The executive of our govt, PM and cabinet, through crown prerogatives are getting more power. I don't myself disagree with the Helena Geurgis removal from cabinet, the Khadar inertia because I see these as political decisions and govts are supposed to make political decisions. They make them and pay the price or not next election. And enerally, I think the courts should not interfere with political decisions.
There's not much of an uproar over these decisions so most Canaidans think they are okay. The executive overruled Parliament over Kyoto, which erodes the power of MPs. MPs are the direct link to voters, not the PM or cabinet, and yet they do not make the political decisions.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Crown+discussion+should+beyond+Harry+adventures/7163517/story.html
There's not much of an uproar over these decisions so most Canaidans think they are okay. The executive overruled Parliament over Kyoto, which erodes the power of MPs. MPs are the direct link to voters, not the PM or cabinet, and yet they do not make the political decisions.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Crown+discussion+should+beyond+Harry+adventures/7163517/story.html
Crown discussion should go beyond Harry’s adventures
BY PHILIPPE LAGASSÉ, OTTAWA CITIZEN AUGUST 29, 2012
2
Read
Canadians have heard quite a bit about the monarchy lately. From Will and Kate’s visit last year to the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee to Prince Harry’s adventures in Las Vegas, it seems that not a week goes by without something royal-related in the news. Apart from the pomp, tradition and celebrity that surround these stories, many question why so much attention is focused on this centuries-old institution.
Canadians have heard quite a bit about the monarchy lately. From Will and Kate’s visit last year to the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee to Prince Harry’s adventures in Las Vegas, it seems that not a week goes by without something royal-related in the news. Apart from the pomp, tradition and celebrity that surround these stories, many question why so much attention is focused on this centuries-old institution.
A careful reading of this summer’s headlines, however, should encourage us to spend more time discussing the monarchy as the foundation of Canadian government, not less. Over the past months, Canadians have been reminded of the lasting importance of the prerogative powers of the Canadian Crown, executive authorities that are formally exercised by the Governor General on the advice of the prime minister or cabinet. These prerogatives demonstrate that the monarchical element of our Constitution is far from a quaint holdover of our colonial past.
Last Friday afternoon, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s removal of Helena Guergis from cabinet was not susceptible to judicial review. The Court found that an exercise of the prerogative power of appointment and the subject matter in question, membership in cabinet, were necessarily areas of prime ministerial discretion and Crown privilege.
In early August, the prime minister proudly declared that the mercy prerogative had been employed to pardon farmers arrested for violating the regulations of the now defunct Canadian Wheat Board. A month earlier, the Federal Court upheld the government’s right to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol using the prerogative power over treaties, despite the existence of a parliamentary statute that compelled the executive to implement this international agreement.
No case better highlights the contemporary importance of Crown prerogatives than that of Omar Khadr. The timing of his return to Canada has been left up to the government, owing to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the judiciary must be deferent toward the executive’s prerogative authority over foreign affairs, even when a Canadian citizen’s Charter rights have been violated.
Observers might be surprised by the tenacious endurance of these powers. When discussing these Crown prerogatives, both judges and academics are fond of quoting 19th-century British scholars who casually present them as medieval relics that will eventually fall into disuse or be replaced by statute. Simplistic references to the British form of parliamentary supremacy or the ability of Canadian courts to review affairs of government for constitutional compliance also feed impressions that prerogative powers will eventually be weakened by the legislature or kept in check by the judiciary.
Yet this has not happened. In fact, it seems that the reverse is taking place. For all their bluster about the executive’s dominance and the concentration of power in the prime minister, parliamentarians have not made serious efforts to limit the Crown’s remaining prerogatives or prevent heads of government from monopolizing them. MPs and Senators appear quite content to leave cabinet’s, and increasingly the prime minister’s, discretionary authority untouched.
Even if Parliament tried to weaken certain prerogative powers, it is unclear if the judiciary would co-operate.
Section 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 indicates that a constitutional amendment would be required to affect key prerogatives, such as those related to the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament and the formation of ministries. Equally important, the Supreme Court has used Crown prerogatives to help craft a Canadian separation of powers doctrine. The court has linked these powers to the executive’s constitutional responsibilities and unique spheres of competence. Unfortunately, dominant interpretations of prerogative powers have not kept pace with this jurisprudential evolution.
The ceremonial functions of the royal family make it easy to overlook the powers that Crown still vests in governments today. By some accounts, that is the whole point. As Canadians debate the monarchy, we would do well to look beyond the celebrity and the symbolic. The power that our Constitution vests in the executive through these Crown prerogatives merits far more attention.
