GovGen - Stand Up for Canada, or Stand Down as Unfit!

Your Excellency, Rt Hon. Mr Harper, Editors, M. Belanger,

In my opinion, Ms Jean and her advisors mis-read the precedent established in the King-Byng affair when She granted Mr Harper a dissolution in September (never mind his fixed elections legislation).

Please consider:

King-Byng was much different - in this much-cited-but-never-fully-recounted example, the opposition Conservatives held more seats than Mr King, the Liberal PM, who had, legally-retained/stubbornly-refused-to-relinquish, power after "a defeat" in the popular election.

excerpt from Claude Bélanger,Department of History,Marianopolis College:"Mackenzie King's Liberals had come to office in December of 1921 (party standings: Liberals 117, Progressives 65, Conservatives 50, Labor 2, and Independent 1) but had been unable to achieve a majority because the Western provinces had supported a third party which promised reforms demanded in the West.Despite its minority position, the King government stayed in power until 1925 particularly because the Progressives continuously supported them. An election was called by King for October 29, 1925, under the pretext that the government lacked "a clear majority" and could not dispatch certain important business. The voters responded poorly to the appeal of the government. The results were: Conservatives 116, Liberals 101, Progressives 24, Labor 2, Independents 2."

A carefully reading of the whole backgrounder by M Belanger (or any), will lead the observer to conclude that based on this historic example (verified by our recent 2008 results), the Governor General should NOT have granted Mr Harper a dissolution in Sept 2008, but instead should have considered THEN what is being bounced around NOW regarding the existence of another Member of the Commons who might enjoy the "confidence of the House" and be able to continue conducting the business of a Parliament that Mr Harper had declared to be beyond his patience and/or ability.


Please excuse my impertinence, bordering on hubris.
I am trying not to be disrespectful to anyone or towards any political Officeholder.

I am a fiercely loyal Canadian, 55yrs old and a self-taught student of Canadian history, law and politics.
I am a strict BNA/Constitutionalist.
I see a gargantuan procedural mess unfolding - I am compelled to do something to stop it.

The ONLY Office in Canada with the power to contain this me-first, damn-the-consequences for Canada & Parliament schmozzle is the Governor General.
The GG has been delegated the powers of the Queen (Queen in Council expired with 1982) in the Letters Patent 1947.
The GG heads the Executive (ss.9-16) and needs not follow anyone's advice since this is not a s.13 (GG in Council) circumstance.

By no fault of Her own, Ms M Jean holds an Office that has been stripped of its independent advisors (the Privy Council) by Order in Council P.C. 1940-1121 .
Thereby, since 1940, control over the Privy Council (intended to supervise and contain the Legislative Order) has fallen into the hands of the Prime Minister.

Further, and again with all due respect, and by no fault of Her/their own, Ms Jean and most of Her predecessors since 1950 have been unfit for their Office, they were purposely chosen as recommendations to the Queen, by the then Prime Ministers knowing that they would be subservient to the office of Prime Minister.

This is the opposite of the intention of the British Crown-in-Council and the 1864-7 BNA Act framers.

I make these statements not to hurt Ms Jean personally or professionally and politically but to re-establish the as-written provisions of the BNA/Constitution 1867.

The current Minority/Coalition crisis will end up on the Governor General's desk.

Ms Jean must Stand Up to the self-serving individuals proffering advice to Her (particularly the elected ones) or, in my opinion, She must Stand Down - acknowledging that She is unequal to the challenges of the full, as-written, authority of the Highest Office in the land.

Ms Jean must tell Mr Harper to form an All-the-Talents Cabinet with members called from all the parties represented in the Lower House and to stipulate that this form of ministry will govern for the term set out in Mr Harper's Fixed Elections Date legislation, irrespective of who holds the office of Prime Minister and further stipulate that the Office of Clerk of the Privy Council will be returned to the control of the Governor General (simply by rescinding Order in Council P.C. 1040-1121).

I respectfully ask the Canadian people to endorse this proposed solution.

Robert Ede



Every cloud has a silver lining

ELECT THE NEXT GOVERNOR GENERAL - Give Him/Her a REAL Mandate

May we hope that the silver lining of this debacle will that public attention can be focussed on the method of selecting the next person to be recommended to the Queen as holder of Canada's greatest office, our TRUE Executive Head & National Leader - the Governor General.

If the GovGen was atop the Canadian power totem, all this wrangling in the lowest order of gov't would be minor details in the running of the country - barely needing the attention of the press and/or our Constitutionally empowered Executive.The partisan 'leadership' of the biggest bunch of charlatans in the elected assembly WAS NEVER intended to run Canada.

My preference is for that person to be found by a popular election held simultaneous with every-other General Election, with the term of Office to start 365 days after the House returns (Since any Citizen could run, a single-transferable ballot system -asking voters for their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc choices all at once - would be the only way to get even a 50% result).

IMHO only by electing the GG can we hope to have an Officeholder with the mandate to return our bastardized-by MacKenzie-King/too-much-PMO/PCO-power government system to the supremely-suitable and wonderfully-crafted, as-written format described in 1867. Perhaps you'd like to read the Plain Language Version of it

Chess not Checkers - Harper's phony Suicide (Cosh)

Just read Colby Cosh in Nat Post Colby Cosh: Harper's suicide scenario

If these lefties coalesce into one party forever then it IS a good thing. But ... (notwithstanding the benefits to Parliament of re-incorporating Quebec into the national elections) this coalition-of-opportunity nonsense cannot be permitted to take place.

Particularly now. Remember the world-wide monetary & banking integrity crisis? (actually it was refreshing to have something else/anything else as the #1 news story)

The price for Canada and for Parliament will be too great... the time wasted in the immediate disarray of transition, then the organizing, the infighting & back-biting, then the re-organizing and ultimately the failing is beyond any benefits in curbing the present day excesses of the PMO/PCO.

Yes -it's already doomed without a Strong and/or Ruthless leader like Chretien to run it - not that I want that to happen, but none of the front-runners have demostrating the gumption.

After that there'll be more wasted time while we hold an election of a majority-out-of-desperation.

Yes, as Colby Cosh says, Mr Harper could call their bluff, let them try to 'JoeClark' it for a few months and then win a landslide comeback as did our libertine friend in 1980.

But no, Mr Harper the price for YOUR majority-in-2-steps is ALSO too great. Parliament is too important to just let it fail to enable yourself an opportunity to pick it up again.

Mr Harper, act like a Canadian - back down.

Act like a Prime Minister in time of crisis -do what's best for the country.

Act like no other recent leader (except maybe Mr Dithers when he was out-flanked, 'way over his head and simply buying time - see it works!) - Go on TV explain everything that led up to this goofy foul-up ... admit what you goofed-up and why you now know you were wrong ....outline all the options open to Parliament and the GovGen and Canada ... call them Plan A, Plan B, Plan C etc ... and then solicit opinions.

Let the talk shows hash it out.

Soon we'll have a consensus unfold and you can invite a few Lib & NDP'ers into YOUR coalition cabinet of All the Talents - IMHO you should make that your Plan A.--

Canada's NOT following the BNA/Constitution

First published on Mocassins on Nov 27/2006 and moved due to timeliness.
"What Executive Decision will be made, next time, since the GovGen has now agreed to prorogue the House?".
"Whose advising Her?" - anyone other than the prime beneficiaries of the 'recommendation'?


The Executive Order of Government - lost, forgotten or never learned.

Just one aspect of the "Preparing for 55 Seconds of Power "
Campaign in the London North Centre By-election

Dear Editors, Authors and Monarchist League Members,

The powers of the Canadian Executive Order of government - the Monarch, the Governor General and His/Her Privy Council (ss.9-16) -- of our 1867 system of checks-and-balances were usurped by the Rt Hon Wm Lyon Mackenzie King starting in 1940.

Since then, things have never been the same in Parliament or Canada, because the lost, forgotten or never-learned written provisions of our BNA/Constitution Acts are simply NOT being followed.

This benign neglect of the text (or, the very-human, purposeful pushing-of-the-envelope of power) culminates with today's 37% Minority in the Commons Prime Minister's Office being able to control and direct the Military, the Civil Service, the Governor General's Privy Council and (with a little stick-handling) the Senate and the Commons.

'Twas never meant to be, but it happened so long ago, that gradually, over time, our current, not-following the Constitution, de facto system has replaced the de jure provisions of the text.

Why?

Civics isn't taught (how could it be when the observable facts don't match the text), any talk about the Constitution gets rolled-back-eye reaction and knee-jerk assumption that it somehow is restricted to discussion about Quebec plus no present-day expert, player or pundit has any personal experience with any other system.

Does no one actually bother to READ the Constitution? Are all the experts, players and pundits just regurgitating what someone else wrote, or an understanding expressed by the authority-of-the-previous-day? or is there a tacit agreement, not to open this particular, foundational can of worms? - sort of a present-day Emperor's New Clothes conspiracy of rear-end covering.

How did it happen?

Under cover of the war effort Mackenzie King exacted his revenge for the refusal of Lord Byng to grant his request for a dissolution of Parliament in 1926. King merged the Office of Principal Secretary with the Office of Clerk of the Privy Council ( s.11 -advisors to the s.10 Governor General) by simultaneously appointing Arnold Danford Patrick Heeney to both posts with Order in Council (PC 1940-1121) thus ensuring that only Mackenzie King's people would be advising the GG.

N.B.King's revenge was complete when he succeed in lobbying for a Canadian to be appointed Governor General (on the PM's recommendation), since surely no mere Canadian would be so un-flattered by the Vice Regal appointment that they'd want to exercise the Executive powers of the Office as well.

Because of the war, unifying the Privy Council & the Prime Minister's Office likely seemed a good idea - consolidation of planning etc etc. But in peacetime, the concentration of power created with this Machiavellian manoeuvre was the reason behind the complaints that Diefenbaker and opposition MP's had with the over the heads of the Commons actions of C.D. Howe et al in the Pipeline Plan and in the implementation of other grand designs of the post-war re-construction.

In the 50's, parliamentarians, pundits and the general public would have remember how it used to be from their own life experience, but now, no one actually remembers first-hand - fortunately we do have the written text of the BNA/Constitution as a benchmark.

In addition, we have the historic progression of responsible government flowing from the Proclamation of 1763, the Quebec Act, the Constitutional Act of 1791, the Act of Union 1840 and the Charlottetown & Quebec versions of resolutions that formed the basis ( i.e. changes were made in London) for the BNA 1867 that was proclaimed by the Imperial government.

If you read the text of 1867, the Legislative Order with it's two chambers were designed to be inferior to the Executive - policies and programs could initiate from either, and being approved by both, were to be submitted for approval of the Executive.

The provinces too (now viewed as asymmetrically-independent, quasi-states), were designed to be inferior to the Executive - there is no distribution of Executive Powers. In addition, all provincial Bills may be Disallowed by the general government's Governor in Council ( s.13), or reserved by the Lt Governor for Executive scrutiny (s.90) or outright not assented to by the GG's appointee, the Lt Governor (s.65).

The Governor General is supposed to be the Top Dog, the Big Kahuna and to be involved in all Bills and Acts hence the imperative tradition of the Speech from the Throne.

The Vice Regal with(s.13) and/or without(s.12) an independent group of advisors (He/She could select or consult with any prior P.C. member or appoint new outsiders) vetted the proposals and was empowered either to approve the measure, withhold Assent or reserve the Bill for consideration by the Monarch-in-Council in the UK ( ss.55 & 57). Further any and every Bill could be Disallowed by the Imperial government within two years(s.56).

Notwithstanding a few amendments in 1931's Statute of Westminster, the 1947 Letters Patent of the Governor General and 1982 partial-patriation exercise (with the almost impossible to utilize Amending Formulae, entrenching a condition-bracketed Charter of Rights that we previously fully enjoyed et al), nothing has changed.

The Executive is separate and superior to the Legislative. Intentionally!

Further, notwithstanding the present-day conventional-wisdom, the Senate is superior to the Lower House, it's representatives of the propertied-class who will likely be paying the freight members face (then)stringent property ownership & net-worth qualifications/ disqualifications (sadly eroded by inflation -it's the only number in Canada not seasonally-adjusted) and a special oath (the Fifth Schedule).

The Senate stands as a "bulwark against the clamour and caprices of the mob" ( Sir James Lougheed), "to protect the regional interests and also a power of resistance to oppose the democratic element" ( G.E Cartier) and "It is the duty of the nobles to oppose the fickleness of the multitude"(Cicero -carved in oak frieze of Senate Speaker's chambers).

The Fathers of Confederation, in concert with the Imperial government knew from world-wide experience that without some superior Office or institutions to double-check (in Canada's case quadruple-checking) the actions of the Democratic Element in the Lower House (i.e. the Leaders of the party-members making the 'best ' promises to spend more on me and somehow tax someone else), short-term-motivated chaos would reign, the interests of those needing to be re-elected would be paramount, the Treasury would be depleted or over-drawn, the lunatics would be running the asylum (and its accounting department) - in short, the present situation.

What can be done?

Simply, read the Constitution for yourself (I've started on a Plain-language version to make it easier) and if you agree with my reading, demand that it's provisions be followed, yes you, yes demand. Introduction, Part 1-1867, Part 2-1982

Separate the Privy Council (reversing an Order in Council is easy) from the Cabinet and let the Prime Minister and a few of his/her top Ministers be ex officio members of the Privy Council instead of occupying every chair on every committee.

Seasonally-adjust the $4,000 Senatorial property & net-worth qualifications with no grand-fathering/mothering and watch that place snap to life with new blood (if provinces want to pre-elect their choices, why not) NB $4,000 is somewhere between $240,000 and $320,000 so it's not an impossibly high standard, but would shake out the folks who should never have been appointed)

Governor General will be too powerful to be appointed, you say? No problem, just start the restoration of the government structure to the as-written format with the Privy Council and the Senate, then work on establishing a process to elect the next Governor General. (Perhaps every other general election, with the term actually stating one year after the return of the writs allowing a break-in, transition period)

The House of Commons, well it can go back to being the assembly of everybody and every voice. Relieved of the pressure of being the source of authority for the PMO/PCO juggernaut, the MP's can debate, propose, oppose, discuss ... BE a democratically selected assembly of popular representatives instead of trained puppets, whipped into shape by the party bosses.

The Re-Confederation of Canada, in its own image, starts today, with you.

Rce
November 15, 2006


Robert Ede, on the Ballot in the London North Centre By-election on November 27, 2006, is running on an 11 point platform of fundamental awareness and education of Voters in preparation for them exercising their 55 seconds of power (casting their ballot) Point # 5 relates to the article above. His full platform is on robertede.blogspot.com.



-- Robert Ede
Independent Candidate,
London North Centre By-election - Nov 27/06.
25 Dersingham CresThornhill ONL3T 4P5
Direct 416-819-7333
London 519-282-8303
robertede.blogspot.com
stephenleacock.blogspot.com
There is no shame is turning back, when you discover you're on the wrong path. -------------------------------------------------------------------

More on this topic

Senate Reform Starts starts with the Governor General
see robertede.blogspot.com/2006/09/senate-reform-starts-with-governor.html

The Root of the Problem with Government in Canada.
see stephenleacock.blogspot.com/2005/12/root-of-problem-with-government-in.html