, I’m discovering your use of my name to be rather disingenuous. Yes, I have brought attention to the paramount roles that the sovereign, Her Majesty The Queen of Canada
, plays on the constitutional stage of Canada
. However, I do trust that I have been just as clear with my emphasis that The Queen’s powers are exercised through Her Majesty’s representatives, and almost invariably on the advice of those responsible to the House of Commons
. This provides a healthy insulation for The Crown of Canada
, because such uses of these powers have the support of our elected representatives.
Under such circumstances where The Queen or Her Majesty’s viceregal representatives may need to make a decision contrary to the head of Government of the day, these representatives have access to the most experienced and learned constitutional scholars—we can trust that such decisions are not made without due regard to the written constitution and our unwritten constitutional conventions. By the very appointed nature of the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors, we can be absolutely comfortable in the knowledge that they truly do act as a constitutional safeguard
. We can trust that such a viceregal decision is made for the country, rather than for a party, because (a
) the Governor General holds higher constitutional rank than the prime minister, meaning that the pressure that a Government can place on a Governor General can be curbed; (b
) the Governor General has no party, and therefore can make decisions notwithstanding the wishes of the nation’s parties, and (c
) the Governor General does not need to seek re-election or approval, and therefore can make decisions based on what is constitutional and correct, rather than what is popular (and this is what we need when a constitutional crisis arises).
, if you are of the opinion that Indian treaties do not need to be respected, then that would be another topic on which we very much disagree—I would be happy to engage you in that conversation elsewhere, of course. As for the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982
, I do
consider the constitution to be somewhat of a ‘sacred’ document, because it is the foundation of Canada and the basis of our systems of government and our rights and freedoms. Canada is founded on the concepts of peace, order and good government, and these can never be truly achieved without a strong—but adaptive—constitution. We have our concrete foundation on the written document, and we have the advantage of an unwritten constitution to help us to adapt to the events of the day—and this is perhaps a good chance to remind members that the tremendous advantages of unwritten constitutions are largely a feature, exclusively, of constitutional monarchy.
I think it’s odd that you would suggest, dumpthemonarchy
, that people “don’t want to see a successor to the current queen of England” reign over Canada. I am going to note here that we are not reigned over by a foreign monarch—our sovereign is Her Majesty The Queen of Canada
, completely separate and individual of Her Majesty’s roles, whatever they may be, elsewhere. The Queen and members of The Royal Family of Canada
are Canadian subjects. The Queen of Canada is a Canadian monarch, and not a British one, with respect to our national constitution. Let us be clear here: There are no advantages that Canada would receive as a result of ending constitutional monarchy. And fortunately, there is no credible movement or drive for such a disastrous change amongst the Canadian people. I cannot foresee the Honourable the Senate of Canada
, the House of Commons
, and the governments of the provinces suddenly deciding to toss out The Queen and the Governor General—and this is because it would be a terrible, regrettable and most unwise move.
(I know that you both must hate me, but Cannuck
, this is an awesome discussion!)