Refusing Royal Assent

[FiveParadox]

As you should know, Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, the Governor General of Canada, reserves the right (under her reserve powers of the Crown) to refuse to grant assent to a piece of legislation, thus preventing such a measure from being enacted — as per her rights under the Constitution Acts.

To be clear, this has never before been done — a Governor General of Canada has never refused to grant royal assent to a piece of legislation passed by both Houses — and for good reason; the reserved powers of the Crown are often considered to be warranted only in an emergency.

In fact, a Governor General's reserved powers have only been exercised once in the history of Canada — the imfamous and controversial King-Byng Affair, where the late Lord Vimy refused to dissolve the House of Commons upon the request of the Prime Minister, instead appointing the then-Conservative Leader of the Opposition.

:?: Question

In your personal opinion, is there any situation that would warrant the Governor General refusing to grant her Royal Assent to a Bill passed by both the House of Commons and the Senate?

 

[Finder]

I voted Yes because of how the question was phrazed. Currently I would say no she doesn't have any right to block legislation. If she were given a mandate from anyone else besides the PM I would say she should use her power more often. But currently being an unelected official, and in a sence representing the Queen, I would say no way in and and it would cause a constitutional crisis depending on how far the PM or any MP in that matter pushed the issue to the puplic

edit: and courts.

 

[tawker]

I think a case might be to avoid use weapons of mass destruction in a nutjob case. As the Commander of Canadian forces, the GG ultimately gives the order to strike.

 

[Finder]

Well I should look this up first. But don't you need the magority of the parliment to declare war now? I know we can still use our forces without declaring war as we often use them in peace keepingmissions. But really if the GG didn't do something either the House of Commons or the PM wanted I think it would cause a constitutional crisis either way.

But yeah the GG should have power as a check to the PM but not in the current frame work of government.

 

[FiveParadox]

Reserve Crown Power

I would agree that the Governor General should be able to serve as a check on the power of the Prime Minister — and I would also concede, Finder, that this may not be viable under our current framework of governance.

I have proposed, in the past, changes to the appointments of Governors General, whereby Her Majesty would not make an appointment unless she had received the advice and recommendation of both the Prime Minister, and the Speaker of the Senate (where the advice of the Speaker would, of course, represent the consent of the Senate as a whole).

 

[tawker]

Why not require a vote of the House of Commons similar to the US procedure?

 

[FiveParadox]

Ratification in the House of Commons

Unfortunately, the House of Commons would likely require several days of debate to decide on whether or not to accept the appointment of a Governor General — I had suggested that the Senate should consider the appointment in its place, since the Red Chamber generally has more time to thoroughly consider issues.

 

[Finder]

John Tunner the other day said Canada should change it's system to one which most votes besides Budgit's are free votes, eliminating the need of a party whip. I don't know though I'm more in favourof checks and balances I think free votes on issues would be better then the current system. We might actually get things done.

 

[FiveParadox]

You were watching The Next Great Prime Minister, or something like that?

I would agree with that premise; however, I would argue that there are circumstances other than budget votes and throne speech votes that would require whipped consideration. In addition to the main budget, there are often supplementary estimates that must be moved and accepted (which are matters of confidence); in addition, matters of procedure should continue to be considered by the whip — motions to adjourn, for example, or motions to move Government Business, reschedule Supply Days, and et cetera.

 

[tawker]

However, does the Senate really represent Canada? As far as I can see, the Senate is mostly hand picked by the PM who would pick partisan allies.

The Senate is hardly the place for such decisions but it would be better than the PM alone.

 

[Curiosity]

Gotta say it..

The GG is an expensive apron string you gotta cut off.

Traditions are nice, but they should have absolutely nothing to do with the government of Canada.

I have always maintained a picture of the Queen ( or her successor ) in a place designated to be traditional and historic - to be honored and viewed by children studying history is enough.

And to the question of the Senate. ALL members of government should hold places therein upon choice of the people by vote.

Here are examples of issues the citizens of Canada never voted on:
In the last Parliament (2000-2004), the Senate made 36 amendments to 13 bills. This represents just over 10 percent of bills passed by the Commons (13 out of 124). Since 1993, the Senate has made 122 amendments to 37 bills. The House of Commons generally agrees with Senate amendments. Since 1993, the Commons has agreed to 89 percent of Senate amendments (109 of 122). Of the 36 amendments in the last Parliament, the Commons disagreed with only three, and proposed a compromise on one other. (From Government Senate Report)


I never realized how important that was to an individual - to feel connected and responsible for the country by having a direct and personal influence on who is placed in power. Canadians do not have that privilege. I would love to see them have it.

 

[JoeyB]

I'm thinking of 1975, when John Kerr, forced his hand in the australian political arena, ousting then PM Gough Whitlam.

Kerr was referred by many as Wayne, after that event, the consequences of his actions are still talked about in almost every political debate on the subject of Power in this country. The term most often associated with his name and position is 'Abuse of power'

I would like to believe that the GG observes vigilantly the oath of office, and acts in a humanitarian way, politically impartial, and for the good of the country's citizens, not necessarily the 'country' per se.

Tough call. This one might require some heavy research.

 

[Lotuslander]

Joey B wrote:

I'm thinking of 1975, when John Kerr, forced his hand in the australian political arena, ousting then PM Gough Whitlam.

That wasn't so much an abuse of power as a mistake of Gough's part who underestimated the powers of the Crown along with over estimating his own. When Gough refused to accept a double dissolution he forced the GG's hand who had no choice but to ask Fraser to try and form a government on the condition that a double dissolution immediately follow. Indeed, how could the GG allow that current parliament to continue when supply could not be delivered and unlike the Canadian Senate or House of Lords where consent of the Upper House is not required for money bills, the Australian Senate effectively has a veto. Then Gough thought he could ask the Queen to dismiss Kerr, unfortunately, although he had the power to do this when he walked into Government House he did not have the power to do so afterwards when he was dismissed. If only he had phoned the Queeen first, then went to see the GG.

 

[Lotuslander]

Joey B wrote:

I'm thinking of 1975, when John Kerr, forced his hand in the australian political arena, ousting then PM Gough Whitlam.

That wasn't so much an abuse of power as a mistake of Gough's part who underestimated the powers of the Crown along with over estimating his own. When Gough refused to accept a double dissolution he forced the GG's hand who had no choice but to ask Fraser to try and form a government on the condition that a double dissolution immediately follow. Indeed, how could the GG allow that current parliament to continue when supply could not be delivered and unlike the Canadian Senate or House of Lords where consent of the Upper House is not required for money bills, the Australian Senate effectively has a veto. Then Gough thought he could ask the Queen to dismiss Kerr, unfortunately, although he had the power to do this when he walked into Government House he did not have the power to do so afterwards when he was dismissed. If only he had phoned the Queeen first, then went to see the GG.

 

[Lotuslander]

Joey B wrote:

I'm thinking of 1975, when John Kerr, forced his hand in the australian political arena, ousting then PM Gough Whitlam.

That wasn't so much an abuse of power as a mistake of Gough's part who underestimated the powers of the Crown along with over estimating his own. When Gough refused to accept a double dissolution he forced the GG's hand who had no choice but to ask Fraser to try and form a government on the condition that a double dissolution immediately follow. Indeed, how could the GG allow that current parliament to continue when supply could not be delivered and unlike the Canadian Senate or House of Lords where consent of the Upper House is not required for money bills, the Australian Senate effectively has a veto. Then Gough thought he could ask the Queen to dismiss Kerr, unfortunately, although he had the power to do this when he walked into Government House he did not have the power to do so afterwards when he was dismissed. If only he had phoned the Queeen first, then went to see the GG.

 

[FiveParadox]

Constitutional Crisis in Australia

In relation to the action taken by the Right Honourable Sir John Kerr the former Governor-General of Australia, I would agree whole-heartedly with his course of action; the Prime Minister of the time had left the Governor-General with no choice but to seek a double-dissolution by any means, and the outright dismissal of the Ministry of the Right Honourable Gough Whitlam was necessary.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

to be honest, it's warming as an englishman to hear you still treat the queen and her relatives as ur own, but to be honest, it should ultimatly be up to you, the people of any particular country to decide it's destiny, I'd personally get rid of the queen and her appointed figure-heads, why did our ancestors fight napoleon for again?...life, liberty and freedom, not someone who quite frankly hasnt been elected in, links are links, and we'll always have them, but this is a modern world.....we dont need it to know where we came from.

 

[Curiosity]

Re: RE: Refusing Royal Assent

to be honest, it's warming as an englishman to hear you still treat the queen and her relatives as ur own, but to be honest, it should ultimatly be up to you, the people of any particular country to decide it's destiny, I'd personally get rid of the queen and her appointed figure-heads, why did our ancestors fight napoleon for again?...life, liberty and freedom, not someone who quite frankly hasnt been elected in, links are links, and we'll always have them, but this is a modern world.....we dont need it to know where we came from.

Daz Hockey

Bingo - I agree totally with your words.

They should put up a picture of the Queen and a potted plant in a nice niche in parliament and be done with it. Perhaps a nice English Fern would do!

The funding for the tradition of the GG could be put to better use within the Canadian population instead of a figurehead meaning very little to many and certainly doing very little other than spending the allowance.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Refusing Royal Assent

Daz Hockey

Bingo - I agree totally with your words.

They should put up a picture of the Queen and a potted plant in a nice niche in parliament and be done with it. Perhaps a nice English Fern would do!

The funding for the tradition of the GG could be put to better use within the Canadian population instead of a figurehead meaning very little to many and certainly doing very little other than spending the allowance.

But the GG's job is to maintain parliament. Certainly the Liberals have tried to change the role to be more of a diplomatic role, but essentially the role is to be sure a PM exists in Canada always, and to head the military on the Queens behalf. It isn't just a retirement job for former CBC employees.....

I'm completely against changing the role of the monarchy in Canada. Loyalists didn't flee here so dumbed down generations of the future could turn this place into a republic. If we do change into a republic, I'm moving to the States.

All republicans who took an oath to the Queen in parliament should be fired promptly.

 

[Curiosity]

Point taken Jay

But isn't it a bit expensive having to pay for a "maintenance supervisor" for your elected officials????

Even if evidence was discovered which the GG would have to act upon wouldn't the Queen still have to be brought into the picture rather than giving the "power" to the GG?

It seems such traditional roles are passe and as for maintaining and overseeing the military - that should have nothing to do with a ruler or government - other than passing a declaration of war or peacekeeping or sending the military to international duties....even through the U.N. operations.

It seems with our instant communications, the Queen can still be apprised of daily government issues, not as the connection to the monarchy was set up when the great nation of Canada and its government was created.

I believe in less government - and a government with more active connection to the public it represents, not more traditional, unapproachable figureheads.

If the connection to royalty is an expression of being part of Canada still and is worth the money - I would urge Canada to begin education in the role of the GG as so many don't seem to understand it - unless it has gone the way of the dodo bird and people are merely paying lip service to the Tradition.