PM apologizes for 1914 Komogata Maru incident

[cybercoma]

If I were Harper I wouldn't be apologizing for this or anything else. We could use a few more Komogata Maru incidents in this country IMO.

This is pretty insensitive to the families. That ship was sent back at gunpoint and when it arrived home in India, those people were either killed on site or imprisoned. Your comment isn't at all unlike saying you're glad our government turned away Jews during WWII.

[cybercoma]

I am looking at how the country is run, and it is run in such a manner that the Prime Minister is not the embodiment of the state. Hence, he does not "represent Canada" to other states or to itself. The head of state does that, whether that be the Queen (who has done so) or the Governor General (who has done so). The Prime Minister heads, and represents, government. That's it.

A government elected by the people, hence he represents the people.

[g_bambino]

A government elected by the people, hence he represents the people.

The government isn't elected, and certainly not by "the people." It only has the support of a segment of "the people," hence he does not represent "the people" as a whole.

[cybercoma]

nevermind...

Edited August 5, 2008 by cybercoma

[Wild Bill]

The government isn't elected, and certainly not by "the people." It only has the support of a segment of "the people," hence he does not represent "the people" as a whole.

Not that I agree with you but you do realize, if you extend your argument you cannot claim that all the people who didn't vote agree with YOUR postition?

It's not likely but still possible that each and every one of them agrees with Harper.

[g_bambino]

Not that I agree with you but you do realize, if you extend your argument you cannot claim that all the people who didn't vote agree with YOUR postition?

I would never claim that they all agree with my position.

Do people no longer remember why the minority parties in the House of Commons are collectively called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition? It's because our system is such that one can be disloyal to the government but still be loyal to the state. Asserting that the PM represents all Canadians is to assert that he is the embodiment of the state, which then means one cannot be opposed to him or his cabinet without being disloyal to Canada. Is that really how we want it?

[White Doors]

to be clear, Stephen Harper is the head of the government (like it or not)

The GG is the head of the state and represents the people (like it or not)

[bk59]

I am looking at how the country is run, and it is run in such a manner that the Prime Minister is not the embodiment of the state. Hence, he does not "represent Canada" to other states or to itself. The head of state does that, whether that be the Queen (who has done so) or the Governor General (who has done so). The Prime Minister heads, and represents, government. That's it.

Practically speaking this just isn't true. For example, who represents Canada at the G8 summits? Who speaks for Canadians there? Who speaks for Canadians when Canada enters into agreements with other countries? It certainly isn't the Queen or the Governor General who is doing that negotiating. When the Governor General reads the Speech From the Throne, who wrote that speech?

I am aware of the official titles given to the Prime Minister and to the Queen. The Prime Minister may not be "the embodiment of the state", but that isn't exactly what we are talking about. And this does not change the fact that today the Prime Minister, by convention if not by title, represents the people of Canada and speaks on their behalf.

Let's take this apology example. Who decided to give the apology on behalf of Canadians? Who wrote the actual apology? Even if it was the Queen or the Governor General who issued the apology, do you really think they would have done that without the permission of the Prime Minister and/or Parliament?

The government isn't elected, and certainly not by "the people." It only has the support of a segment of "the people," hence he does not represent "the people" as a whole.

I think you might now be contradicting yourself. How does the government have the support of a segment of the people if it wasn't elected? Wasn't your argument that the Prime Minister is the head of government and that he can only speak on behalf of the people who elected him to that position?

Do people no longer remember why the minority parties in the House of Commons are collectively called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition? It's because our system is such that one can be disloyal to the government but still be loyal to the state. Asserting that the PM represents all Canadians is to assert that he is the embodiment of the state, which then means one cannot be opposed to him or his cabinet without being disloyal to Canada. Is that really how we want it?

There is a huge hole in your logic there. If this were the case, then anyone opposed to the Queen, the monarchy in general, or the Governor General would be considered disloyal to Canada. This just is not true in today's Canada. If someone says "I think Canada should be a republic" no rational person accuses them of being a traitor to Canada. In the same way, no rational person goes around claiming that those who oppose particular policy decisions of the Prime Minister are traitors.

We have these things in Canada called rights. Including the right to believe what you want and the right to speak that belief (I think with the exception regarding inciting hatred with hate speech). These rights allow Canadians to criticize the government no matter who you think embodies the state.

[bk59]

to be clear, Stephen Harper is the head of the government (like it or not)

The GG is the head of the state and represents the people (like it or not)

Officially the Prime Minister is the Head of the Government. Officially the Queen is the Head of the State (with the Governor General being the Queen's representative in Canada).

That is all well and good.

Now, who represents the Canadian people on the world stage? Who speaks for them? If the Prime Minister was not able to speak on behalf of the people then does that not make all of the agreements that the Canadian government enters into void and illegitimate? How could the government function if every time they needed to make a representation on behalf of Canada they had to bring in the Governor General or the Queen?

Like it or not, practically speaking, the Prime Minister represents the people of Canada. The Prime Minister can and does speak on their behalf. Very rarely does the Queen or the Governor General exercise their right to speak on behalf of Canadians without the permission and/or approval of the Prime Minister and the government.

If you want to feel better about this, maybe you can think of it as the Queen, through the Governor General, granting the Prime Minister the right to speak on behalf of Canadians. However you want to look at it though, the practical reality is that the Prime Minister does speak on behalf of Canadians and represent Canadians to the world.

[g_bambino]

Practically speaking this just isn't true.

Practically? By asserting this, you're saying that the country's practical operation isn't constitutional; either that, or that somehow the constitutional conventions that establish the separation between head of state and head of government have been altered to make one person both. The latter seems to be, generally, what Canadian society believes - fed by a combination of ignorance of Canadian institutions, constant US political coverage, and constant Canadian media attention on the PM, most of the population now views the PM as a president; a survey not long ago showed that 70% thought the PM was head of state. But, it's that which isn't true.

The PM is a politician, and politics is divisive by nature. As such, a politician can never speak as a voice for every single individual in the nation, only the majority, at best. Hence, when the PM attends international meetings, like the G8, he does so as a politician promoting the views of his government (which was appointed, not elected - I was only being technical); there will be many Canadians at home disagreeing with what he's doing and saying. Similarly, these apologies being issued are political statements; as such, it is completely appropriate that the GG not be asked to issue them. By doing it in this manner, Harper protects the Crown from responsibility for residential school policies, head taxes, and the like, leaving potential lawsuits against the Queen without a target, exactly as responsible government is meant to operate.

But that still doesn't mean he speaks for all Canadians, despite the words that come out of his mouth; they are typical political posturing. As reactions on these boards alone show, there are numerous Canadians who do not feel apologetic for any of these past events; so, how then can he claim to truly speak on behalf of all of us? As I said, if things were not the way they actually are, those of us here who do not agree with the apologies being issued could be accused of being against the state; the PM is speaking for all Canadians, so, if you don’t agree with him, you don’t agree with Canada; this is exactly the trap they've fallen into in the US, where their head of government and head of state is the same person. We (should) avoid this by having state and government represented by two different people, allowing us freely oppose the government without opposing the state.

As the Canadian state is embodied in the Crown, this does pose a bit of a conundrum for republicans; I have heard them called treasonous and unpatriotic for their beliefs. While I do, personally, feel there is some anti-Canadian sentiment in their attacks on the Crown, I still believe, however, that calling them traitorous is a wrong accusation to make; republicans aren't opposing the state, just the symbol of it. Whatever symbol it is they want to replace the Crown with is, well, a completely different matter.

[White Doors]

Officially the Prime Minister is the Head of the Government. Officially the Queen is the Head of the State (with the Governor General being the Queen's representative in Canada).

That is all well and good.

Now, who represents the Canadian people on the world stage? Who speaks for them? If the Prime Minister was not able to speak on behalf of the people then does that not make all of the agreements that the Canadian government enters into void and illegitimate? How could the government function if every time they needed to make a representation on behalf of Canada they had to bring in the Governor General or the Queen?

Like it or not, practically speaking, the Prime Minister represents the people of Canada. The Prime Minister can and does speak on their behalf. Very rarely does the Queen or the Governor General exercise their right to speak on behalf of Canadians without the permission and/or approval of the Prime Minister and the government.

If you want to feel better about this, maybe you can think of it as the Queen, through the Governor General, granting the Prime Minister the right to speak on behalf of Canadians. However you want to look at it though, the practical reality is that the Prime Minister does speak on behalf of Canadians and represent Canadians to the world.

If I want to feel better? I feel fine with how it is...

Stephen Harper represents the government of Canada. That's just the way it is. The fact is, the government is voted in by the people, but his role is to represent the government of Canada.

The GG or Queen represents the state and people of this country.

Them's the facts.

[normanchateau]

Here's a link to a thread I began more than two years ago about Harper's latest apology:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....aded&start=

Here's the first post in that link:

Ottawa drops "no apology, no compensation" hard line

Vancouver Sun

Published: Sunday, June 03, 2007

OTTAWA - The Harper government has quietly dropped the previous Liberal regime's "no apology, no compensation" hard-line in negotiations with ethnic groups seeking redress for past wrongs despite warnings that it would open the door to a possible flurry of claims.

In government documents obtained by CanWest News Service through the Access to Information Act, the federal government was recently advised that the new approach "may advance calls for apologies/redress" and that there was the "potential for other presently unknown communities to seek recognition."

"A number of other communities are known to have been impacted by wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions including: Austro-Hungarians, Bulgarians, Croatians, Doukhobors, Germans, Hutterites, Indo-Canadians, Jews, Mennonites, Turks, etc..." says the briefing under the heading Other Impacted Communities.

In an interview with CanWest News Service, Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multicultural and Canadian identity, said the terms and conditions of the Community Historical Recognition Program (CHRP) are still being finalized and will be made public "fairly soon" once the details are worked out completely.

He acknowledged that the "no apology, no compensation" policy of the previous government has been dropped by the Harper government as it picks up where former prime minister Brian Mulroney left off in 1988 with the Japanese-Canadian redress case that involved a full apology and a $422-million compensation package.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized about a year ago to Chinese Canadians for the country's racist immigration policies of the past, including the head tax once charged by the federal government to newly arriving immigrants from China. The payments come out of the Harper government's $24-million CHRP, which drops the Martin government's "no apology, no compensation" policy.

As well, consultations and a report by Conservative MP Jim Abbott, who is parliamentary secretary to Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda, have been completed for the government on the Komagata Maru ship incident in 1914 which saw 376 Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus forced back to sea by a Canadian warship at Vancouver harbour.

The documents say the Conservatives have also created a new four-year $10-million National Historical Recognition Program to "provide a federal government narrative that presents an objective point of view on the history linked to wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions."

"I shouldn't be made to feel culpable for what my great-grandparents may have thought, say about Asian immigration. But the Canadian state has a responsibility to face up to those moments in our history when we allowed unjust policies to focus on particular ethnic communities," said Kenney.

Source:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.h...6c5&k=65329

Many in the Vancouver Sikh community are demanding that the government apologize for the Komagatsu Maru incident. Apparently the Conservatives are considering this according to documents obtained by the Vancouver Sun under the Access to Information act. But that incident involved Canada refusing to allow into Canada an entire boatful of illegal immigrants. Why does Canada need to apologize for not allowing illegal immigrants into the country? Why do we today refuse entry into Canada of illegal immigrants yet feel that we need to apologize for refusing entry to illegal immigrants in 1914? Beyond courting the Sikh vote, does Harper have any rational or principled reason for doing this? Shouldn't apologies be reserved for those who suffered racial injustice after moving to Canada?

[bk59]

White Doors, all you have done is essentially repeat your initial statement.

g_bambino, I recognize that the PM is not the head of state. However...

The PM is a politician, and politics is divisive by nature. As such, a politician can never speak as a voice for every single individual in the nation, only the majority, at best.

First, I am not saying that the PM speaks the opinions of every single person in Canada. But your argument cuts both ways. Even the Queen as the Head of State does not speak the opinion of every single Canadian. If this is the definition you are using for "represents Canada" then no one represents Canada. No one could ever speak on behalf of Canadians if all Canadians were required to agree 100%.

Also, your arguments are not making a lot of sense. Take the French example. The President is the Head of State, who you (presumably) would recognize as representing the French people. Yet the French President is a politician. Except that you say politicians cannot represent the people. It seems like you have a paradox on your hands.

Hence, when the PM attends international meetings, like the G8, he does so as a politician promoting the views of his government (which was appointed, not elected - I was only being technical); there will be many Canadians at home disagreeing with what he's doing and saying.

It is totally true that not all Canadians will agree with him. But it is also true that the views given and the agreements made do not apply only to the Prime Minister's government. An agreement made at the G8 by the Prime Minister will bind Canada as a nation. It will bind subsequent governments and subsequent Prime Ministers until such time as the agreement lapses, is modified by mutual consent of the parties, or Canada breaks that agreement. But make no mistake, it is seen as Canada breaking the agreement, not as a new government coming to power and not being held to the agreement.

It is in this sense that the Prime Minister represents Canada. When the Prime Minister makes these commitments he or she binds the people of Canada. Of course not everyone will agree with an issue. But as I pointed out above, if that is your definition of representing a country then no one can ever represent a country.

Similarly, these apologies being issued are political statements; as such, it is completely appropriate that the GG not be asked to issue them.

Yes, they are political statements. If we apply some logic here, we can see what I mean when I say "speaking on behalf of Canadians". If we are to accept your proposition, that the Prime Minister can only speak on behalf of those who elected him or her (that is elected those Party members whose numbers then require that the PM be appointed), then there would be no point in issuing any apology whatsoever. The people who elected the current government were not alive in 1914 (for the most part). So why apologize? It is because "the government" exists in two senses: the current government party and the Canadian government that has existed as a continuous institution since Canada became a nation. The apology comes from this continuous government since it was responsible for turning away the boat. We are all represented by this government, no matter who we voted for.

I think that perhaps only that last bit is really relevant to this topic. So before we take this thread any further off course... if anyone feels like debating the issue more generally then maybe a new topic can be started. If I don't see a new topic then I'll take that to mean that we've all agreed to disagree.

Unless we are specifically referencing the apology or apologies in general, of course.

[normanchateau]

http://www.vaniercollege.qc.ca/EVENTS/HOLO...4/st_louis.html

"NONE IS TOO MANY"

Canada was the last country to reject the plea of the St. Louis ship,

before it was sent back to Germany with all its desperate passengers.

You raise an excellent point, i.e., that Canada refused to grant entry to Jews who faced murder at the hands of Nazis and their collaborators. By contrast, those on the Komogata Maru were not fleeing genocide or even death but rather were merely looking to improve their financial resources through illegal immigration to Canada.

What does it say about Harper that he publicly apologized to Sikhs in 2008 for Canada barring their illegal immigration more than 90 years ago but has no intention of apologizing to Jews for Canada barring their entry as they attempted to flee the Holocaust and certain death?

Can Harper supporters explain why modern day Sikhs are more worthy of a Harper apology than modern day Jews? I suspect they can't and will simply ignore these questions as they must surely create cognitive dissonance in rational Harper supporters.

[MontyBurns]

That ship was sent back at gunpoint and when it arrived home in India, those people were either killed on site or imprisoned.

Yeah. So what? We can't fix all the social misdeeds of the past.

[bk59]

Yeah. So what? We can't fix all the social misdeeds of the past.

That's the same logic that says since we can't ever totally eliminate crime we might as well not fight it at all.

We cannot make right every misdeed of the past. But that doesn't mean that we do nothing when it comes to those misdeeds that we can and should put right. The only question that remains is was this one of those situations that can and should be put right? To answer that question you will have to do better than "So what?".

[g_bambino]

I recognize that the PM is not the head of state. However...

There is no "however"; as you acknowledge, the PM is not the head of state. As such, he is not the embodiment of the state, and therefore does not, and cannot, represent it. Politicians are elected by a certain segment of the population to represent them, and can only speak officially as such, even if they are the prime minister. His advice to the Queen or GG may be so normally binding as to make his decisions essentially fait accompli, giving his statements the appearance of the national voice. But he always remains only the temporary voice of the majority, put in place by the sovereign in order to tender advice on how he or she can exercise their executive authority so as to best suit the majority of the populace at that time; as the source of legislation, it is impossible for the Crown, in that role, to make everyone happy. As representatives, on the other hand, the Queen and GG have no political motivations. They need not express the opinions of everyone in the country in order to represent them; to the contrary, they should publicly offer no particular opinion, one way or the other. In public, they stick to unarguable history and cultural celebration. It is essential to their roles that they not let their personal beliefs on any controversial matter - such as international agreements - be known. I'm hard pressed to find many references where either of them said something controversial. The only possibilities I can see are when the Queen has spoken about Canadian unity and raised the ire of Quebec separatists, and, our present GG has made a couple of gaffes in making what should have been private discussions between she and her prime minister a public matter. Still, even in those instances, the Queen only tread close to making political statements; she has the finesse to avoid crossing it completely; and Jean only botched things in terms of the creation and awarding of honours; not exactly high profile political affairs.

Take the French example. The President is the Head of State, who you (presumably) would recognize as representing the French people. Yet the French President is a politician. Except that you say politicians cannot represent the people. It seems like you have a paradox on your hands.

Hardly! It is the French who have a paradox on their hands. Indeed, a president is a politician, and thus cannot truly speak for the nation as a whole, only the majority of its populace.

If we are to accept your proposition, that the Prime Minister can only speak on behalf of those who elected him or her (that is elected those Party members whose numbers then require that the PM be appointed), then there would be no point in issuing any apology whatsoever.

This is aside from the "speaking on behalf of all Canadians" issue, but I couldn't agree with you more. The government - in the sense of the Crown-in-Council - is a continuous concept, as its existence is established by the constitution. However, it does not have institutional memory; as you pointed out earlier, no one Cabinet is bound by the actions of its predecessor. So, if Harper is going to offer apologies on behalf of the only body he can - the present Cabinet - that's fine. But, indeed, why do so for something the present Cabinet had no hand in?

[bk59]

Hardly! It is the French who have a paradox on their hands. Indeed, a president is a politician, and thus cannot truly speak for the nation as a whole, only the majority of its populace.

Here is an interesting idea from the world of science: when a theory does not agree with real world observations then it is time to adjust the theory. Here is your theory:

1. The Head of State is the only person who can ever represent the people of a nation or speak on their behalf.

2. A Head of State cannot be a politician.

And yet we have a nation, France, that does have a Head of State who is a politician. It is not a paradox at all for the French! The French people have chosen a system of government that specifically allows a politician to be a Head of State and speak on behalf of France. Are we supposed to believe that your theory is somehow more valid than the democratic choices of an entire nation? Perhaps it is time to adjust your theory. The people of a nation can choose how to define the role of Head of State. They are not limited to non-politicians.

Likewise, this idea that only the Head of State speaks on behalf of a nation is not reflected in the real world. Ambassadors speak on behalf of their nations. I have pointed out examples above where the Canadian Prime Minister does as well. For instance, you have not explained how your theory can accommodate the simple fact that when the Prime Minister makes an agreement with another nation that agreement is binding on all of Canada and not just the people who voted for the Prime Minister or his or her party.

This is aside from the "speaking on behalf of all Canadians" issue, but I couldn't agree with you more. The government - in the sense of the Crown-in-Council - is a continuous concept, as its existence is established by the constitution. However, it does not have institutional memory; as you pointed out earlier, no one Cabinet is bound by the actions of its predecessor. So, if Harper is going to offer apologies on behalf of the only body he can - the present Cabinet - that's fine. But, indeed, why do so for something the present Cabinet had no hand in?

One government is not bound by previous governments in the sense that a government can pass whatever legislation it wants within the bounds of its constitutional powers. But governments do have institutional memories. The obligations on one government do apply to subsequent governments, up until those governments decide to break those obligations. Take the very simple example of the helicopter contracts entered into by the Mulroney government. The Liberal government was free to change its mind about the contracts (in this sense it was not bound by the previous government), but the Liberal government was also obligated to pay fees for canceling those contracts (in this sense it was bound by the previous government).

Moral obligations can also pass from government to government in this way, making some of these apologies very appropriate and perhaps overdue. Saying that Canada or the Canadian government has no responsibility for something because it happened in the past is not an excuse.

[g_bambino]

Here is an interesting idea from the world of science: when a theory does not agree with real world observations then it is time to adjust the theory.

Here would be another tenet from the world of science: if your observations are flawed then your conclusions will be too. If you're going to choose to see a politician as representative of an entire populace, then I guess you'll succeed in seeing your theory as correct. However, if you look and see that a politician is only put into place (hopefully) by the majority of voters, there will still be a large segment of the population that is unrepresented. Do you honestly believe every US citizen feels that George W. personifies the American state and speaks on "their behalf" around the world, or even at home? You're further confusing matters when you bring "democratic choices" into it. A president is the result of one form of "democratic choice," but the point remains that that particular process of choosing divides the nation; a president is not elected by, to use your words, the entire nation (unless it is somewhere like pre-invasion Iraq). So, while there most certainly are politician heads of state, none of them embody the state, and thus could never actually speak as a voice for all those who form it. The crafters of republican systems knew that; hence, a republican state is symbolised by inanimate objects like flags or constitutions, to which oaths of allegiance are given, not the president.

Perhaps the point of confusion here lies in the difference between "Canada" and "all Canadians," depending on use. The former can be a synonym for "Queen in Right of Canada," who is the legal personification of the state. Even if only in name, she, in her role as legislator, enacts, amends, and repeals laws (such as treaties). As she normally does this on the advice of her Privy Council – specifically the committee of it known as the Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister – then, when the Prime Minister speaks about his ideas or policies, it’s generally taken as a given that the Crown will implement whatever he says. So, in such a case, the Prime Minister could be seen as speaking "on behalf" of "Canada" as a political entity; though, his position should still not be misrepresented as one with the power to create law, or that the Crown favours his particular stance in any way. It is also in this sense that ambassadors are international spokespeople for "Canada."

"All Canadians," on the other hand, is not "Canada" as a divided political entity; it is "Canada" as a unified nation, on whose behalf only the impartial Queen and Governor General can speak, free from the mantle of controversial politics as they are.

This puts the Prime Minister in no position to offer words on behalf of all Canadians. And, when a true apology is someone taking responsibility for their actions and expressing regret for having done what they did, the Prime Minister is also clearly unable to make valid acts of contrition for deeds he never committed; nor can he take responsibility off the shoulders of previous Cabinets and put it on his own; the Cabinet does not have institutional memory, moral or otherwise. The apologies are, thus, devoid of meaning, making them pure political posturing. That's fine for a PM, politician that he is; but nobody should believe these sorries have any real feeling or substance.

[AngusThermopyle]

Putting aside the question of whom the PM speaks for and back to the subject at hand.

I've looked into this incident since hearing about the apology and though I'm sure my research could be more complete its looking to me like this is nothing more than political opportunism. From reviewing the facts as reported I would say that no apology at all is warranted as it appears these people were illegal immigrants who were quite rightly turned away.

If we apologize in this respect who else are we to apologize to? Further to that, how many should we compensate for things that didn't even happen to them? Seems to be more than just a little loony if you ask me, but thats just my opinion.

[g_bambino]

Putting aside the question of whom the PM speaks for and back to the subject at hand.

I've looked into this incident since hearing about the apology and though I'm sure my research could be more complete its looking to me like this is nothing more than political opportunism. From reviewing the facts as reported I would say that no apology at all is warranted as it appears these people were illegal immigrants who were quite rightly turned away.

If we apologize in this respect who else are we to apologize to? Further to that, how many should we compensate for things that didn't even happen to them? Seems to be more than just a little loony if you ask me, but thats just my opinion.

Well, I agree for all those reasons. The fact that the PM isn't really apologising on behalf of anybody is just another pin that deflates these baloons of remorse.

[bk59]

Here would be another tenet from the world of science: if your observations are flawed then your conclusions will be too.

The observation is sound: There must be someone who speaks on behalf of a nation and France has chosen a politician, who is their Head of State, to do this. Under your theory no one represents France because according to you a politician is incapable of filling this role. So who speaks on behalf of the French people in your world?

Do you honestly believe every US citizen feels that George W. personifies the American state and speaks on "their behalf" around the world, or even at home?

Many people who did not vote for George W. Bush are angry precisely because they feel that he does speak for them on the world stage. They know that people from other nations look to him as representing the United States of America.

However, if you look and see that a politician is only put into place (hopefully) by the majority of voters, there will still be a large segment of the population that is unrepresented.

...

You're further confusing matters when you bring "democratic choices" into it. A president is the result of one form of "democratic choice," but the point remains that that particular process of choosing divides the nation

Except for the one flaw in your logic. The people of a nation can agree on a system for choosing who represents them and who speaks on their behalf. That system can be anything. In France it is an election. Yes the election itself divides the nation. But the French people chose that system and agree to abide by it. At the end of the election both sides recognize the winner and recognize that the winner is their representative to the world. The people who did not vote for the winner are not unrepresented. They still buy into the system of how they are represented, including the office held by the winner.

Even if only in name, she, in her role as legislator, enacts, amends, and repeals laws (such as treaties). As she normally does this on the advice of her Privy Council – specifically the committee of it known as the Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister – then, when the Prime Minister speaks about his ideas or policies, it’s generally taken as a given that the Crown will implement whatever he says. So, in such a case, the Prime Minister could be seen as speaking "on behalf" of "Canada" as a political entity; though, his position should still not be misrepresented as one with the power to create law, or that the Crown favours his particular stance in any way. It is also in this sense that ambassadors are international spokespeople for "Canada."

No one said that to speak on behalf of a nation the Crown has to agree with you. Nor is it a requirement that you be seen as the one who signs a bill into law. It is enough that the world sees you speaking and then holds the nation to your words. Which is what happens when the Prime Minister speaks.

In fact, by international law a country can be bound even by the words of a foreign minister. This is because the minister is seen (wait for it) as a representative of the nation, capable of speaking on the nation's behalf. In the Canadian context this happens no matter what the Privy Council or the Queen does. The way the world works is that the Queen is not the only person who represents Canada and is not the only person who speaks on behalf of Canadians.

This puts the Prime Minister in no position to offer words on behalf of all Canadians. And, when a true apology is someone taking responsibility for their actions and expressing regret for having done what they did, the Prime Minister is also clearly unable to make valid acts of contrition for deeds he never committed; nor can he take responsibility off the shoulders of previous Cabinets and put it on his own; the Cabinet does not have institutional memory, moral or otherwise. The apologies are, thus, devoid of meaning, making them pure political posturing. That's fine for a PM, politician that he is; but nobody should believe these sorries have any real feeling or substance.

First, if there is no institutional memory, how is it that one government can be obligated to do something (e.g. pay fees for canceling a contract) when that obligation was entered into by a previous government?

Second, if responsibility for the actions of one Cabinet stopped as soon as an election was held then people would not be able to sue when those actions hurt them. And yet they are able to sue, even after that Cabinet is no longer in power.

Finally, I can agree that most of these apologies are pure political posturing. But that is not because the Prime Minister does not speak for Canadians (and is therefore unable to offer a legitimate apology), it is because the Prime Minister does not actually care enough to make it more than simply political posturing.

[bk59]

Putting aside the question of whom the PM speaks for and back to the subject at hand.

I've looked into this incident since hearing about the apology and though I'm sure my research could be more complete its looking to me like this is nothing more than political opportunism. From reviewing the facts as reported I would say that no apology at all is warranted as it appears these people were illegal immigrants who were quite rightly turned away.

If we apologize in this respect who else are we to apologize to? Further to that, how many should we compensate for things that didn't even happen to them? Seems to be more than just a little loony if you ask me, but thats just my opinion.

I thought the issue was that they were turned away because of racist immigration policies. So wasn't the apology saying that we were wrong to consider them illegal immigrants simply because of our racist policy? In that sense an apology may have been warranted.

You are right to ask "who else are we to apologize to". Obviously we cannot spend our time going back through history examining everything. But when a group brings a valid complaint, which can be verified, what harm is there in apologizing for conduct we now find unacceptable? I see no reason to offer compensation though, unless the conduct was such that it requires compensation (like the Aboriginal apology).

[g_bambino]

The observation is sound: There must be someone who speaks on behalf of a nation and France has chosen a politician, who is their Head of State, to do this. Under your theory no one represents France because according to you a politician is incapable of filling this role. So who speaks on behalf of the French people in your world?

Many people who did not vote for George W. Bush are angry precisely because they feel that he does speak for them on the world stage. They know that people from other nations look to him as representing the United States of America.

And you've highlighted exactly what I'm talking about: the current President of the United States angers a large segment of the American population because he is out there misrepresenting them; does that then mean those who disagree with George W. are at odds with the American state? The same could be asked of those French who do not abide by Sarkozy's personal views. So, it is indeed a paradox: how can someone who doesn't represent the entire populace represent the nation when the nation is the entire populace? It therefore isn't that nobody is representing France or the US; it is that nobody is representing France or the US in their entirety. The people of these countries choose to live under a system wherein their head of state is selected through competition; they, thus, have the state headed by someone who can't represent it as anything other than a divided political entity. In most republics (like France) there are two individuals who fail to symbolise the state as anything but an organization in constant battle: the prime minister and the president, who can both be politically at odds with each other! As a result, these politicised individuals don't represent the nation as a whole; instead, flags, constitutions, and terms like "The People," stand in as dehumanised symbols of the unified state.

It seems you're having difficulty separating the state from the government, which, is somewhat understandable; the make up of the Cabinet is the expression of the majority of the state's populace, and it is the Cabinet that guides the exercise of the state's power. But the majority of the nation is not the nation, and guiding power is not possessing power. To assume the head of the Cabinet is the embodiment of the nation and holds the power of the state is to distort what he is; for us, it is not the Prime Minister who is the embodiment of the state and possessor of all its power, it is the sovereign. As such, the words of any Cabinet minister - whether prime, foreign, or whatever - are only those of the sitting government, which may not even survive the day. Further, they may not even be constitutional. There are a number of possible scenarios of how a politician's promises might not come to fruition, so, I highly doubt the words of a minister would be considered binding. Only once an agreement has become law - having been granted assent by the executive power of the state, whether that be "The People" or "The Crown" - is the nation bound, regardless of whether the government that supported the law falls or not. A successive, or even the same, Cabinet may advise the Crown to break that contract or treaty, but it is the Crown that bears the responsibility of paying whatever restitutions were promised for such an event, not the Cabinet - the Cabinet has no treasury from which to pay such penalties, only the monarch does. It is also the Crown that pays out to people who sue, and win; it is the Queen in Right of Canada who stands as the defendant in such cases, and it is from her monies that any recompense is paid, not the Prime Minister and his cash.

I can't pretend to know whether or not the present Prime Minister cares about these issues, or even what enough caring is. All I can say with surety is that, as it was the Crown that made the laws instituting residential schools, it was the Crown that implemented the Chinese Head Tax, it was by the Crown's authority that border agents turned away Indian immigrants, and it is the Crown that embodies the state (meaning "all Canadians"), it is only the Queen - or the GG - who could truly apologise on behalf of the nation to whomever is the victim of the day; neither the Office of the Prime Minister nor the Cabinet ever had the authority to create those policies or direct those agents, nor do either represent the state and its powers. And, besides the Prime Minister's dishonest posing as the spokesperson for all Canadians, it is a central tenet of responsible government that it is the ministers of the Crown who are responsible for their advice tendered, and not the Crown for following it. None of those who advised the Crown to set up residential schools or impose a tax on Chinese immigrants are around any more to be held accountable. Unable to speak on behalf of all Canadians, and unable to take responsibility for something he didn’t do, Harper’s apologies are nothing more than fuzzy, feel-good theatrics.

Edited August 13, 2008 by g_bambino

[bk59]

I tried to explain how I was using the terms "represents Canada" and "speaking on behalf of Canadians" before. I'll do so again because we have a disconnect there.

When I use that term, I mean that the person speaking can create an obligation that the entire nation must fulfill. Not just the segment of the population that may have voted for that person. When a foreign minister appears before other foreign ministers and makes a commitment, by international law other countries can then hold the foreign minister's country to that commitment. The words of the minister are considered binding on the nation. Why is this? Because no one outside the country cares how that country is organized. It does not matter if it has a Cabinet or a Governor General or a Queen. The person representing the nation committed the nation to a course of action and the nation will be held accountable. This is why I say that it is not just the Queen who can represent Canada. It may be true that a flag or other object can symbolize a nation, but an object can never represent the nation or speak on its behalf in this way.

So why does this matter? Because the Prime Minister does not have to be the embodiment of the nation in order to speak on its behalf. Not everyone will agree with the views of the Prime Minister, or the French or American President. But they still can speak on behalf of the nation. They are not repeating the personal viewpoints of every citizen, they are speaking as the nation.

Taking your way of viewing things, you still have a problem with the Queen. See, the Queen also does not represent the nation in its entirety (as you put it) because there are people who disagree with the Queen. (And if you don't think the monarchy can divide a nation politically just look at places like Australia.) The point is this: if your criteria is that so long as people have different views then a politician cannot represent them, then the same is true for a monarch. If people have different views then how can a monarch represent them? If people are against the monarchy in general, how can you say that the Queen represents their views? What makes the Queen special?

All of this is just to say that the Prime Minister can express Canada's opinion on things like apologies. When the Prime Minister expressed sympathy to the United States on September 11, 2001 he spoke on behalf of the nation. Even though there were some Canadians who did not feel sympathy for the US. Likewise, the Prime Minister can convey an apology to a specific group of people. The apology covers actions that Canada took as a nation, regardless of how its government is structured.