Walk a Kb or Two in my Moccasins- Nobody 'splained it to me like that!

Simple answers to Complex Questions and Complex Answers to Simple Questions. In real life, I'm a Greater-Toronto (Canada) Realtor with RE/MAX Hallmark Realty Ltd, Brokerage. I first joined RE/MAX in 1983 and was first Registered to Trade in Real Estate in Ontario in 1974. Formerly known as "Two-Finger Ramblings of a Forensic Acuitant turned Community Synthesizer"

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Happy Freed-from-your Labours Day

While such elitism may have been acceptable at the time of the writing of the BNA, and I'm sure that there are others who still share such views, I doubt that many politicians would be willing to express such views in public.

Mark Hendriks

Dear Mark,

Thanks for reading, absorbing and commenting on what I wrote.

The one vital fact that's not touched on in 'that' piece was the change(s) wrought by the 1982 'patriation' exercise.

Constitutionally, the 1982 changes only severed the "in-Council" part from the phrase "Queen-in-Council" (ie the Canada Act UK 1982 declared that no act of the Commons or Lords, over 'ome, "shall extend to Canada as part of its law"). Everything else about the "Queen" remained intact and in full force.

The Monarch still:
1) holds title to all the Crown lands (and not insignificantly, title to the "Crown's Interest" in Canadian freehold property - check your deed, if you don't believe me),

2) has "(t)he Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in" Her Office.

3) is the source of all powers delegated in 1867 & 1947 to the Governor General and can recall those powers. "XV. And We do hereby reserve to Ourselves, Our heirs and successors, full power and authority from time to time to revoke, alter, or amend these Our Letters Patent as to Us or them shall seem fit."

4) composes one third of our triune "One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons."

5) is the authority for the Governor General to appoint Senators

6) retains the power to add 4 or 8 additional Senators to break legislative log-jams in the Senate

7) is authority for the GG to summon the House of Commons

8) is the authority for the GG to assent in the Queen's Name, withhold Assent or reserve a Bill from Canada's Houses

9) is the authority (now that "in-Council" is severed) to Disallow a Canadian Bill within 2 years (ie the re-definition of Marriage Bill can be disallowed anytime before July 2007)

10) is the authority holding the unilateral option to "do nothing" or Assent to a Bill reserved by the GG

11) is the authority for the Lt Gov's to summon the Legislative Assemblies

12) is the authority for a Lt Gov to Assent, withhold Assent or reserve a provincial Bill and for the Governor General-IN-COUNCIL (ie with the advice & consent of the Canadian Privy Council) to disallow a provincial Bill with One year.

13) is the authority (with the Advice & Consent of the Senate & Commons) to exercise the "Peace Order & Good Government" powers of BNA s.91

14) retains the individual power to Proclaim the coming into force of Paragraph 23(1)(a) (ie the "first language learned and still understood ... linguistic minority ... right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language" provision) IF the legislative assembly or government of Quebec ever authorizes such proclamation.

Dear Mark, with all due respect, with all of these Executive & Sovereign provisions still in effect, is it "elitist" to expect them to be followed? or is it wise to continue (in our tradition of benign neglect) to allow the Commoners who have usurped the powers of their constitutional superior Offices to run the country "as if it was theirs"?

Indeed, might it be prudent to not-so-quickly dismiss conversations designed to stimulate thinking about how Canada (that the 20th Century didn't belong to) might be better and stronger in the 21st Century, if we Canadians actually followed the written provisions set out for our governance?

Thought provoking questions;

Why with all these powers is the Queen not taking a more active interest in Canada?

If (almost) all these powers have have been delegated to the Governor General, why does the GG not play a more important "executive" ie decision-making, role theses days? like Lord Byng denying Mackenzie-King a dissolution in 1926.

If the Constitution says the Privy Council are the independent advisors to the GG (with naturally, some participation from the more senior portfolio-holders from the Gov't-of-the-day) providing independent opinions on the Bills presented for Assent, why today, are the same folks in Cabinet, holding all the offices in Privy Council and filling all the posts on all its Sub-committees?

If ... we had had an Elected, (knowledgeable & competent) Governor General since 1982 (with no power to initiate any Bills but with all the above-mentioned powers to veto), might any of the past Government Bills & Orders-in-Council on ...

-national and international energy policy,
-?Managed?-Trade Agreements,
-environmental policy,
-contracts and procurements,
-Newfoundland and Labrador,
-Nova Scotia,
-decisions from the Appeals and the Supreme Courts,

you name any one of the many, bone-headed decisions made by an an unchecked Cabinet holding power by way of their Party-Purse-strings control over a 50%+1 Commons majority, supported by but a 35-44% elected Plurality

... be different?

Remember, there is no shame in turning back, when you discover you are on the wrong path.

Happy Freed-from-your-Labours Day!

Politics Blog Top Sites