# Canada **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 1, 2001, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225 "2001-09-01T00:25:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/41 "2001-09-10T10:41:13Z")
So, **TheLoadedDog** , can we wander into a discussion of the events that **psychonaut** refers to? I believe he’s referring to the dismissal of the Whitlam government back in the 70s by the Governor General, Sir John Kerr. (I don’t think the Queen had any involvement in it.) Here’s my take on it: 1. The Whitlam government (Labour) controlled the House of Representatives. 2. The Liberal party formed the Official Opposition in the Representatives, but had a majority in the Senate. 3. The House of Representatives passed the budget, but the Senate refused to pass it. (For Dopers outside the Westminster parliamentary tradition: the budget is the single most important thing the Government must do, more important than passing laws. A defeat on the budget is almost always considered a matter of confidence, leading to the fall of the Government and either a new goverment being formed, or general elections.) 4. PM Whitlam refused to advise the GG to dissolve Parliament and call elections; there was some indication that the Government was thinking of borrowing money abroad, without legal authority, to keep the Government functioning. 5. GG Kerr dismissed PM Whitlam, appointed Fraser, the leader of the Opposition as PM, and Fraser immediately advised the GG to dissolve both the House and the Senate to let the people resolve the conflict. 6. PM Fraser was returned with a majority in both chambers. Now, assuming I’ve summarised it correctly, to my mind the two most serious aspects here are not the GG’s actions - it’s the fact that PM Whitlam refused to call for elections in the face of a budget defeat, and the possibility that the Government would try to subvert democratic control of the Government by borrowing abroad to get around the budget defeat, without legal authority to do so. The first is one of the most serious breaches of constitutional convention possible; the second, if true, would indicate a government that was no longer following the law. Taken together, it’s arguably the sort of thing that the Governor General may consider it necessary to use the reserve power. In this case, GG Kerr used it to throw the dispute between the chambers to the people to resolve, and prevented unconstitutional exercises of power by the government of the day. So, any thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![rngadam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/97f17d/32.png) [@rngadam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rngadam)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/42 "2001-09-10T11:00:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > 2. Friends of the Prime Minister, like the current G-G, Adrienne Clarkson, who is surely the dumbest head of state of any Western country, and I’m including Dubya. Hmmm, since she is somewhat related to my family, I feel I have to ask you: would you care to back this up RickJay? Have you seen some kind of IQ test that proves this? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/43 "2001-09-10T11:01:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by psychonaut \* > > \*\*. I know that she has the power to adjust the size of the senate, which she did back in the 1980s. \*\* > > Except she didn’t. In fact, it’s quite possible she never even knew it happened. The expansion of the Senate was done at the behest of the elected Prime Minister (Brian Mulroney) who TOLD the Governor-General what to do.\*\* You’re both right. First, HM certainly did know about the appointment of the GST Senators, as her signature was required, as opposed to the GG’s consent. It’s one of HM’s functions under the Constitution which she can’t delegate to the GG. The relevant provision of the [Constitution Act, 1867](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#legislative) reads: > [@](#): > > 1. If at any Time on the Recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that Four or Eight Members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by Summons to Four or Eight qualified Persons (as the Case may be), representing equally the Four Divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly. At Confederation, the significance of this provision is that the GG would make the recommendation on the advice of the Canadian PM, but the Queen would decide whether or not to direct the appointments based on the advice of the British PM. Canada was still a colonial entity in 1867, after all, and the British government would have a say in any attempt by a colonial PM who tried to pack the Senate. Now, of course, the Queen takes advice on the exercise of her powers under the Canadian Constitution solely from the Canadian Prime Minister; the British PM has absolutely no say. So the Canadian PM advises the GG to recommend the appointment of Senators; the GG, acting as a good constitutional GG, makes the recommendation; the Queen then looks inquiringly at the Canadian PM, who advises her to accept the recommendation, and she does so, like a good constitutional monarch. She then directs the GG to make it so, and he does. Note that this explanation involves both constitutional law (i.e. - HM exercising one of her legal powers under the Constitution) and constitutional convention (i.e. - HM exercising that power only on the advice of the leader of the elected government.) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/44 "2001-09-10T11:09:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by psychonaut \* > IIRC, in Australia, she has the power to dissolve parliament, a right she actually exercised a decade or two ago when she decided she didn’t like the one that was newly (and democratically) elected. \*\*I’m pretty sure she has the same power over the Canadian parliament, though I don’t know if she’s ever used it. \*\* HM has the power to dissolve the House of Commons and every provincial Legislative Assembly. The power is used frequently - every three or four years, in fact, in each jurisdiction - that’s what triggers a general election. The GG/Lt.Govs. dissolve the legislatures, using the Monarch’s power of dissolution, but always on the advice of the elected government of the day. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/45 "2001-09-10T11:09:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kingpengvin \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > I thought it was because the climate was just too damn cold up there in the Great White North for anyone to want to go outdoors and have a war. > > No that was the Excuse the Invading American Armies used each time they lost on our soil. \*\* During all those invasions the American armies weren’t simultaniously fighting one of the most powerful empires were they? And were Canadians independent or were they just British subjects at the time? Marc ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/46 "2001-09-10T11:11:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Little Nemo \* > \*\*Leaving aside what Canada receives from Her Majesty; what does Her Majesty receive from Canada? I know the British parliament passes a considerable sum to the Royal family each year. Does Ottawa mail a check over as well? Or do Canadians ride the Windsor Express for free? \*\* She gets 10 gallons of maple syrup and two beaver pelts free, every year. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/47 "2001-09-10T11:18:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hansel \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by dqa \* > > In the event that no party wins a majority in Parliament, the GG gets to select which party tries to form a government. > > Except that the GG exercises no discretion in the matter, because there are well-established parliamentary rules for the formation of governments, minority, coalition, or otherwise. The GG is merely the mouthpiece for those rules, and has no authority to alter or contradict them. In the event of a constitutional crisis, **the Supreme Court would decide the issue, not the GG. The GG would just announce the result in parliament.** **hansel,** in the event of a hung Parliament, by what authority would the Supreme Court intervene? My understanding is that if there is no clear majority, the GG relies on the political processes in the Commons to determine who will become PM. I can’t see any role at all for the SCC. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/48 "2001-09-10T11:47:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > The 1982 Constitution Act pretty much writes the monarchy out of decision making. What section of the 1982 Act are you referring to? The Canada Act ended the authority of the British Parliament, but I’m not aware of any provision in the 1982 Cosntitution Act which affected HM’s constitutional powers, which are set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/49 "2001-09-10T12:05:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by psychonaut \* > > > [@](#): > > > > If the GG refused to sign something, it would go the Canadian courts, not the queen. > > So? Nobody is arguing she has absolute authority. There mere fact that if the queen/GG would be able to disrupt the system in this manner is proof that the monarchy still exercises some influence over Canadian politics. And anyway, if the issue _did_ go to court, it seems to me it would be a pretty open-and-shut case. “Look here, the law says that you need the GG’s signature on this law for it to be passed,” the judge would say, “and you have failed to obtain that signature. Therefore the law cannot be passed.” I very much doubt that there is any provision in the Constitution Act which would _force_ the GG to sign in a law. **psychonaut** has it right, as the following quotation from Hogg, _Constitutional Law of Canada,_ (2d ed.) indicates: > [@](#): > > If the Governor General exercised one of his powers without (or in violation of) ministerial advice, the courts would not deny validity to his act. If the Governor General witheld his assent to a bill enacted by both Houses of Parliament, the courts would deny the force of law to the bill, and they would not issue an injunction or other legal remedy to force the Governor General to give his assent. None of these things has ever happened, because conventions are in fact nearly always obeyed by the officials whose conduct they regulate. There has been one case of a provincial [Lt.Gov](http://Lt.Gov). denying royal assent, back in the 40s, I believe, in Prince Edward Island. The courts reached the conclusion indicated by Professor Hogg - that they had no power to intervene, as the Constitution gives the power of assent to the Crown. The breach of constituional convention by the [Lt.Gov](http://Lt.Gov). did not justify the courts as treating the bill as if it had been passed. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/50 "2001-09-10T12:14:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > > 1791 - At the demand of the same peaceful settlers who had fled the “fanatacism and bloodshed” from the south, Britain granted Upper and Lower Canada each a Constitution remarkably similar to the form of government which, if offered to the 13 Southern colonies in 1773, would quite likely have severely reduced the support for independence that grew over the following two years. Tom, I’m curious - in your view, how did the Canadian colonial governments established in 1791 differ from the pre-Revolutionary governments in the 13 colonies? The governors of Upper and Lower Canada were actively involved in politics, taking partisan positions, and had the sole power to appoint members to the upper chambers of the Legislatures - which in turn gave them substantial control over the legislative process. As well, the assemblies did not have control over the colonial finances - the main source of revenue was the sale of lands, which were in the hands of the executive. The colonies were essentially oligarchies - governors were supported in Lower Canada by the Château Clique, and in Upper Canada by the Family Compact. My recollection is that for the first 50 years, the pattern in the Canadian colonies actually mimicked the previous events in the 13 colonies - it wasn’t until the introduction of responsible government in the 1840s, **after** two rebellions, that the Canadian colonies had a form of government that ensured local control. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/51 "2001-09-10T12:19:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Northern Piper \* > **So, TheLoadedDog, can we wander into a discussion of the events that psychonaut refers to? I believe he’s referring to the dismissal of the Whitlam government back in the 70s by the Governor General, Sir John Kerr. (I don’t think the Queen had any involvement in it.)…** I’m not sure that this is really the thread for a discussion of the Whitlam dismissal of 1975, but the Queen’s non-involvement in the crisis does have some passing connection to her role in Canada. The question of whether Whitlam had the right to appeal to the Queen over the head of Sir John Kerr did come up at the time. Buckingham Palace made it clear that it would not allow him to do so, on the grounds that the exercise of the royal prerogative during the absence of the sovereign from Australia was solely a matter for the Governor General. I can imagine that a similar view would be taken if ever a comparable situation arose in Canada. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/52 "2001-09-11T02:26:03Z")
**APB** I can certainly see why the Palace would take that view, but I wonder if HM could do it so easily under the Canadian Constitution. It’s been awhile since I did comparative Commonwealth constitutionalism, but it seems to me that this issue touches on one of the differences between the Canadian and Australian constitutions. Under the Canadian Constitution, the GG doesn’t have independent executive authority. All executive authority is vested in HM, and the GG carries on the Government “on behalf and in the name of the Queen:” [Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 9 & 10](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#executive). The equivalent provision of the [Australian Constitution](http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter2.htm) says: > [@](#): > > 1. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth. I seem to recall that the Australian courts have interpreted that phrase as meaning the GG of Australia has the constitutional power to exercise the rights unless the Queen is in Australia, while the Canadian position is that the GG is simply HM’s representative. If so, the argument that the Queen won’t intervene in the way the GG of Australia exercises the prerogative powers unless she is in the country may not wash in Canada, since technically the Canadian GG may not be as strong as the Australian GG. However, this is dredging stuff up from way long ago in my memory - any Australian dopers care to jump in? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/53 "2001-09-11T05:08:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Northern Piper \* > \*\*She gets 10 gallons of maple syrup and two beaver pelts free, every year. 😉 \*\* Payment to the Crown by the HBC for Rupert’s land was the occasional “two Elkes and two Black beavers.” ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2001, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225/54 "2001-09-11T09:01:20Z")
**Northern Piper** , I fully agree that there may be differences of nuance between the Australian and the Canadian constitutions. The relevant point about the 1975 precedent is that, predictably, the Palace erred on the side of caution. What it also does is serve as a reminder that the key issue may not be whether the Queen has any desire to interfere in Canadian politics but whether circumstances might arise in which some Canadian politicians seek that interference. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada/79225.md?page=2)