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"

Monday, November 10, 2008

E.May ?American? -or worse? published HillTimes Nov 10 2008


Whose Dominion is it?

As I think Laurier's 'twas great-grandson (or his friend) that said "We weren't quite up and running for the 19th Century, too bad we blew it this past one ... despite what what G-E thought ... perhaps though, with a little determination and forethought, this new Century might just be Canada's?"

Canada, 2003, still operates under foundational laws that suited the stewards of the British Crown’s management of a pesky, far-away colony in 1867.

These stewards (the British government) kept all of the ultimate ownership rights (lands, property, final appeal of court decisions & legislative veto) and set up a system for local participation in day-to-day affairs.

Then through a series of part-measures - expansion of territory to Pacific & Arctic Oceans, the Statute of Westminster 1931, the Governor General’s Act 1947, the diminution of British world influence and the 1982 Constitutional changes – Canada “became independent”.

Bravo, wonderful for us … except we never changed the basic foundational parts – we just fluffed up the edges, added a condition-ridden charter and impossible-to-use amending formula and put a bow on top.

Canada remains “owned by” and “operated in the name of” the Monarch and there’s the rub. If the British Parliament’s Canada Act of 1982 declared all laws of Great Britain of no effect in Canada, but left all references to “The King/Queen” as sovereign and head of the executive intact, ... who’s the boss?

Who owns the Crown's Assets here? ... the people? the Canadian government? the Queen?

To Whom are all Canadian ministers-of-the-crown accountable? the people? themselves? the Queen?

In Whose name and for whose benefit are our Governments acting? the people? themselves? the Queen?

According to the 1867 (unchanged) rule book the Queen/King IS the absolute Boss/ Source of Sovereignty and Owner of Everything – and with more power NOW in Canada than S/He has controlled since the Glorious Revolution days of England.

Now, even more than in 1867, The Monarch is at the top of the power totem AS AN INDIVIDUAL. Unfettered by the British Cabinet, Queen Elizabeth IS the supreme Head of Canadian governance ... EXCEPT she gave operating rights to the Governor General.

Notwithstanding how we poorly-schooled-in-civics Canadians THINK our government operates, the Governor General IS ultra-important, IS the holder of tremendous Royal-granted powers and IS absolutely KEY to any progress in governance-reform.

Amaze yourself and re-read Sections 12&13 of BNA 1867. The Governor General CAN ACT ALONE, AS AN INDIVIDUAL (ie without advice or advice & consent) in granting, denying or ‘withholding' for consultation royal assent (ss 55-57). S/He cannot initiate legislation, but S/He can stop dead-in-its-track any Bill across the land and nobody can say “boo” about it.

Is this right? The constitution says so. Is this opposite to what everybody thinks? Absolutely.

Do you remember the GST Senator appointments? Same deal – it was written in 1867 and remains in effect to this day – nobody could say “boo”, once they read the ‘rule book’.

Royal privileges or prerogatives DO NOT “go away”, no matter how infrequently they are used. They are never “spent” and never die through lack of use.

Methinks the selection of Governors General and Lieutenant Governors (who possess similar powers outlined in Sections 65,66 & 90) should be much more carefully studied by both the government-of-the-day and the public.

Next surprise ... the Senate IS important.

The Upper House represents, yes the regions, but more importantly, they represent the PROPERTIED class (why else do ONLY SENATORS have ‘net wealth’ and ‘property’ qualifications?). The Senate was intended as a "bulwark against the caprices of the mob".

The Chamber that everyone jokes about and wants to abolish was intended to prudently balance any wild ideas coming from the Commons (the bottom rung on the totem pole), Because Senators were expressly appointed to represent THE INTERESTS of THE FOLKS THAT HAD TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING.

So what’s gone wrong? Since the Prime Minister of the Commons has been granted authority to ‘recommend without question’ the selection of Crown appointees to both the Senate and office of Governor General, both institutions have become subservient (in practice, not by design) to the very Prime Minister and his/her puisne pals of the Lower House that they were designed to oversee.

Only in Canada, you say ... pity.

Politics Blog Top Sites