, not a practical one. I've demonstrated that our system of government is used by dozens of countries, and the idea of an executive whose power is only used save in special circumstances on the advice of the government is a successful one.

Anywats, we can now move on to the example of Ireland. If there's a conflict of two sovereign democratic powers, namely the government, representing a faction of elected representatives, and the Parliamentary majority that would not extend its confidence to the government, the third and also democratically sovereign power i.e. the President makes a decision which they are explicitly empowered to by the Constitution.

Well of course. Just like how our constitution empowers the Sovereign, or the vice-regal representative.

Now, how similar it would be to our situation in Canada? Let's summarise:

There: elected President makes decision explicitly defined in the Constitution;

Here: unelected appointee is granted with a privilege to make an important political decisions with not democratic legitimacy, or any explicit definition or qualification of the privilege (such as the state of confidence).

I don't see that at all. In either case, the powers are largely the same, and the result would largely be the same. For the purposes of the exercise of executive power, there is no difference between a constitutional monarchy and a republican parliament.

Does it sound "the same" or even "similar"? Again only in that dreamland where "No" means "Yes" and the less independent democratic institutions one has, the more vibrant and sovereign their democracy becomes.

I never said they were the same. Each country which has modeled their system on the Westminster parliament has made peculiar innovations. I like the German constitution's answer, which would have allowed the Opposition to override the advice the PM gave the GG. It would require a constitutional change, either a modification of Royal Prerogative, or potentially eliminating that prerogative entirely. I'm not a constitutional expert, so I can't say which.

Now TB, I do appreciate your efforts in digging out all that stuff, being somewhat tied up I cannot accomplish something like that this quickly, but I'll do some research of my own on Parliamentary independency and division of power in the modern democracies, and post results as I get them.

It took me 30 minutes on Google. About ten to find the documents, and twenty to hunt down the appropriate sections. I don't have time to go through the Indian constitution until probably this weekend, but I would suspect that in substance it probably won't be much different than any of the others.

[William Ashley]

Okay, fair enough. But, you spoke of the Governor General being "ousted" (your word) from Council, which relates to the executive goverment.

provide a link and I can elaborate.

Canada is in a weird position - however it helps to see things in an advisory way - the GG is still able

to appoint a new GGIC - by means of appointing a new PM - who would then appoint new ministers.

Part of the catch is that GGIC members are usually Privy Council or Queens Council for life - I'm not aware of an

un council method - so they for life become advisors (and have some privleges in terms of access to documents

etc.. there is a paradox that can be best described by saying the Govenor General is the President of

the company appointed by the Owner (the queen) but it they also have some powers more like the CEO--

the CEO who may be more readily recognized is appointed by the president but it is usually that the

share holders who form the largest voting block select the CEO - while the owner who has thier powers

in the articles of incorporation as being able to select the president. So in this respect

the CEO likes to think themselves superior the president because they tend to do most of the stuff

that is geared towards running the company -- and have the ability to run the company without consent

of the president -- but if the board and CEO make a wrong move than the president (GG) can appoint a

new CEO - this could upset some stockholders but not all per se.

While the president isn't necsiarily active in day to day company operations or even sitting at

board meetings - they still have the duty to oversee company operations - and can off the

CEO which would likely result in the board being ousted.

However in terms of governance the GGIC more or less does not operate with the GG anymore

although in its original form as far as I recall the GG held the powers of the GGIC. Still

the GG has control of the board.. but more or less doesn't involve itself in the board, except

in some capacities such as confirming members of the board -- basically the president has

a veto on all appointments of office except their own -- which the owner technically still has

although the board suggests someone for the position.

It isn't complex.. I can expand on my quote, however this may explain it to a certain extent.

[g_bambino]

provide a link and I can elaborate.

Okay. Link and quote:

The Governor in Council (who sits at the PM's as per cabinet determination primarily) could be ousted or removed - this cabinet could alter or change handling of departments and agencies.

[Argus]

There is a solution, and it involves ignoring political brands for a moment and imagining how political leaders would act if their supporters weren't simply cheerleaders who feel it is their duty to go around waving the banner going "Our leader is the best, anyone who disagrees is whiney and a lefty/righty/whatevery". Clearly the PM (and all party leaders, really) hold far too much power, the solution is simple, and that's for MPs to recognize that first and foremost they are parliamentarians, and secondly that they belong to a party. Perhaps if Tory MPs and Tory supporters like yourself had publicly said "We think proroguing Parliament under the current circumstances is wrong", Harper would not have done it, and perhaps you wouldn't have seen 14 points shed from your favorite party as Canadians, who generally are not ideologues, reacted strongly to yet another stunt aimed squarely at evading the supremacy of Parliament.

Why was proroguing parliament wrong?

[ToadBrother]

Why was proroguing parliament wrong?

The 2008 prorogation was wrong because it directly interfered with Parliament's chief check on the power of a government, and that is confidence. I'm not saying the outcome was bad (I think the Coalition would have been a shortlived disaster when at least some modicum of stable government was most important), I am saying that it sets a terrible precedent. Sometimes the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and no one can tell me that Harper's intentions were pure. The issue I have is that we now have a precedent of using prorogation to avoid defeat in the House. Now it may be that we will soon return to majority governments, and all my utterances on the subject for the last year and a bit are just empty air.

But let's just say we don't return to majorities for some time to come, and where Parliament's confidence in the Government is called into question with greater frequency. The temptation of a government to prorogue to avoid potential confidence showdowns, and to even adjourn the House for considerable lengths of time will become all the greater. Yes, their ability to do work will be limited, but when survival of the government can override the importance of Parliament, and in a system where the unique power of the Prime Minister to advise the Governor General, there is potential not so much for a government to run amok, but for a government to simply say "Well, the Opposition won't play ball, they're threatening to bring us down, so we'll prorogue and see you in six months".

Being Prime Minister should mean trying to get away with whatever you can to maintain an edge, and dangerous consequences down the road be damned.

By the same token, being Leader of the Opposition in a minority situation shouldn't mean "I'm bringing down the government at the very next opportunity", which was what Iggy was basically trying to do (idiotically, as neither the NDP or the Bloc were the least bit interested in an election). Just as much as the PM should use his direct line to the GG with respect and responsibility, the Opposition shouldn't be viewing every moment that Parliament sits as an opportunity to bring down the Government in the hopes of passing off some bizarre Frankenstein's coalition. I'll happily condemn both sides for all of this, and most certainly, as Liberals have spent more time in government over the last forty years than Tories, I'll condemn them in particular for this long sad story where MPs are forced to become voting machines, and where a general political philosophy of the Government being greater than Parliament has developed (and we can blame Trudeau for that one, mainly, though Mulroney and Chretien both in turn certainly behaved little better).

Edited February 12, 2010 by ToadBrother

[William Ashley]

Before we go any further, I think we'd better decide on the terms here. First and foremost, what is it exactly that you mean by "civil government"?

Without writing a book I'll try to bring you up to speed on the origins and capacities of civil government.

Government emerged and continues to be a social organization. There are different forces within society (and societies), some of these forces are advisory and others are martial. Within European historic society there were

a variety of cultures that changed over time. A constant within these societies holds true to the majority of global cultures in that they had both religion and warrior castes. Sometimes these merged or became centralized, by a king, chief or pope.

The church originally united but with different subgroups for instance the Arian Controversy. These could be seen as equivocal to cultural issues in society which spawn political divisions rather than religious belief divisions. It is all in some respect a type of dogma or policy. These differences hold no force - that is policy is only dogma. While dogma can influence individuals actions, it does not outright command authority it is only opinion which is a form of advice.

The church formed for the most part a "civil government" they had their own courts which were recognized by kings and other authorities. Civil government is that which function by consent of advice, and holds no martial force in and of itself.

In contrast martial authority "MAY" be formed on the basis of advice re: a chain of command, but it can also function of its own capacity. The division of civil government and martial government can be contrasted by:

civil government functions with the support of those whom it commands

martial government commands those who do not support - this should not be confused with people who they command are not following orders, what it is to mean is those outside the order are brought into it by force if not cooperating with it.

Hopefully you can understand the difference in what I mean by civil government and martial government.

martial governances are the organs of the executive: examples are the police and military - and a variety of other agencies within Canada. This is contrast by civil government which is instituted within government by acts which hold no power without a martial force. That is the martial aspect is to uphold government where the civil aspect fails.

Government CAN exist without civil government, it cannot however be effective without martial governance in means of the definition of governance.

That the GG is command-and-chief is part of her role, yes, but not the entirety of it. That's like saying the President of the United States is somehow a martial position.

You mention the US - I would argue that is the role of the president to protect the constitution of the united states of America and to act as commander in chief of the united states - bear in mind George Washington the first US president was the commander of US forces before he was president the US didn't even exist except as a merger of military powers, initially. congress was formed to regulate trade among the states and foreign entities, and after confederation the US was for the most part only a civil government while the president was a martial force (As commander)

This in Canadian terms is to say that Parliament is a civil government -

there are some divisions of power on the martial side for example on the military's website they state "de jure and de facto commander of the CF" is chief of defense staff --- while "commander in chief is the Governor General - it can be argued that the GG is a civil position not a martial position - however you could say the same of the president - HOWEVER for instance the commander in chief of the forces - when in an area of combat can actually assume command - this hasn't been done in Canada as far as I am aware for some time - likewise this appears the same in the US - however conventionally the Governor General and President both still have --- by terms of convetion the capacity to assume martial command or enforce martial law.

The role of the minister (who is the "electoral governments") adviser to the military (as the CDS is to be adviser to the electoral government) the commons (the base of the electoral government) has power over "funding" that was in part the original reason for electoral government or regional advisories (note though that there are area commanders in counties in the UK.. counties arn't actually so much as recognized as royal administrative units in Canada anymore, nor are baronies etc.. (however they did exist in Canada, and arguably still do by charter, a totally different issue)

To make a long story short - parliament and elections are not required for the state to function but they are an aspect of the constitution - little do you know - but in time of war elections can be suspended - this has occurred in Canadian history.

Now figure this --- parliament can close itself or suspend members access to a session -

the governor general NEED NOT form government from the civil government they can select anyone - it need not even be a member of parliament to the position of PM - this has occurred. It is a status quo ante situation.

Reality check there is a sense of accountability HOWEVER IT IS.. a martial position by terms of the position.. while

And We do hereby authorize and empower Our Governor General, with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada or of any members thereof or individually, as the case requires, to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us in respect of Canada, and for greater certainty but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing to do and execute, in the manner aforesaid, all things that may belong to his office and to the trust We have reposed in him according to the several powers and authorities granted or appointed him by virtue of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1940 and the powers and authorities hereinafter conferred in these Letters Patent and in such Commission as may be issued to him under Our Great Seal of Canada and under such laws as are or may hereinafter be in force in Canada.

They are an executive read the letters patent - http://www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/government/letters_patent.html

You can only bring into force by means of martial use if there is doubt of authority.

Furthermore in the patent it states

"And We do hereby require and command all Our Officers and Ministers, Civil and Military, and all the other inhabitants of Canada, to be obedient, aiding, and assisting unto Our Governor General, or, in the event of his death, incapacity, or absence, to such person as may, from time to time, under the provisions of these Our Letters Patent administer the Government of Canada."

I can understand how you may be hardpressed with J.M holding a colt to someones head saying do it or else but that is the post in terms of the duties of the post.

It is a muddy situation but anyone can form a martial government - civil government call the ones they don't like terrorists... fact is that behind every government where an opposition exists to their rule of law there exists terrorists. A while different issue, but without side treking to much. the GG is a martial post. THE GG legally however can kill someone and not be accountable at law, as it is a royal power, this is my opinion you may disagree but it is based on my research into royal capacities. The PM as far as I am aware is fully acountable to civil law outside of parliament ----

the attorney generals roll however makes the independent court thing a little muddy also.

Ultimately though the GG can oust the Attorney General by dismissing the government if there is ever a dispute over powers -- it goes into the issue of standing --- standing does matter legally to a certain point.

Edited February 13, 2010 by William Ashley