Stephen Harper Democracy Strikes Again

[Moonlight Graham]

Ridiculous. Make it a vote in Parliament, for the sake of legitimacy.

[g_bambino]

Ridiculous. Make it a vote in Parliament, for the sake of legitimacy.

Nothing is legitimate without having been voted on by parliament?

[c/e]

Edited November 12, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

Where is this in the elections act?

Also - what act defines primary residence for determining your MP, havn't see this anywhere.

I have no idea where it is in the Act. That's for you to find out. I merely suggested you phone Elections Canada. Surely you did vote in the last election and they did verify your voter registration.

I've also read the elections act and it doesn't relate.

The elections act defines voting and electoral process.. not constituent MP relations

It will define for the purposes of registration what constituency you're in. Surely you have a home, William.

[ToadBrother]

Ridiculous. Make it a vote in Parliament, for the sake of legitimacy.

I'm not sure what legitimacy means in this case. The Tories aren't doing anything wrong from a constitutional perspective. If Parliament finds the way Canadian forces are being used they have a number of remedies at their disposal.

[William Ashley]

I have no idea where it is in the Act. That's for you to find out. I merely suggested you phone Elections Canada. Surely you did vote in the last election and they did verify your voter registration.

It will define for the purposes of registration what constituency you're in. Surely you have a home, William.

I'm non partisan I only attempt to run in elections - however they are quite expensive $2000+ just to be on the ballot.

I only vote for people I have confidence to represent me. No one has demonstrated that to me yet. The major parties seem to appear more tied to the party than the constituent. Most smaller parties only have one issue on the plate, or just plain arn't me. That is you have major partisan parties that I don't have the same values as. And small single item parties that I havn't been swayed to.

I consider voting seriously. Best not to shoot than shoot your foot, you have to live with the choices you make and take responsibility for them. I have my reasons, I was actually quite a mixed bag in the past - I am very particular in what I support. Most major parties support income taxes - I am more so libertarian, but even the libertarian party doesn't completely mesh with my ideals.

Fact is no one represents my views, and I havn't been close enough to someone to trust them to raise my concerns for me in parliament, I havn't known any that have yet.

I did actually temp for elections Canada during the 2006 election though.

The election after that I tried to run but my college educated accountant wasn't qualified enough to audit my no donations no expenditures campaign because they wern't a member of a professional accountants organization, so elections Canada wanted me to pay the $2000 for an audit from the $250 subsidy they provide. Plus the $1000 deposit, and I was a poor university student at the time. Monetary barrier.

I think voicing opinion is more important now than legitimizing it, that is why I am merely a commentator because the system restricts access to democratic process. And instead is an economically divided corporatist system - that puts a bias on individuals.

I'm in a better position now, but now I have thousands of dollars in legal costs just to maintain my rights, PLUS then you need to attempt to pay fees for professionals to rubber stamp your "so called constitutional democratic rights"

it is bs.

And Yes I have a home, I am rarely able to live in because I have other priorities because of my duties and responsibilities, and my future. I am where it is best for me to be, and that is often not at home.

See I'm pretty sure people don't only have 1 MP. A Canadian has the constitutional right to move or take up residence in any province in the country. But voting is done by riding. I don't quite think it is actually postal code as on parliaments website because that would mean the postal system somehow determines it.

Ridings and elections are involved in elections Canada, individuals even if they arn't on the rolls still have the right to vote - it is a constitutional right.

So I really think it must just be where you are communicating from. So really in this day and age ---- anywhere to any of them, imo. Unless you can proove me wrong here.

I'm pretty sure the double standard doesn't exist in that anyone can parachute into a riding and run, yet someone can't move to a riding and vote. But guess what.

Election law violates Canadians right to vote, based on Identification with an address - or someone to vouche that you "are from" the same polling district.

What is from? A resident? What happens to all the people who are transients, they loose their constitutional right to vote? Only people who have a permanent residence can vote? That isn't what the constitution says.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index〈=e

compare to:

Democratic Rights

Democratic rights of citizens

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp445-e.htm

Edited November 12, 2010 by William Ashley

[Moonlight Graham]

Nothing is legitimate without having been voted on by parliament?

[c/e]

No. But a major policy that is voted on by parliament is more democratic, and hence generally more legitimate, than a policy that is decided on by one human being aka the PM/executive.

I am of the firm belief that most policies should be voted on by parliament whenever practically possible. The powers of the executive in a democracy should be limited as much as possible, and the executive should only make policy decisions by themselves when it is entirely impractical or may weaken national security etc. if it were to go through parliament. I don't mind a few extra powers going to the exec in the name of checking the powers of the other branches of gov't, but even these should be carefully given.

Harper making a major foreign relations & national security decision which could easily go through parliament is bullcrap.

[ToadBrother]

Harper making a major foreign relations & national security decision which could easily go through parliament is bullcrap.

Then I'll point you to the door called "Constitutional Change". Parliament does not directly command the troops, and has not done so in well over three hundred years. If I'm going to denounce the Tories for unconstitutional notions like "executive privilege", then I'm certainly going to have to support them when they say "We don't have to go to Parliament to keep troops in Afghanistan", because that is, in fact, the way it works. Again, if Parliament disapproves, it has some powerful weapons at its disposal. That's the nature of checks and balances.

[ToadBrother]

Election law violates Canadians right to vote, based on Identification with an address - or someone to vouche that you "are from" the same polling district.

What is from? A resident? What happens to all the people who are transients, they loose their constitutional right to vote? Only people who have a permanent residence can vote? That isn't what the constitution says.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with you. You seem to be stating that you run in elections as well, and if you are in fact legitimately doing so, then you have to fit within the candidate rules of residency within a riding anyways.

According to Elections Canada, even a homeless person can vote:

Yes, an elector who is homeless or without a fixed address can vote, if he or she registers on the voters list during an election. To register, the elector must provide proof of identity and the address where he or she is staying.

Proof of identity can be an official document bearing the elector's name. For identity and residence, the attestation of residence by the administrator of a local shelter is acceptable, if the shelter has provided food, lodging or other social services to the elector. In order to register and vote, the elector will also be required to provide a second document authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer showing the name of the elector. Without such proof, a person who is homeless can register on election day as long as another voter who is registered in the same electoral district, and who provides satisfactory proof of identity and residence, can vouch for that person.

I suspect that this sort of thing isn't explicitly stated in the Elections Act anyways, which probably empowers the Chief Electoral Officer to make reasonable regulatory decisions. But I'm willing to take Elections Canada's word for it from their FAQ.

[capricorn]

But a major policy that is voted on by parliament is more democratic, and hence generally more legitimate, than a policy that is decided on by one human being aka the PM/executive.

I am of the firm belief that most policies should be voted on by parliament whenever practically possible.

I agree Moonlight it sounds more democratic if all parties approve of policy through votes in the House. But it is good for democracy? This is a question that was raised by a University of Ottawa type on P and P on CTV (can't remember his name). As he pointed out, whenever an opposition party votes with the government on policy, the opposition handicaps itself from opposing the government or criticizing said policy. A parallel situation arose when the Liberals pushed for and voted with the government on the stimulus spending initiative. Now, when the Liberals call out the Conservatives on the deficit, it is thrown in their face that they voted in favour of the spending so what are they crying about. The same thing would happen with the Afghan mission extension.

After hearing that presentation, I think that it's healthier for our Parliament that the government go ahead with an mission extension policy than put it to a vote. The opposition would have every reason to breath down the government's neck to hold them to account on the parameters of the mission and its outcome. Finally, when all Parliamentarians agree to a policy through a vote, the House of Commons cannot and would not hold itself to account should something go wrong.

[Slim]

From a political point of view, I'm curious as to why Harper would even bring up the possibility of staying longer in Afghanistan... I was under the impression that the majority of Canadians wanted out? Has public opinion changed?

[William Ashley]

Then I'll point you to the door called "Constitutional Change". Parliament does not directly command the troops, and has not done so in well over three hundred years. If I'm going to denounce the Tories for unconstitutional notions like "executive privilege", then I'm certainly going to have to support them when they say "We don't have to go to Parliament to keep troops in Afghanistan", because that is, in fact, the way it works. Again, if Parliament disapproves, it has some powerful weapons at its disposal. That's the nature of checks and balances.

Parliament may have some capacities to summon troops, particularly certain classes of the Militia. This is very complex though from what I have encountered. The whole notion of chain of command and interactions. Her Majesties Forces including their commanding officers tend to issue orders. The department of national defence now called the Canadian Forces and National Defence or something of that sort - tend to create - legal rather than martial laws - note that "government" and "state" are slightly differing notions - overall everything comes together to maintain "lawful order". This is problematic in Canada because of National Identity - national security is largely about upholding ones values - Canadians ought to up hold their constitution. This is very much a complex issue in terms of British North America - I could state my opinion, you could state yours, but what it reduces to is.... that it is difficult to fight a modern war (and you could apply this historically also) without supply. It requires occupation and slave labour or mechanization - robotics etc.. It will become more possible as time progresses but current both the civil and military institutions or Martial and Civil forces compliment one another in creating rules of the road.

What it boils down to is a lot of lead way for people - however Cabinet - is questionable in if it is an executive office.. if is... then the cabinet members of government are sitting illegally as MP's, as they cannot sit if they are executive officers receiving dating back to queen anne in 1703, or something of the sort.

So it is very much a type of consensus - but there are definite legalities involved. This only relates to the legitimacy and anyone willing to uphold the constitution and "quasi official laws" since most of our recent laws actually points of order - and passed during illegitimate parliamentary sessions - but there is the basis of no question while quorum - as parliamentary procedure and operations are generally self functioning.

Just when the illegal actions of government create a civil war is something people may find it difficult to image, it has happened in other countries. but frankly most Canadians ignore the law anyway - so whether status quo or tyranny - people don't care until they come for them.

Bear in mind that only 10 MP's currently have military service records --- and well I'm not sure how many members of the military have been diplomats in the UN - like making the policies rather than working from them. I would not delude myself to say that NATO has no influence on domestic Canadian policies.

But given the overall situation I still purport that private security contractors would be better than Canadian Forces soldiers to train afghani's, for reasons of general will of the nation.

I'd like to see the costing for this.. it would amount to "military foreign aid"

It isn't what I would do, but it is a better solution than what Stephen Harper seems to want to do.

It removes the controversy.

It is also a pretty cooshy private security contract to train.

I wonder how much hiring 750 private contractors to train afghan soliders costs

vs fielding and protecting 750 Canadian Forces members -- I would be surprised if the Private Contractors didn't cost less based on benefits, danger pay if applicable, supply, administration, medical, any disability during service, dental , medical, rotational transport, etc..

and the cost might be able to be brought down by trading some surplus equipment.. I'm sure some mercenaries might like some surplus equipment like helicopters and lawn chairs. Or ammo etc..

Edited November 13, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

Parliament may have some capacities to summon troops, particularly certain classes of the Militia. This is very complex though from what I have encountered....

I'm going to be very blunt here, William. I think your command of constitutional issues in general, and legislative issues specifically, is so woefully inaccurate and lacking that I wouldn't take a single thing you said for real. I hesitate to say you don't know what you're talking about, because it seems pretty rude, being that you seem like a rather nice fellow, but I'm afraid I have to lean heavily towards that. I don't think you know a damned thing about it.

That there is legislation that may reflect upon certain aspects of the military (of course there is such legislation) does not mean the military works for Parliament. There is only one period in the last thousand years that a standing army ever served at Parliament's direct command, and that was during the English Civil War, and, whether you agree with the Roundheads or not, that army was pretty much in direct defiance of the Crown. Parliament even during the Glorious Revolution did in fact make key limitations on the Crown's ability to raise and maintain an army, but the actual command of all armed forces was still left in the hands of the Crown. All you need to know is that our constitution explicitly makes the Queen the Command and Chief, and that's shorthand for Queen-in-Council. Parliament does not command the troops.

Obviously during major crises, Governments have sought the approval and support of Parliament. Since Parliament's most potent powers are controlling the purse strings and being able to boot out a government, it has always been best for Government to seek Parliament's approval. For instance, during WWII, Churchill created a War Cabinet from the wartime coalition of all the parties, and thus all the major parties gained some say over war planning and so forth. But still, it was the King-in-Council making the decisions.

I think the Tories would, politely, give Parliament a nod, but they don't have to, and Parliament, if it feels the Tories are playing it wrong, can cut the purse strings, through legislation or simply by voting no confidence.

[William Ashley]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with you. You seem to be stating that you run in elections as well, and if you are in fact legitimately doing so, then you have to fit within the candidate rules of residency within a riding anyways.

According to Elections Canada, even a homeless person can vote:

Yes, an elector who is homeless or without a fixed address can vote, if he or she registers on the voters list during an election. To register, the elector must provide proof of identity and the address where he or she is staying.

Proof of identity can be an official document bearing the elector's name. For identity and residence, the attestation of residence by the administrator of a local shelter is acceptable, if the shelter has provided food, lodging or other social services to the elector. In order to register and vote, the elector will also be required to provide a second document authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer showing the name of the elector. Without such proof, a person who is homeless can register on election day as long as another voter who is registered in the same electoral district, and who provides satisfactory proof of identity and residence, can vouch for that person.

I suspect that this sort of thing isn't explicitly stated in the Elections Act anyways, which probably empowers the Chief Electoral Officer to make reasonable regulatory decisions. But I'm willing to take Elections Canada's word for it from their FAQ.

'

OK this still abrogates the right.

Why isn't there an electoral database of all people? You know with fingerprints or some other means. Afterall what does it take to get a birth certificate - there is a definite failure to maintain peoples constitutional right to vote without having third parties validate that right.

It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution. Why is the onus on the person, shouldn't it be an onus on the government to challenge the identity? Evidence they arn't who they say they are?

People have no constitutional right to ID, and have no constitutional right to funds to get ID, and have no constitutional right to know someone.

You should understand what I'm saying in that the government doesn't protect that right, they limit it by creating barriers to voting, and place an onus on the citizen contrary to the constitution.

While measures could be taken to verify identity, it is currently not the way, people have to pay for ID, something a homeless person may not be able to do, and those rights are not protected to access to ID or otherwise, nor do all homeless people know someone else.

Hopefully you can at least acknowledge the fact that the current system doesn't provide for all Canadians to vote. As such there is no universal suffrage in Canada, because the government infringes the basic constitutional right to vote or run - and creates monetary and administrative barriers, on a basis of infringing the citizen, rather than creating systems for the government to insure lawful process.

You can build a better system but building a system that infringes peoples constitutional rights is an illegal system.

Edited November 13, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

Why isn't there an electoral database of all people? You know with fingerprints or some other means. Afterall what does it take to get a birth certificate - there is a definite failure to maintain peoples constitutional right to vote without having third parties validate that right.

Because we don't live in East Germany.

It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution. Why is the onus on the person, shouldn't it be an onus on the government to challenge the identity? Evidence they arn't who they say they are?

Now you're just being willfully silly.=

[William Ashley]

I'm going to be very blunt here, William. I think your command of constitutional issues in general, and legislative issues specifically, is so woefully inaccurate and lacking that I wouldn't take a single thing you said for real.

Fair, enough. I just hope you understand that the whole idea of the current parliament is that it can change acts and stuff. It can create acts that it in itself could command martial forces within those laws. For instance where do police forces come from? What laws do they enforce? The list continues of course. I think here is that if it is not breaking the law, say the constitution, what can't parliament make laws for? The criminal code for example sets out certain means of responding to certain acts such as murder, weapons possesion etc.. We need not go into great depth and I am somewhat deflecting my original comment, but I hope you . understand.

I hesitate to say you don't know what you're talking about

If I only knew what you were saying.

, because it seems pretty rude, being that you seem like a rather nice fellow, but I'm afraid I have to lean heavily towards that. I don't think you know a damned thing about it.

Maybe.

That there is legislation that may reflect upon certain aspects of the military (of course there is such legislation) does not mean the military works for Parliament. There is only one period in the last thousand years that a standing army ever served at Parliament's direct command, and that was during the English Civil War, and, whether you agree with the Roundheads or not, that army was pretty much in direct defiance of the Crown. Parliament even during the Glorious Revolution did in fact make key limitations on the Crown's ability to raise and maintain an army, but the actual command of all armed forces was still left in the hands of the Crown. All you need to know is that our constitution explicitly makes the Queen the Command and Chief, and that's shorthand for Queen-in-Council. Parliament does not command the troops.

You are entitled to your opinion. But you must understand there is a bond between monarch and subject. This might be a little confused in Canada , but this is questionable. COmpelx as it might be - I'm not writing some book you might just say is not representative of what you would like to think. But I will say that there are conventions and ancient rules that predispose the whole.

Obviously during major crises, Governments have sought the approval and support of Parliament. Since Parliament's most potent powers are controlling the purse strings and being able to boot out a government, it has always been best for Government to seek Parliament's approval. For instance, during WWII, Churchill created a War Cabinet from the wartime coalition of all the parties, and thus all the major parties gained some say over war planning and so forth. But still, it was the King-in-Council making the decisions.

Ok. Look, you seem to have raised a heavy point there.

I think the Tories would, politely, give Parliament a nod, but they don't have to, and Parliament, if it feels the Tories are playing it wrong, can cut the purse strings, through legislation or simply by voting no confidence.

Only stupid people leave supply issues until after the campaign starts. Obviously contingencies are able to plan around but having a working solution to begin with removes the need for contingencies. You want to cement your options before you have to rely on them to hold.

War planning works better with support of your subjects and peers.

Edited November 13, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

and whereas on the Establishment of the Union by the Authority of Parliament it is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also that the Nature of the Executive Government therein be declared:

see: http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html

and shake your head out.

There are complexities due to the nature of the crown -- the monarchy etc.. I don't feel like getting all loopy with this. But there are powers by both measures.

If you know English History you can see some examples of how things work.

TOP DOG: CONSTITUTION *rights&custom

SECOND UP : PARLIAMENT *current needs (note the queen is part of parliament)

THE ACTOR: EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT *executes parliaments wishes

is how you might like to look at it.

Look at it this way

Legislatures tell the executive what to do OTHERWISE - it is a police state and definitely not a real legislative democracy.

Canada was suppose to assume the role of British parliament in their own parliament during the sundering, as far as I am aware, although they actually still have a rather complex legal legacy in regard to the Canada act.

The Constitution Act BNA 1867 places parliament as the power of union and provisioning, not the queen, sole, the queen is part of the process of parliament though as the third level that being a lower house, and upperhouse and the monarch.. - Canada as a constitutional monarchy means that the queens role is housed within the overall constitution that is they rule by the constitution, not by sole. While the people may alter the constitution.. although this is very problematic. This HAS been sorta done in Canada by clarifying points and changing and confirming some measures... it has grown. Although it is problematic. Force dejure, populii

Do understand though that a monarch - can do some things.. but it is problematic. The concept of LOYALTY of course presents itself.. but you keep on mentioning the English civil war..

who won? You can look to the Magna Carta also.. when the french were about to invade England again... who won?

But the issue here is that it hasn't ended... and people tend to support values and occurrences they support.

There are people who break laws, make laws, and adhear to laws.

I won't go into endless banter.. but executive power is not the end all of existence it only mediates it in some ways - and it is bound to the extent of willingness to support it.

Government changes. Laws change. People change.

Any given state has one thing in common - the past.

status quo ante or dium.

The law is the law, you can ignore t and be called illegal, or you can obey it and be called lawful. Who is the judge. It is not a complex thing to understand.

Edited November 13, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

and whereas on the Establishment of the Union by the Authority of Parliament it is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also that the Nature of the Executive Government therein be declared:

see: http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html

and shake your head out.

There are complexities due to the nature of the crown -- the monarchy etc.. I don't feel like getting all loopy with this. But there are powers by both measures.

If you know English History you can see some examples of how things work.

CONSTITUTION

PARLIAMENT

EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT

is how you might like to look at it.

BNA Act, 1867 Section 15:

15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Once again, William, you're completely wrong. And before you start peddling your little claims about the BNA Act no longer being in force, you're going to have to explain how Brian Mulroney was able to go to the Queen and increase the number of seats in the Senate as per Section 26 of that same Act.

The Queen is commander and chief of the Armed Forces, period. Parliament does not directly command the armed forces.

[William Ashley]

BNA Act, 1867 Section 15:

15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Once again, William, you're completely wrong. And before you start peddling your little claims about the BNA Act no longer being in force, you're going to have to explain how Brian Mulroney was able to go to the Queen and increase the number of seats in the Senate as per Section 26 of that same Act.

The Queen is commander and chief of the Armed Forces, period. Parliament does not directly command the armed forces.

The queen is part of parliament. parliament could make an act authorizing the use of the forces the queen could ascend to it. that is a novel idea no? that law could assign division of forces to MP's as Lt. commanders? Hmm?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen-in-Parliament

THE QUEEN NOT CABINET OR QUEEN IN COUNCIL

Because of the sovereign's place in the enactment of laws, the enacting clause of acts of parliament may mention him or her, as well as the other one or two bodies of parliament. For example, modern Canadian acts of parliament typically contain the following enacting clause: NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows... that so and so MP shall act as the queen lt in commanding the armed forces of Canada etc.. etc.. . and shall exercise all duties as the queen holds, only subject to the queen's overriding authority

and there you have it

this is a rather poor example but hopefully you clue in parliament has capacities too.

Edited November 13, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

The queen is part of parliament. parliament could make an act authorizing the use of the forces the queen could ascend to it. that is a novel idea no? that law could assign division of forces to MP's as Lt. commanders? Hmm?

I suppose it's hypothetically possible for an MP to hold a military commission. But so what?

THE QUEEN NOT CABINET OR QUEEN IN COUNCIL

In terms of commander in chief, clearly Queen-in-Council.

and there you have it

this is a rather poor example but hopefully you clue in parliament has capacities too.

But not as a direct commander of the armed forces. That's the Queen-in-Council as laid out in the BNA Act.

[William Ashley]

In terms of commander in chief, clearly Queen-in-Council.

I disagree fully. I think that the real idea is privy council or parliament - queen's council etc.. the power of the privy has been watered down in practice tremendously since 1867. In the early days most executives were lords - also paid executive officers couldn't be members of the commons. The Queen is the queen in all her many forms.

(note that cabinet is also part of the privy - well the ministers are - I think cabinet has gone astray from its original idea by allowing outsiders in the room)

But not as a direct commander of the armed forces. That's the Queen-in-Council as laid out in the BNA Act.

No, there is no problem with duplicity as there is no statement removing the capacity for duplicity. Look to the governor general for instance as an example of letters patent - TO EXERCISE ALL THE POWERS OF THE QUEEN LAID OUT IN THIS PATENT.. I'm not quoting direct but that is the effect. There is no inability confer means of duplicity in regard to the forces. http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/LettersPatent.html

Whereas by certain Letters Patent under the Great Seal bearing date at Westminster the Twenty-third day of March, 1931, His late Majesty King George the Fifth did constitute, order, and declare that there should be a Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada,

It relates more to "the supreme" executive - but in the Charter "god" is stated as supreme.

Clearly the queens right could not be removed by law (some exceptions might apply), and the queen-in-parliament would be able to remove the act, but the executive without the queen does not override queen-in-parliament

The executive acts based upon different forms of things not solely acts of parliament. - for instance letters patents, royal charters etc..

I won't go into great detail but the executive is more constrained by parliament than they are by the queen.

The executive if through powers given to it by parliament or the queen could do much the same as parliament. The defence act gives some powers in regard to cabinet. the emergency act still requires review every 30 or 60 days for continuance of use of the forces.

The military acts based upon "standing orders" (as well as any oaths etc.. that might be applicable - such as an officers oath, an oath of secrecy etc..)

http://www.cfsuo.forces.gc.ca/so-op/soc-opc-01-eng.asp

http://www.canadacom.forces.gc.ca/site/index-eng.asp

You should note most officers of Canada - have an inter-relationship with the queen. Where there is an outline on how they exercise their office's duties. But the Queen's own office has some stipulations involved in how she interact with people she owes duties to. See the magna carta and rights of man for example.

You have to understand not only what the article states but apply it to the time of its creation.

Words can change, but the queen is the queen, the king is the king.

King-in-Council means something wholely different.

The queen is only suppose act on advice of her council though - this is not limited to cabinet. As QC, PC - and one might say the parliamentary process is another council as it must reach her at some point. Parliament however I think really does have the queens ear.

Also I might state that there is a customary right of redress and petition for all subjects. Also one would expect peers much the same. Even the lawful courts represent the queen in sitting.

Cabinets powers come through those acts and letters patents that define their powers - in the olden most powers of cabinet came by having the confidence of parliament and being privy council.

Ministers oft gain special powers by act that would otherwise need the queens ear because those powers are laid out in acts that usually define specific ministers, if indeed the ministers are given powers, or cabinet is given powers in a specific act.

Not all acts and patents for instance relate purely to a ministry. The power of cabinet stems from the power of the ministers in regard to the ministries. -- as well as some other customary issues of keeping order through the attorney general, and once was solicitor general, bear in mind there was no mention of the prime minister for some time in any constitutional documents.. or laws... the Prime minsters power is perhaps defined by customs and convention.. but it s clear the Prime minister is at the will of parliament - and parliament can request the prime minister be removed suggest alternate leaders for cabinet. Partisan politics have made this process rather regimented though. But a new way does not erase the old. it merely expands it. As it is the act within the whole that defines not merely the most recent act. Much like precedent each is applied to a specific context n the overall, based on contexts.

The whole, by and with the advice of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_consent

The executive branch would be hard pressed to be called the executive branch one might instead say it is anyone who holds executive office... the power once again comes if a minister has executive office and is privy...

it is complex because there is equality at some point... and that makes things very complex to really discus based on classes of persons.

The order of standing may have some sway on disagreements though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_order_of_precedence

bear in mind some orders have certain powers, commanders and officers conferred to them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_order_of_precedence_%28decorations_and_medals%29

Edited November 13, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Harper making a major foreign relations & national security decision which could easily go through parliament is bullcrap.

Foreign relations is the domain of the executive; Harper is entirely within his rights to advise the placement of troops without parliament's prior consent. If the opposition is absolutely against Harper's decisions, they can make their displeasure known.

[g_bambino]

I disagree fully.

Disagree as fully as you like; ToadBrother's still correct.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian forces is the Queen

The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen

S.III.15 Constitution Act 1867

and the governor general carries out the role in her stead.

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.

S.II Letters Patent 1947

The Queen is also the executive,

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

S.III.9 Constitution Act 1867

with that power carried out by the governor general in her name,

The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada... carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen...

S.III.10 Constitution Act 1867

but he or she must govern as such on the advice of the Privy Council.

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

S.III.11 Constitution Act 1867

Of course, the Cabinet is a committee of the Privy Council and by constitutional convention it's the ministers therein who direct the sovereign and/or the viceroy on matters of executive governance.

There's nothing in the constitution - either in writing or by convention - that allows parliament to run the military directly. The only impact parliament has in that regard is the ability to make or amend law and to hold up or bring down the government that does command the armed forces.

[Topaz]

When it comes down to the bottom line, the last say on this is the VOTER. We have been in Afghanistan longer than WW2 and I think Canadians are getting tired of the war and losing out guys and gals. If the world leaders would spend as much time and money TALKING to AVOID wars, as they do ON wars, we would probably have a more peaceful world. Then again, there is money-making in to creating wars and as one US general said before going into Afghanistan, what is the sense of having a military is all they do is set around.

[Guest TrueMetis]

When it comes down to the bottom line, the last say on this is the VOTER. We have been in Afghanistan longer than WW2 and I think Canadians are getting tired of the war and losing out guys and gals. If the world leaders would spend as much time and money TALKING to AVOID wars, as they do ON wars, we would probably have a more peaceful world. Then again, there is money-making in to creating wars and as one US general said before going into Afghanistan, what is the sense of having a military is all they do is set around.

Yes I'm sure that Canada has made tons of money on this war.

[punked]

Harper is just doing this as a backroom deal with the Liberals. It is so the Liberals don't have to take the heat and Harper will have their support on future decisions about the war. Liberal Tory same old story.