The Queen's reserve Powers

[Smallc]

My point was that the GG only represents the head of state. She isn't actually the head of state in any real capacity.

[ZenOps]

My point was that the GG only represents the head of state. She isn't actually the head of state in any real capacity.

Oh but she is.

If Michelle said "no" to Harper its legally binding (subject to approval from the Queen) He would have had to have faced the "non-confidence" vote... Which is about as serious as it gets because if the vote was nonconfident - Harper would be jobless. And Canada would be without lawmaking capability for ever longer than a prorogued govt, of which we would fall back on the constitution - which is actually still mostly the British North America Act.

By prorogueing parliament so that they cannot "vote you out in non-confidence" is IMO about as weaksauce as it gets. What Harper did - was run to the Queen so that they would not be able to democratically remove him from office.

I'm actually surprised to ever see the GG use their official powers in my lifetime (in a non-world war III type situation anyhow). More often than not the GG is just viewed in a ceremonial light (but there is real power in that position)

Edited December 8, 2009 by ZenOps

[Smallc]

Oh but she is.

If Michelle said "no" to Harper its legally binding

Only because she represents the Queen.

[cybercoma]

Uh... Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Big deal?

[whowhere]

My point was that the GG only represents the head of state. She isn't actually the head of state in any real capacity.

The Constituion requires the GG to ascent legislation. What would Canada do if the Governor General refused? If Canada ignored Governor General and continued to govern, then the GG can move the matter to the International Court for judgement and the GG would win. The Constitution is black and white and the GG's powers are explicit, the GG is the head of state you should accept that fact.

[jbg]

The Constitution requires the GG to asscent to legislation. What would Canada do if the Governor General refused? If Canada ignored the Governor General and continued to govern, then the GG can move the matter to the International Court for judgement and the GG would win. The Constitution is black and white and the GG's powers are explicit, the GG is the head of state you should accept that fact.

What is the "International Court"? And who gave it jurisdiction to handle disputes between the GG and Paliament? And the Queen, not the GG, is head of state. But you knew that and were looking for a reaction.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What is the "International Court"? And who gave it jurisdiction to handle disputes between the GG and Paliament? And the Queen, not the GG, is head of state. But you knew that and were looking for a reaction.

All well and good folks, but the problem in Canada is a constitution that does not define and limit the powers and authorities of government.

[g_bambino]

Canada is a constitution that does not define and limit the powers and authorities of government.

Oh? Do you have any proof for this assertion?

[ToadBrother]

Oh but she is.

No she's not. The Constitution makes it very clear that Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state. The GG is a *Vice-regal* figure. Look at this way, in the House of Commons there is a Deputy Speaker (as well as other Presiding Officers). When the Speaker of the House is, for whatever reason, unavailable, the Deputy Speaker and the other Presiding Officers inherit his powers, but they are not the Speaker of the House.

The vice-regal office of Governor General has its foundations in the notion of colonial governors, going back to the earliest English colonies. These governors were given executive powers, because the Crown and Parliament were usually weeks or even months away. In effect, they represented the Crown in their colony, but they were not the monarch. The GG represents the Crown in Canada, and as part of that position, he or she wields those Reserve Powers that the Queen holds, much as the old colonial governors once did.

I will agree with you that in practice there is little difference between the GG and the Queen, but legally and constitutionally the GG is not the Head of State. The Crown is a permanent institution, and the office of reigning monarch is for life, whereas the vice-regal position is limited. More importantly, the GG is subordinate to the Queen. Again, in practice this isn't really born out, but the fact is that the lines of power are drawn from the Queen to the GG. It is the Queen, on the advise of Her Ministers (originally the British Cabinet, but later the Canadian Cabinet), who appoints the GG. In such a situation, it is simply ludicrous to state that the GG is the head of state. You could say she is the acting head of state, or the de jure head of state, and be mostly correct from a purely practical position, but from a constitutional one, you're out to lunch.

[ToadBrother]

All well and good folks, but the problem in Canada is a constitution that does not define and limit the powers and authorities of government.

Huh? The Constitution clearly draws a line in what powers reside in Ottawa, and what powers reside in the Provinces. Just as importantly, from the standpoint of the citizens of Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms very clearly limits governmental powers.

[g_bambino]

The Constitution clearly draws a line in what powers reside in Ottawa, and what powers reside in the Provinces. Just as importantly, from the standpoint of the citizens of Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms very clearly limits governmental powers.

Precicely.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Precicely.

I would love to actually believe that. Life would be so much simpler if that was true, but it isn't. The 1982 Constitution took away your right to own property. It took away the ability to use a simple act of Parliament to create new provinces and made that act subject to the same rules as that which apply to the constitution. Where were the limits to its authority in those actions. The government has the ability to close the doors to the House of Commons on a whim. Nothing can be done about that in a court of law. Where is the limit to the power of a PM to call an election?

[Smallc]

It took away the ability to use a simple act of Parliament to create new provinces and made that act subject to the same rules as that which apply to the constitution.

Why is that a bad thing? Provinces are very specific jurisdictions in Canada which are very important to the makeup of our confederation. They shouldn't be changed or removed on a whim.

Where were the limits to its authority in those actions.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Constitutional change such as that is clearly defined as a matter of shared jurisdiction.

The government has the ability to close the doors to the House of Commons on a whim. Nothing can be done about that in a court of law. Where is the limit to the power of a PM to call an election?

The government can't close parliament on a whim, and the Prime Minister doesn't have unlimited powers to call elections. The Crown ensures all of that.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Why is that a bad thing? Provinces are very specific jurisdictions in Canada which are very important to the makeup of our confederation. They shouldn't be changed or removed on a whim.

Its a bad thing because creating a province would upset the balance of power in the Commons and those who hold that power will not allow it and in so doing deprive the affected citizens from the same level of government that provinces enjoy, its discriminatory. Aside from that I am not sure that you can get away with saying an act of parliament is a whim.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Constitutional change such as that is clearly defined as a matter of shared jurisdiction.

Taking away property rights is a matter of shared jurisdiction? Then there are no limits to those jurisdictions then are there, just change the constitution to grant the government the powers to take something away from citizens. Why not try that with abortion or human rights?

The government can't close parliament on a whim, and the Prime Minister doesn't have unlimited powers to call elections. The Crown ensures all of that.

The government can manipulate the system to the ends desired at any time. All they have to do is declare a legislation a matter of confidence and throw a loop into the system. The Crown has NO control over that action and neither do the citizens.

[Pliny]

The government can manipulate the system to the ends desired at any time. All they have to do is declare a legislation a matter of confidence and throw a loop into the system. The Crown has NO control over that action and neither do the citizens.

The citizens don't.

[g_bambino]

The 1982 Constitution took away your right to own property.

Proof?

It took away the ability to use a simple act of Parliament to create new provinces and made that act subject to the same rules as that which apply to the constitution.

A simple act of the British parliament, yes. Of course, patriation required a new amending formula; given that provinces exist only because of the constitution, why ever would the process of constitutional amendment not apply to such parts of that legislation?

The government has the ability to close the doors to the House of Commons on a whim. Where is the limit to the power of a PM to call an election?

Temporarily closed. But, if not another parliamentary session, what follows such a closure but an election? Did you not just complain that we don't get to vote for anything?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Proof?

A simple act of the British parliament, yes. Of course, patriation required a new amending formula; given that provinces exist only because of the constitution, why ever would the process of constitutional amendment not apply to such parts of that legislation?

Temporarily closed. But, if not another parliamentary session, what follows such a closure but an election? Did you not just complain that we don't get to vote for anything?

My point is that the powers and authority of government have insufficient limits based on the constitution.

[g_bambino]

My point is that the powers and authority of government have insufficient limits based on the constitution.

You're making all sorts of points without sufficient argumet or evidence to support them.

[ToadBrother]

My point is that the powers and authority of government have insufficient limits based on the constitution.

That's certainly not what it looked like what you said. There are very clear limits on Government powers. Maybe they are insufficient curbs, and I'd agree with you. But still, the government is not omnipotent.

[jbg]

You're making all sorts of points without sufficient argumet or evidence to support them.

You are forgetting that in your country at least "a proof is a proof".