Re: Phil Green - Despotic Leaders
Hi Phil,
You learn something every day!!
" now-defunct parliamentary convention that served to draw the line between executive and legislative powers. When the Prime Minister appointed an MP to Cabinet, he had to resign and run in a by-election, as did the PM himself. Constituents voted to sanction the granting of executive power to the MP."
Fantastic piece! Congrats on getting such a comprehensive article presented.
I think we're on the same path, but striving for slightly similar objectives
Couple of points re: Despotic Leaders, Comment FP11, NatPost Sep25/07
The line between the Executive and the Legislative is one we desperately need to re-draw.
III EXECUTIVE POWER
IV LEGISLATIVE POWER
If we do not re-establish (and make it widely well-known & understood) the difference in role, hierarchy & authority between constitutionally established offices that are part of the Executive and which other offices (largely created by convention and 'new' traditions) are part of the Legislative power we will continue to be NOT following our as-written BNA/Constitution and will perpetuate the 'despot-creating' mess you describe AND might as well stop bothering to pretend we have a written constitution.
I was unaware of the now-defunct convention that required the PM & MP's to re-run in a by-election to obtain popular endorsement of their move to the PRIVY COUNCIL ie not Cabinet.
This makes perfect sense since the 'elevated one' was now donning a second hat (becoming part of the S.11 Executive as an advisor to the Governor General) AND swearing a new oath, thereby accepting a primary allegiance to a new 'lord', one much higher in authority than the local consituency ( i.e. to the 'Governor' whose views {along with the views of his Executive Council & Legislative Council} were not always aligned with the views of the assembly in the ol'Responsible Gov't days)
That we know longer follow the "ascendency by-election" convention is no surprise ...especially once Wm L Mackenzie King officially merged (I say usurped, as step one of his 2-part revenge on Lord Byng's refusal of King's 'advice') the powers of the Privy Council by simultaneosly appointing his Principal Secretary (today's Sect'y to Cabinet) as Clerk of the Privy Council via Order In Council PC1940-1121
Once King controlled the Privy Council (stripping the GG of independent advice) and officially took over the Privy Council's committees (Treasury Board et al) the Cabinet became the Privy Council and the Legislative power had virtually taken over(again usurped) the Executive. Step two was King's successful campaign to have 'a Canadian' (read toady, that I appointed) as GG.
With a gratefully compliant toady as GG and that toady with no independent advisors the GG's s55 powers to withhold Assent or Reserve Bills, as an individual (carefully read s.12, particularly vis a vis s.13 - NB s65-66 for Lt Gov's) Wm LM King (and his Rt Hon successors) had indeed become King/Queen/Monarch of Canada - as long as he could stay in power in the House of Commons.
THIS WAS THE OPPOSITE OF THE INTENTION (pls excuse my lack of keyboard emphasizing skills).
This brings me to my next point on your wonderful piece on the plebiscite to pretend to be offering Ontarians a chance to choose mixed-up party-first & party-only voting .
The 1265 Mother of Parliaments & the "splendid old-growth branches" of Parliamentary Conventions.
Notwithstanding the parliamentary history & experiences of Britain & the UK, In my view, Canada was formed as a "new thing" ie with a Constitution similar in principle but in no way exactly the same. 1) GB has no Governor General as local proxy for the Monarch-in-Council. 2) GB is?/was a unitary state, not a federation - no provinces, distribution of powers. 3) GB had no Quebec Act 1774 to deal with (Roman Catholic church + french language)
Canada was formed in light of the French experiments, the 13 Colonies experience (both their Constitutions weak centre {I still get a chuckle out of Article XI} replaced by strong centre) and the politico-economic-mercantile-military realities for GB of post 1837-8 Rebellion, post 1840 Act of Union, British North America & the post civil war USA.
In my opinion, Canada's 5 level governance system was expressly created to prevent a loss of the colonies from the British orb (if possible at little cost and/or bother) plus while under GB control, to maintain a high degree of influence/leadership/control (s. 56 -the 2yr Disallowance power) over any incremental steps a local Canadian demagogue (or despot) might initiate to break with the plan that Great Britain had for Canada's evolution into a 'better version' of the USA .
Sovereignty - vested in the Monarch
Executive
Monarch-in-Council
holds veto over everything
Governor General
-holds all Monarch powers, on pleasure, currently also Commander in Chief on pleasure
-holds veto over everything from Legislatures/Assemblies
-can decide as an individual, with or without advice, and/or advice and consent of Privy Council
Privy Council
independent advisors to GG
appointed by GG
no need for election
Legislative
Senate
land ownership & net worth qualifications
Commons
source of PM's power
People - not mentioned in Constitution 1867
No property rights in Canada, Crown owns everything (grants limited, transferable and will-able "interests" called fee simple for land holdings)
Another key difference (briefly noted above) is the express differentiation between the s.12 'as an individual' decisional/executive powers of the GG and the s.13 'by and with advice' of Privy Council role of the same person as GG-in-Council.
The Monarch of Britain had been constrained to an "in-Council" role by the "gradual usurp(ations of) the Crown's executive power" which limited the King/Queen to the "to be consulted, to encourage & to warn" position that today's QEII blithely admits to holding.
The s.13 GG-in-council role is akin to the Monarch's position vis a vis Her/His GB Privy Council but the decisional/executive powers granted to the s.12 GG as an individual are far greater than the Monarch (albeit with the Briish Monarch-in-council above the office of GG)
If a 1867 GG withheld Assent to a bill ... it was finished (try again if you want, but no appeal mechanism to the GG decision)
If a 1867 GG reserved a bill ... good luck persuading the GB Privy Council
If a 1867 Lt Gov withheld or reserved a provincial bill ... go lobby the Dominion Privy Council
If a 1867 GG-in-Council disallowed or did not signify a reserved provincial bill w/in 1 yr (s.90) ... it was finished ... try again if you wish, but no appeal, as above)
NB The vitally-significant, but never-tarried-upon aspect of the 1982 changes is that " by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same ", the Privy Council released the Monarch from their "advice & consent" strictures but ONLY AS FAR AS CANADA is concerned.
The phrase "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law." and the whole (bogus & faulty) patriation process (with its condition-ridden Charter and impossible Amending formula) couldn't/didn't/dared not remove the Monarch from the top of the power totem, but it surely did remove the GB Privy Council from the mix (QEII is probably so used to the process She would not vary from her normal procedures .... but in all things Canadian, She need not do so.
Case in point - to bring to common knowledge a) this 1982 bit, b) the Monarch's disallowance powers & c) reverse a ludicrous piece of legislation, I'd hoped to get a petition going to ask HRH to disallow the Civil Marriages Act prior to the 2yr deadline of July20,2007 - but no one jumped on the bandwagon)
Sorry for the wordiness and jumping around
Bottom line
The 'de facto' government (that we're all familiar with watching perform as it wishes and not was we might wish) is NOT following the as-written 'de jure' Constitution.
What we have de facto is a self-made (party machine made ) hybrid that has none of the intended safeguards and is operating with out principles, without consistent policies, disregarding Canada's similar in principle traditions, in short botching everything for everybody (debt, enviromnent, fishery, forests, courts-gone-wild, morality gone wild etc etc) EXCEPT themselves and their party-buddies.
another time perhaps
Party control & the Canada Elections Act & Election Finances Acts
True purpose of Senate as reprentatives of the 'propertied class' draw equally from all the 3/4 Divisions/Regions (why else the complicated property & net-worth provisions for s.23 qualification and s.31 disqualification AND a separate Oath)
You learn something every day!!
" now-defunct parliamentary convention that served to draw the line between executive and legislative powers. When the Prime Minister appointed an MP to Cabinet, he had to resign and run in a by-election, as did the PM himself. Constituents voted to sanction the granting of executive power to the MP."
Fantastic piece! Congrats on getting such a comprehensive article presented.
I think we're on the same path, but striving for slightly similar objectives
Couple of points re: Despotic Leaders, Comment FP11, NatPost Sep25/07
The line between the Executive and the Legislative is one we desperately need to re-draw.
III EXECUTIVE POWER
IV LEGISLATIVE POWER
If we do not re-establish (and make it widely well-known & understood) the difference in role, hierarchy & authority between constitutionally established offices that are part of the Executive and which other offices (largely created by convention and 'new' traditions) are part of the Legislative power we will continue to be NOT following our as-written BNA/Constitution and will perpetuate the 'despot-creating' mess you describe AND might as well stop bothering to pretend we have a written constitution.
I was unaware of the now-defunct convention that required the PM & MP's to re-run in a by-election to obtain popular endorsement of their move to the PRIVY COUNCIL ie not Cabinet.
This makes perfect sense since the 'elevated one' was now donning a second hat (becoming part of the S.11 Executive as an advisor to the Governor General) AND swearing a new oath, thereby accepting a primary allegiance to a new 'lord', one much higher in authority than the local consituency ( i.e. to the 'Governor' whose views {along with the views of his Executive Council & Legislative Council} were not always aligned with the views of the assembly in the ol'Responsible Gov't days)
That we know longer follow the "ascendency by-election" convention is no surprise ...especially once Wm L Mackenzie King officially merged (I say usurped, as step one of his 2-part revenge on Lord Byng's refusal of King's 'advice') the powers of the Privy Council by simultaneosly appointing his Principal Secretary (today's Sect'y to Cabinet) as Clerk of the Privy Council via Order In Council PC1940-1121
Once King controlled the Privy Council (stripping the GG of independent advice) and officially took over the Privy Council's committees (Treasury Board et al) the Cabinet became the Privy Council and the Legislative power had virtually taken over(again usurped) the Executive. Step two was King's successful campaign to have 'a Canadian' (read toady, that I appointed) as GG.
With a gratefully compliant toady as GG and that toady with no independent advisors the GG's s55 powers to withhold Assent or Reserve Bills, as an individual (carefully read s.12, particularly vis a vis s.13 - NB s65-66 for Lt Gov's) Wm LM King (and his Rt Hon successors) had indeed become King/Queen/Monarch of Canada - as long as he could stay in power in the House of Commons.
THIS WAS THE OPPOSITE OF THE INTENTION (pls excuse my lack of keyboard emphasizing skills).
This brings me to my next point on your wonderful piece on the plebiscite to pretend to be offering Ontarians a chance to choose mixed-up party-first & party-only voting .
The 1265 Mother of Parliaments & the "splendid old-growth branches" of Parliamentary Conventions.
Notwithstanding the parliamentary history & experiences of Britain & the UK, In my view, Canada was formed as a "new thing" ie with a Constitution similar in principle but in no way exactly the same. 1) GB has no Governor General as local proxy for the Monarch-in-Council. 2) GB is?/was a unitary state, not a federation - no provinces, distribution of powers. 3) GB had no Quebec Act 1774 to deal with (Roman Catholic church + french language)
Canada was formed in light of the French experiments, the 13 Colonies experience (both their Constitutions weak centre {I still get a chuckle out of Article XI} replaced by strong centre) and the politico-economic-mercantile-military realities for GB of post 1837-8 Rebellion, post 1840 Act of Union, British North America & the post civil war USA.
In my opinion, Canada's 5 level governance system was expressly created to prevent a loss of the colonies from the British orb (if possible at little cost and/or bother) plus while under GB control, to maintain a high degree of influence/leadership/control (s. 56 -the 2yr Disallowance power) over any incremental steps a local Canadian demagogue (or despot) might initiate to break with the plan that Great Britain had for Canada's evolution into a 'better version' of the USA .
Sovereignty - vested in the Monarch
Executive
Monarch-in-Council
holds veto over everything
Governor General
-holds all Monarch powers, on pleasure, currently also Commander in Chief on pleasure
-holds veto over everything from Legislatures/Assemblies
-can decide as an individual, with or without advice, and/or advice and consent of Privy Council
Privy Council
independent advisors to GG
appointed by GG
no need for election
Legislative
Senate
land ownership & net worth qualifications
Commons
source of PM's power
People - not mentioned in Constitution 1867
No property rights in Canada, Crown owns everything (grants limited, transferable and will-able "interests" called fee simple for land holdings)
Another key difference (briefly noted above) is the express differentiation between the s.12 'as an individual' decisional/executive powers of the GG and the s.13 'by and with advice' of Privy Council role of the same person as GG-in-Council.
The Monarch of Britain had been constrained to an "in-Council" role by the "gradual usurp(ations of) the Crown's executive power" which limited the King/Queen to the "to be consulted, to encourage & to warn" position that today's QEII blithely admits to holding.
The s.13 GG-in-council role is akin to the Monarch's position vis a vis Her/His GB Privy Council but the decisional/executive powers granted to the s.12 GG as an individual are far greater than the Monarch (albeit with the Briish Monarch-in-council above the office of GG)
If a 1867 GG withheld Assent to a bill ... it was finished (try again if you want, but no appeal mechanism to the GG decision)
If a 1867 GG reserved a bill ... good luck persuading the GB Privy Council
If a 1867 Lt Gov withheld or reserved a provincial bill ... go lobby the Dominion Privy Council
If a 1867 GG-in-Council disallowed or did not signify a reserved provincial bill w/in 1 yr (s.90) ... it was finished ... try again if you wish, but no appeal, as above)
NB The vitally-significant, but never-tarried-upon aspect of the 1982 changes is that " by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same ", the Privy Council released the Monarch from their "advice & consent" strictures but ONLY AS FAR AS CANADA is concerned.
The phrase "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law." and the whole (bogus & faulty) patriation process (with its condition-ridden Charter and impossible Amending formula) couldn't/didn't/dared not remove the Monarch from the top of the power totem, but it surely did remove the GB Privy Council from the mix (QEII is probably so used to the process She would not vary from her normal procedures .... but in all things Canadian, She need not do so.
Case in point - to bring to common knowledge a) this 1982 bit, b) the Monarch's disallowance powers & c) reverse a ludicrous piece of legislation, I'd hoped to get a petition going to ask HRH to disallow the Civil Marriages Act prior to the 2yr deadline of July20,2007 - but no one jumped on the bandwagon)
Sorry for the wordiness and jumping around
Bottom line
The 'de facto' government (that we're all familiar with watching perform as it wishes and not was we might wish) is NOT following the as-written 'de jure' Constitution.
What we have de facto is a self-made (party machine made ) hybrid that has none of the intended safeguards and is operating with out principles, without consistent policies, disregarding Canada's similar in principle traditions, in short botching everything for everybody (debt, enviromnent, fishery, forests, courts-gone-wild, morality gone wild etc etc) EXCEPT themselves and their party-buddies.
another time perhaps
Party control & the Canada Elections Act & Election Finances Acts
True purpose of Senate as reprentatives of the 'propertied class' draw equally from all the 3/4 Divisions/Regions (why else the complicated property & net-worth provisions for s.23 qualification and s.31 disqualification AND a separate Oath)
posted by Walk a Kb or Two in my cassins | 4:14 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home