Moulting our monarchist shell

19 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2008-12-04 12:38

Papal Bull

It seems to me, given that our GG really has no interest in allowing Parliament to exercise the democratic options that were present before her, our GG has increasingly less of a place in our system.

Besides, we're entering into an economic recession. Why should we fund someone to go hobknobbing in Europe when people here need housing, jobs, education, and all other sorts of fun, yet seemingly unnecessary, things?

The pomp and ceremony of the monarchy has always appealed to me, and it always will, but it seems that it is no longer a fit with a nation that needs to look to its future and mature.

Thu, 2008-12-04 13:02

V. Jara

It's high time we became a republic.

Thu, 2008-12-04 13:05

JeffWells

I think we should be outside Rideau Hall shouting "Get out of Schreyer's house!"

Thu, 2008-12-04 16:28

Sean in Ottawa

I think these comments are unfair. I don't believe Jean had a choice.

Originally the position did have this power to oppose a PM but now it does not. I wish Jean had said this- she culd have said as an unelecteddperson she does not have the authority to do this - she may yet take that step.

Essentially the problem is not with the GG herself but the position. We have gone beyond the time when such a decision could be made by an unelected person -- to stand up to an elected one.

Essentially, we should apologize to her for the position she was placed in and move to elect a president. We do not have to upset any of the rest of our system to do so as the new president would only hold the power the GG has in theory but no longer has the political credibility to excercise. In fact this would be a return to the original check and balance we used to have. It is grossly unfair and unreasonable to assume that an unelected person could discharge the responsibilities we expect from a GG in this century. The only way she could have opposed the PM is if there had been a massive wave of support for the coalition. Unfortunately the country is in fact split and therefore only a person with elected authority could decide over a duly elected PM. We do need a check and balance and we do need to recognize that what was there is no longer capable of that role.

The same is true of the Senate. While there was a time when power could be in the hands of an unelected group this is no longer true. We should make them elected as well and perhaps give them more power-- over money bills. The Senate perhaps does not need to be able to propose legislation but they can be a check against it.

The real story here is we need to recognize that our political culture has changed and these unelected positions have little practical power as they no longer command cultural authority.

Thu, 2008-12-04 16:29

enemy_of_capital

I think we ought to be demanding her abdicate and a republic be established

Thu, 2008-12-04 16:35

Bookish Agrarian

Sorry Sean you are completely wrong here. We are still a constitutional monarchy. There is nothing symbolic about those powers, anymore than there is for the Supreme Court and its role in our government. True they are rarely excercised as they are not needed usually, but that is much different than them not being in place for very legitimate reasons. The truth is that Madame Jean failed in her responsibilities today. She has failed in protecting democracy in the long term by this precedent. Her cowardice to exercise her constituational powers deserves the derision she is getting from many quarters. She no longer deserves to be in this role in my view.

Thu, 2008-12-04 16:50

Sean in Ottawa

Bookish-- I think you missed the thrust of my post-- Yes we are a constitutional monarchy and yes the powers are real and theoretically can be excercised but the cultural legitimacy of the position where you have an unelected person standing up to an elected one undermines that authority in a way that it did not years ago.

We do not need a US style republic- most of those who inherited the British system have not moved in that direction - but an elected president can also ave the role the GG now has without upsetting the rest of the system and that would allow the authority to make such a call.

Unfortunately, the propaganda of the Cons was working and the polls have already shown less support for the coalition than that of the three parties and barely more than the support for the government. with the population split you need a position with more authority than an unelected appointment to make such a decision.

Bookish you are focussing on the legal rather than the political-cultural which is where this problem is. And in fact on precedence making decisions this is also considered in legal forums. The power of the GG has been eroded in political culture.

I would say that this is not a new thing: the GG's power was eroded because this was a foreign appointment and by making it a Canadian one a period of restored credibility was returned but that too has now passed. At the present time the Queen could not refuse a PM's request to replace her and therefore the seat of her power has vanished.

Thu, 2008-12-04 17:03

Vansterdam Kid

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think these comments are unfair. I don't believe Jean had a choice.

Originally the position did have this power to oppose a PM but now it does not. I wish Jean had said this- she culd have said as an unelecteddperson she does not have the authority to do this - she may yet take that step.

Essentially the problem is not with the GG herself but the position. We have gone beyond the time when such a decision could be made by an unelected person -- to stand up to an elected one.

Essentially, we should apologize to her for the position she was placed in and move to elect a president. We do not have to upset any of the rest of our system to do so as the new president would only hold the power the GG has in theory but no longer has the political credibility to excercise. In fact this would be a return to the original check and balance we used to have. It is grossly unfair and unreasonable to assume that an unelected person could discharge the responsibilities we expect from a GG in this century. The only way she could have opposed the PM is if there had been a massive wave of support for the coalition. Unfortunately the country is in fact split and therefore only a person with elected authority could decide over a duly elected PM. We do need a check and balance and we do need to recognize that what was there is no longer capable of that role.

The same is true of the Senate. While there was a time when power could be in the hands of an unelected group this is no longer true. We should make them elected as well and perhaps give them more power-- over money bills. The Senate perhaps does not need to be able to propose legislation but they can be a check against it.

The real story here is we need to recognize that our political culture has changed and these unelected positions have little practical power as they no longer command cultural authority.

I think this is a very reasonable position. But I think we would need to make sure that a "weak" President, elected GG, whatever you what to call the position have their active powers be codified, essentially that GG would have real powers but they wouldn't have discretion because they would be told what they MUST do in every imaginable situation.

Thu, 2008-12-04 17:15

Malcolm

There's only one problem swith the idea of "simply" replacing the GG with an elected president.

The problem is that it's friggin' idiotic and demonstrates complete ignorance about how the system is structured.

The notional powers of the GG's office are virtually absolute. The constitution clearly lays out that "all" executive power is vested in the crown.

The fact that the GG does not govern like an absolute monarch is merely a matter of convention. The GG does not exercise the full scope of the powers vested in the office because the office holder (a political appointee) lacks democratic legitimacy.

If we "simply" change the appointed GG into an elected president, that convention will no longer apply. Therefore, an elected President of Canada would have no reason not to exercise the full notional scope of the office. Our "simple" change will have created an executive presidency with virtually absolute power - something that no other nation on earth has.

The only other alternative is to replace the appointed GG with an appointed President. A whole lot of money for a pretty pointless change.

Those who claim that the abolition of the monarchy is "simple" are either fools or liars.

Abolition of the monarchy would require a complete revision of the constitution - something no sane political activist wants to deal with.

In my head, I'm a republican. (In my heart, I'm actually a Jacobite.)

But on the list of the top ten piorities of a future NDP government, abolition of the monarchy should stand at about 987,654,321st.

Thu, 2008-12-04 17:26

#10

Vansterdam Kid

Malcolm, I don't really "get" your posting style, you're unnecessarily antagonistic and arrogant. It doesn't help you at all.

Anyways, no one said replacing the GG, or becoming a Republic, would be simple. What people have said is that it is necessary because this sets a terrible precedent that essentially makes the GG a captive of the PM and destroys much of what makes our system "responsible government." What position in the cue of priority this should be is irrelevant, since as Obama said, and as you should know, a government can multi-task.

That said, your position that making the GG elected would make it the most powerful executive in the world is completely wrong. A) any reform to the system would include codification of what exactly the elected GG's position is and B) take a look at the presidency of countries like Israel, Germany etc they are some of the "weakest" since they aren't actually involved in the day-to-day running of government. They are essentially referees who have democratic legitimacy.

Thu, 2008-12-04 17:27

#11

UnionSupporter

Count me in as one who is sympathetic to the situation the GG was placed in by the Prime Minister. She really had no other choice.

We are, however, now in a situation where a precedent has been established where the Prime Minister can shut down Parliament for no other reason than to protect his/her partisan interest.

A promise from the coalition to amend the standing orders of Parliament to codify the acceptable terms under which the Prime Minister might seek prorogation might be a good idea.

Call me sentimental, but I\'m not prepared to contemplate abandoning the many positive attributes of the British Parliamentary tradition.

Thu, 2008-12-04 17:46

#12

Slumberjack

GG's Roles and Responsibilities

"The governor general promotes our national identity and unity."

The GG exercised her duty today and made a decision after careful consideration of all sides of the debate, fully in keeping with her responsibilities. She is not a coward, nor in the scope of her abilities, did she fail to protect democracy, as some idiotic comments suggest. Now the debate as to whether we should have a different type of representation in the form of a republic is a valid one. I do believe its high time we had a serious discussion in the country about removing ourselves from the Commonwealth and doing away with the need for a GG. The essential fact of the matter at present though is that whichever decision she would have chosen today, she would have carried out her responsibility in accordance with the constitution, regardless of the level of disappointment on either side of the divide.

Thu, 2008-12-04 17:59

#13

Bookish Agrarian

Parliament could pass a motion proscribing the instructions of the Commons on how such situations should be handled in the future. I forget which constituational expert of all the ones on the media said that. (Who knew we had so frikkin many consitutional experts just hanging around by the way?) I would strongly recomend to the Coalition they do just that if that is indeed correct. This is a terrible precedent.

Thu, 2008-12-04 22:22

#14

Sean in Ottawa

Bookish I agree with your last comment- something does need to be done. However, if we could anticipate every time we need the office and have an exact prescription then we would not need it. I think that there needs to be some restored credibility to it.

That said Malcom's inflamatory post is quite incorrect. In fact shockingly so.

The Supremacy of parliament of course goes back to Charles the 2nd and that fact is clearly included in Section 12 of the 1867 Constitution Act where it states that the executive powers are subject to change by parliament. Further, law and convention are not firewalled as Malcom suggests the interpretation of law includes convention, the intent of law (read any interpretation act) and previous decisions (jurisprudence).

When you make a change in law or status or institution you do not reboot with no precedence-- that would be absurd. Indeed the change includes cues for interpretation. As I said many of the former commonwealth countries (without bringing in the rather different French example) have in fact employed a seemless transition from a British Governor to a president holding the same powers and their laws reflect constant use of English law and experience for interpretation with references going back if needed all the way to King John. The idea that we could not make a president by law replace a GG with the same stated role, employing existing convention but with the added moral authority of election is completely absurd.

I think Malcom you have attempted to make up for an incredible ignorance of consitutional law through bluster. It probably works better with those who know nothing of constitutional law. Unfortunately, you will find that knowledge of law and the constitution is quite common here with some who have edited books on the subject, some who are even lawyers. It is likely better to be a little tentative when you find the waters have run over your head.

Fri, 2008-12-05 00:16

#15

Malcolm

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

That said, your position that making the GG elected would make it the most powerful executive in the world is completely wrong. A) any reform to the system would include codification of what exactly the elected GG's position is and B) take a look at the presidency of countries like Israel, Germany etc they are some of the "weakest" since they aren't actually involved in the day-to-day running of government. They are essentially referees who have democratic legitimacy.

Those who porpose "simply" replacing the GG with an elected president are completely out to lunch.

You, at least (and unlike most) acknowledge that it is more complicated than that.

So let us consider what exactly is involved in "codification of what exactly the elected GG's position is" involves.

It involves completely opening the destructive constitutional debates - and no, you won't be able to limit the constitutional negotiations to this one topic. You open this and everything is on the table.

Then it requires that 12 legislative bodies (ten provincial legislatures and both Houses of Parliament) consent to the change within a three year time frame - where there is certainly going to be no national consensus.

Possible? Certainly. Anything is "possible."

But the enormous amount of political energy involved in negotiating an agreement among 11 governments and then shepherding that agreement through 12 parliamentary bodies (never mind changes of government over the three years as sunk Meech Lake) would require an expenditure of political capital to such an extent that little if anything else could possibly be accomplished.

Frankly, I'd rather expend energy on things a little more substantial - like addressing poverty and homelessness, protecting the environment, ensuring that ordinary folk are protected from the depradations of speculators - you know, things that actually bloody MATTER!

Truly, one could probably SOLVE poverty and homelessness with about a third of the energy that you would have us piss away tilting at constitutional windmills.

My debating style? I calls 'em as I sees 'em. The idea that we should waste our energy on a fool's errand of constitutional tinkering is appalling.

Fri, 2008-12-05 00:26

#16

Malcolm

Do you know the conventional basis for the supremacy of Parliament, Sean?

It is based in the premise that an elected body should (generally) take precedence over an unelected head of state.

If you replace the unelected head of state with an elected head of state, the person in that office then has at least as much democratic legitimacy as the elected Parliament (arguably more, presuming that the President is elected by all Canadians, whereas each MP is only elected by some), and certainly more democratic legitimacy than the Prime Minister leading that House of Commons.

The bluster, dear sir, is from those who fail to grasp that when you change the rules, the rules change.

BTW, your erudition is off the mark. Not Charles II, old bean, but rather his nephew and niece, the Prince and Princess of Orange. If you're going to claim someone is out to lunch, you should at least try to get your facts straight.

The supremacy of Parliament was an evolution which BEGAN with the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 and continued to evolve until (arguably) the reign of Eduard Windsor (Edward VII). Monarchs continued to be actively involved in directing affairs of state well after the usurpation of William of Orange, with a gradual dimunition of their role based on CONVENTION. The UK (from whom we inherited this system, after all) has no written constitution. The passivity of modern monarchs is a convention which has eveolved based on the lack of democratic legitimacy.

You want to piss away political capital chasing shadows, go right ahead.

In the mean time, real progressives have real issues to attend to.

Fri, 2008-12-05 00:54

#17

Malcolm

No serious constitutional scholar questions that the Governor General has the absolute right of dissolution - that is, to dissolve Parliament and call an election.

Similarly, no serious constitutional scholar questions that the Governor General has the absolute right to dismiss the government of the day. (See Australian GG's dismissal of Labour PM Gough Whitlam in the 1970s.)

What constrains Governors General from capriciously dissolving Parliaments and dismissing Prime Ministers at whim is the CONVENTION that the Crown only acts on the advice of the Ministry - except in extremis.

There are two modern cases in Canada where it is believed that vice-regals seriously considered these options. (Of course, advice privily given to the Governor General or a Lieutenant Governor is confidential, so the precise details of these - or potentially other - cases are not clear.)

During the constitutional debates of the early 1980s, it has been reported that Governor General Schreyer sought advice as to his options should the Trudeau government present him with a constitutional patriation package passed by Parliament but without the support of at least a significant majority of provincial governments. Since Trudeau and nine of ten premiers came to an agreement, the matter never came to a head. But it appears that Governor General Schreyer was considering one or the other of these options.

Similarly, in Saskatchewan in 1991, there were concerns that Premier Grant Devine would not submit to an election within the five year mandate. Lieutenant Governor Fedoruk is known to have taken advice on her options with regard to the power of dissolution or dismissal. Again, in the event, Devine did provide the necessary advice to dissolve the legislature and issue a writ of election, so the matter did not come to a head.

Because these situations were both in extremis (the former perhaps more arguably that the latter), they would likely have been justifiable within the limits of convention.

But the convention is rooted in the issue of democratic legitimacy. An appointed head of state should not generally interfere with the actions of the elected government or otherwise act without the advice of the Ministry.

However, an elected head of state (barring a complete re-writing of the Constitution) negates that convention - or at the very least weakens it.

So while an appointed GG or LG would refrain from these acts in all but the most extreme circumstances, it is naive to suppose that an elected President, with at least as much democratic legitmacy as the Parliament and the Ministry, would feel the same constraint.

So what happens when President Don Cherry decides that the advice of Prime Minister Jack Layton isn't suitable? That would be President Don Cherry with a popular mandate (60%?) from all Canadians as opposed to Prime Minister Jack Layton with (at best) a mandate from a majority of Canadians in a majority of constituencies, but almost certainly less than 45% of the popular vote.

At that point it is not unreasonable to argue that President Cherry has greater democratic legitimacy that Prime Minister Layton.

Of course, we could constrain the powers of the President through a complete rewriting of the Constitution. But some of us remember the rending and bitter constitutional feuds involved in the comparatively simple issue of an amending formula.

This proposal is, at best, going to be a major expenditure of political enegy and capital on an esoteric goose chase with very limited possibilities of success. At worst, it's just bloody dangeous.

And when people suggest that the matter is "simple," it is just bloody irresponsible.

Fri, 2008-12-05 01:43

#18

Vansterdam Kid

Malcolm wrote:
Vansterdam Kid wrote:

That said, your position that making the GG elected would make it the most powerful executive in the world is completely wrong. A) any reform to the system would include codification of what exactly the elected GG's position is and B) take a look at the presidency of countries like Israel, Germany etc they are some of the "weakest" since they aren't actually involved in the day-to-day running of government. They are essentially referees who have democratic legitimacy.

Those who porpose "simply" replacing the GG with an elected president are completely out to lunch.

You, at least (and unlike most) acknowledge that it is more complicated than that.

So let us consider what exactly is involved in "codification of what exactly the elected GG's position is" involves.

It involves completely opening the destructive constitutional debates - and no, you won't be able to limit the constitutional negotiations to this one topic. You open this and everything is on the table.

Then it requires that 12 legislative bodies (ten provincial legislatures and both Houses of Parliament) consent to the change within a three year time frame - where there is certainly going to be no national consensus.

Possible? Certainly. Anything is "possible."

But the enormous amount of political energy involved in negotiating an agreement among 11 governments and then shepherding that agreement through 12 parliamentary bodies (never mind changes of government over the three years as sunk Meech Lake) would require an expenditure of political capital to such an extent that little if anything else could possibly be accomplished.

Frankly, I'd rather expend energy on things a little more substantial - like addressing poverty and homelessness, protecting the environment, ensuring that ordinary folk are protected from the depradations of speculators - you know, things that actually bloody MATTER!

Truly, one could probably SOLVE poverty and homelessness with about a third of the energy that you would have us piss away tilting at constitutional windmills.

I know full well what is involved in opening up the constitution. While you've alluded to the potential divisiveness of the process, the real reason that Meech and Charlottetown collapsed is because they tried to address too many issues at the same time in the misguided hope that Quebec would sign the constitution, without offending other Provinces and actors. There was never any actual attempt to address only one issue, Mulroney tried to make everybody happy by addressing everyone's needs at the same time. If, and I don't care what the position is called, a reformed GG office is the goal - we'd need to keep in mind that this is would be the only issue the amendment would deal with.

As for changes to the constitution, they've actually occurred since 1982, and they do not necessarily require anonymous consent as you imply. Some reforms do, most do not. The ones that do not "only" require 2/3rd of the provinces = at least 50% of the population. This is called the 7/50 formula.

As for solving homelessness, I'm pretty sure it would be a lot more expensive than a constitutional amendment. If it was cheaper, it would've been solved a few times by now, seeing as the constitution has been successfully amended ten times since 1982. If this economic crisis is gets any worse homelessness is going to get a lot worse and a lot more expensive.

Which is why its important that we have a head of state who can follow the rules because they have democratic legitimacy from a codified set of rules to do so, especially in the 21st century. We need a head of state who can do their job, despite how limited yet important that job will be, because they have the legitimacy to do so. I'm not even that angry at Her Excellency, she's simply doing her job. I'm angry at King Steve for exposing this weakness in our system. Convention is good enough for people with at least a shred of putting "country first", this obviously doesn't apply to King Steve who has shown us how much we need a Parliamentary Republic.

Sat, 2008-12-06 00:19

#19

Malcolm

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
Vansterdam Kid wrote:

That said, your position that making the GG elected would make it the most powerful executive in the world is completely wrong. A) any reform to the system would include codification of what exactly the elected GG's position is and B) take a look at the presidency of countries like Israel, Germany etc they are some of the "weakest" since they aren't actually involved in the day-to-day running of government. They are essentially referees who have democratic legitimacy.

Those who porpose "simply" replacing the GG with an elected president are completely out to lunch.

You, at least (and unlike most) acknowledge that it is more complicated than that.

So let us consider what exactly is involved in "codification of what exactly the elected GG's position is" involves.

It involves completely opening the destructive constitutional debates - and no, you won't be able to limit the constitutional negotiations to this one topic. You open this and everything is on the table.

Then it requires that 12 legislative bodies (ten provincial legislatures and both Houses of Parliament) consent to the change within a three year time frame - where there is certainly going to be no national consensus.

Possible? Certainly. Anything is "possible."

But the enormous amount of political energy involved in negotiating an agreement among 11 governments and then shepherding that agreement through 12 parliamentary bodies (never mind changes of government over the three years as sunk Meech Lake) would require an expenditure of political capital to such an extent that little if anything else could possibly be accomplished.

Frankly, I'd rather expend energy on things a little more substantial - like addressing poverty and homelessness, protecting the environment, ensuring that ordinary folk are protected from the depradations of speculators - you know, things that actually bloody MATTER!

Truly, one could probably SOLVE poverty and homelessness with about a third of the energy that you would have us piss away tilting at constitutional windmills.

I know full well what is involved in opening up the constitution. While you've alluded to the potential divisiveness of the process, the real reason that Meech and Charlottetown collapsed is because they tried to address too many issues at the same time in the misguided hope that Quebec would sign the constitution, without offending other Provinces and actors. There was never any actual attempt to address only one issue, Mulroney tried to make everybody happy by addressing everyone's needs at the same time. If, and I don't care what the position is called, a reformed GG office is the goal - we'd need to keep in mind that this is would be the only issue the amendment would deal with.

As for changes to the constitution, they've actually occurred since 1982, and they do not necessarily require anonymous consent as you imply. Some reforms do, most do not. The ones that do not "only" require 2/3rd of the provinces = at least 50% of the population. This is called the 7/50 formula.

As for solving homelessness, I'm pretty sure it would be a lot more expensive than a constitutional amendment. If it was cheaper, it would've been solved a few times by now, seeing as the constitution has been successfully amended ten times since 1982. If this economic crisis is gets any worse homelessness is going to get a lot worse and a lot more expensive.

Which is why its important that we have a head of state who can follow the rules because they have democratic legitimacy from a codified set of rules to do so, especially in the 21st century. We need a head of state who can do their job, despite how limited yet important that job will be, because they have the legitimacy to do so. I'm not even that angry at Her Excellency, she's simply doing her job. I'm angry at King Steve for exposing this weakness in our system. Convention is good enough for people with at least a shred of putting "country first", this obviously doesn't apply to King Steve who has shown us how much we need a Parliamentary Republic.

Sorry, VK, but once you let the genie out of the bottle, there is no way that you can ensure that this is the only item up for consideration - particularly if some provinces start bartering for their assent.

Second, you are correct that not every amendment requires unanimous consent. (I assume anonymous was a typo / freudian slip.) However, a change to the GG's office is one of the ones that DOES require unanimous consent since it a change to national institutions.

I agree that solving homelessness would take fewer dollars than amending the constitution. I was referring to political capital. The effort expended on this lost cause would be enormous and the likelihood of ever achieving and sustaining that unanimous consent virtually nil.

Finally, there is no way on God's green earth you will be able to codify the role of the Head of State in a manner that will encompass every eventuality. That's just plain silly.