The Federal Republic of Canada

[Jerry J. Fortin]

They aren't described. They're almost limitless, even if they're rarely used. Canada doesn't have a completely written Constitution, and so it's difficult to say how everything is defined.

In as much as we don't have a completely written constitution, then I would suggest if those powers are not defined then they cannot be enforced since they are not contained within the law. Any challenge put before the Supreme Court could only rule in favour of the written law.

[Smallc]

Any challenge put before the Supreme Court could only rule in favour of the written law.

That's incorrect. The Supreme Court is not bound to follow only written law, as can be seen in this case:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040311061820/...5_secession.htm

[Smallc]

The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading.

Supreme Court of Canada Ref. re Quebec Succession

[ToadBrother]

"Dictate" like in "dictatorship".

No, "dictate" as in "on the advice of Her Ministers". No English/British monarch has been able to dictate anything to Parliament since 1688, when the booted the last Stuart Absolutist; James II. The Queen's powers, like all the powers of those between her reign and that of William III have been largely theoretical. Parliament has been supreme since it offered the throne to William and Mary.

[g_bambino]

Any challenge put before the Supreme Court could only rule in favour of the written law.

Much of our constitution is conventional, as is most of the Royal Prerogative; only the summoning of parliament, appointment of senators, privy councilors, governors, and some other things, are codified. The rest is merely accepted as rules. For instance, the constitution makes absolutely no mention of the Cabinet, or of any ministers besides the prime one; and even that is only once, in regards to holding a constitutional convention at a fixed point after 1982. That, however, would not lead the Supreme Court to rule in favour of an individual who said the Cabinet had no authority.

[benny]

No, "dictate" as in "on the advice of Her Ministers". No English/British monarch has been able to dictate anything to Parliament since 1688, when the booted the last Stuart Absolutist; James II. The Queen's powers, like all the powers of those between her reign and that of William III have been largely theoretical. Parliament has been supreme since it offered the throne to William and Mary.

As long as she keeps her positive image in the eyes of the population, her power is real in its very potential to resurrect in full force at a crucial future moment.

[ToadBrother]

As long as she keeps her positive image in the eyes of the population, her power is real in its very potential to resurrect in full force at a crucial future moment.

Potential? What potential? Parliament is Supreme. The Glorious Revolution ended any meaningful capacity for the reigning monarch to make policy independent of Parliament. I know people like to sit around and go "ooh, look at those reserve powers", but the fact is that, for 321 years, the British monarchy has been bound by William and Mary's deal. You're living in a fantasy land.

[Smallc]

That's very much correct toad. Though the Queen has a great deal of reserve power, those powers are only to be used in extraordinary circumstances. In theory, they could be used for many things, but in reality, they are only used to sort out a crisis situation. The Crown is really an invisible hand.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's very much correct toad. Though the Queen has a great deal of reserve power, those powers are only to be used in extraordinary circumstances. In theory, they could be used for many things, but in reality, they are only used to sort out a crisis situation. The Crown is really an invisible hand.

.......and an empty head.

[Smallc]

Very far from it. Without the Crown, our excellent Westminster system wouldn't exist as it does.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Very far from it. Without the Crown, our excellent Westminster system wouldn't exist as it does.

Dude you and I are simply going to have to disagree. The current system places far to much power with the PM. We lack a checks and balance system which detracts not adds to our democracy. The centralization of power and authority inside the PMO is a real problem. There are those that will say that the federal government has begun to transfer some power to the provincial governments, and they would be right to say so. Yet the provinces are not the equal partners in confederation that we were supposed to be, and as a matter of fact according to the constitution should still be.

[Smallc]

You're right, the provinces are probably more powerful in many ways. The system has many checks and balances. Yes, there is probably a bit too much power in the hands of the Prime Minister (and I have pointed out how it could be easily fixed), but overall, the system hasn't produced negative results, despite your assertions.

[ToadBrother]

You're right, the provinces are probably more powerful in many ways. The system has many checks and balances. Yes, there is probably a bit too much power in the hands of the Prime Minister (and I have pointed out how it could be easily fixed), but overall, the system hasn't produced negative results, despite your assertions.

The powers the PM have are given to it by Parliament. If Parliament wanted to, tomorrow it could eliminate the position entirely, or it could put sharp limits on the power of the PM. Parliament is entirely in charge of how it formulates itself.

[Smallc]

I agree with you on that. I'm not sure whether or not the Prime Minister should keep the power to ask for elections at any time, but it hasn't really caused large problems in the past. Overall, the systems works quite well.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

current system places far to much power with the PM. The centralization of power and authority inside the PMO is a real problem.

Perhaps. But there's nothing in that to suggest a republic would bring any real improvement in that particular matter.

[g_bambino]

The powers the PM have are given to it by Parliament. If Parliament wanted to, tomorrow it could eliminate the position entirely, or it could put sharp limits on the power of the PM. Parliament is entirely in charge of how it formulates itself.

Um, no its not. The form of parliament is dictated by the constitution. That can't be amended without following the proper amending formula. Ditto for the Privy Council, which is constitutionally mandated to advise the Crown and from which the prime minister is drawn.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Perhaps. But there's nothing in that to suggest a republic would bring any real improvement in that particular matter.

Really? The Canadian Constitution is a joke! The Head of State is still the Queen, the Governor General is "Her" representative in Canada. The word Prime Minister is nowhere to be found that I can remember! We have bastardized that document six ways from Sunday on the authority of Parliament. That authority being bastardized by "Orders In Council" far too often for my liking. The entire mess is unbelievable.

[Smallc]

The Canadian Constitution is a joke!

You haven't provided any evidence for that. In fact most evidence in relation to this country points to it not being a joke.

[g_bambino]

The Canadian Constitution is a joke!

Yea, it's such a joke that it remains one of the longest functioning democratic constitutions in the world, based on an even older one that 90% of the earth's countries have tried to copy in some form or another (though failing to produce anything better). What a laugh, indeed.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You haven't provided any evidence for that. In fact most evidence in relation to this country points to it not being a joke.

What of the comments that I just made that you are responding to? Were they in error? Or are you suggesting they are simply not valid because of your decided bias in the manner.

[ToadBrother]

Um, no its not. The form of parliament is dictated by the constitution. That can't be amended without following the proper amending formula. Ditto for the Privy Council, which is constitutionally mandated to advise the Crown and from which the prime minister is drawn.

There is no mention of the Prime Minister in the Constitution. The office of Prime Minister has been, since it's inception, one that is recognized by Parliament. Parliament functioned even before the office as it now exists even properly existed. The office is one of convention and convenience, and the scope of the office's powers are essentially defined by tradition and precedent. Remember, a fair chunk of our Constitution, even repatriated, is essentially unwritten.

Edited July 16, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There is no mention of the Prime Minister in the Constitution. The office of Prime Minister has been, since it's inception, one that is recognized by Parliament. Parliament functioned even before the office as it now exists even properly existed. The office is one of convention and convenience, and the scope of the office's powers are essentially defined by tradition and precedent. Remember, a fair chunk of our Constitution, even repatriated, is essentially unwritten.

Only in Canada you say....the unwritten Canadian Constitution.

So in essence most of the method of governing is been conducted in the absence of law. Yeah I can see how this is working out just fine! Lets see, we used to have the right to own property, now we don't. We never had a plan to govern ourselves and we placed our faith in the Crown, only to have the Crown and British Parliament reject our methods in 1931 as established in the Statute of Westminister where they washed their hands of responsibility for us, and now we retain both the Queen and the G.G. as the head of State anyway! It all makes sense to me now. The Canadian Unwritten Constitution, a lack of an act of Parliament whereby the Government of Canada can pretty much do as it pleases because there is no law against it.

[jbg]

As long as she keeps her positive image in the eyes of the population, her power is real in its very potential to resurrect in full force at a crucial future moment.

One crucial element is missing; the likelihood that anyone would obey her. This is not the Central African Empire.

[jbg]

Very far from it. Without the Crown, our excellent Westminster system wouldn't exist as it does.

For once I agree with you. Margaret Thatcher's autobiography made quite clear that the Queen is very well versed in current events, and questioned Thatcher's "advice" before ultimately following it.

[ToadBrother]

One crucial element is missing; the likelihood that anyone would obey her. This is not the Central African Empire.

They certainly obeyed her in 1974 when she decided that Harold Wilson should again become PM after a hung Parliament left Edward Heath incapable of forming a coalition.