John Geddes

John Geddes writes on politics and policy, with occasional reporting and comment on arts and culture.

Categories: Capital Read, John Geddes

How the term "head of state" is actually used in Canada

by John Geddes on Friday, October 9, 2009 1:29pm - 74 Comments

Some comments on previous posts insist there’s no ambiguity about who is Canada’s head of state. They assert, “It’s the Queen!”

Maybe it should be that clear. But the reality is that even eminent constitutional experts do not always make a clean distinction between Queen and Governor General when it comes to discussion of Canada’s head of state.

A recent example from Andrew Heard, a political science professor at Simon Fraser University, and author of Canadian Constitutional Convention: The Marriage of Law and Politics, illustrates my point.

In his essay “The Governor General’s Decision to Prorogue Parliament: Parliamentary Democracy Defended or Endangered,” published early this year as an occasional paper by University of Alberta’s Centre for Constitutional Studies, Heard writes about the exercise of the GG’s so-called “reserve powers,” those rare cases where the GG uses discretion instead of simply following orders from a prime minister and cabinet:

“These reserve powers are the practical reason why the role of head of state (Queen or governor general) is separated from the head of government (prime minister) in all parliamentary systems. The office of governor general (and lieutenant governor at the provincial level) exists in order to ensure the proper functioning of parliamentary government. In some ways, the head of state acts like a referee to ensure the political actors play according to the rules, so that the business of government can continue.”

Now, is it not a fair to say that this passage would leave any reader with the impression that the GG either is the head of state or at least shares that designation with the Queen?

I’m not saying, “Aha! Here’s the proof about who is and who isn’t head of state!” I’m pointing out how the term “head of state” is actually used. We should acknowledge that “head of state” is not a label that can be easily affixed in Canada today. It would seem to apply best to the Queen in some contexts, the Governor General in others. And so that’s how the use of the term has evolved—to reflect that reality.

It’s used that way by experts like Heard, in government documents like Library and Archives Canada’s primer on the executive branch in Canadian government, and of course in past annual reports of governors-general.

Those who would prefer that “head of state” be applied exclusively to the Queen don’t have to like the way Gov.-Gen. Michaelle Jean used the term to describe herself, but they shouldn’t imagine that Jean was breaking new ground here.

Tags: Governor General, Head of State

More by John Geddes

John D

And finally, from a cached GG page:

Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State. Sworn in on September 27, 2005, the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, 27th Governor General since Confederation, represents the Crown in Canada and carries out the duties of head of State.
Lord Kitchener's Own

I’m pointing out how the term “head of state” is actually used. We should acknowledge that “head of state” is not a label that can be easily affixed in Canada today. It would seem to apply best to the Queen in some contexts, the Governor General in others. And so that’s how the use of the term has evolved—to reflect that reality.

It’s used that way by experts like Heard, in government documents like Library and Archives Canada’s primer on the executive branch in Canadian government, and of course in past annual reports of governors-general.

Here, I think I completely agree with Geddes. The term Head of State is, indeed, used improperly by ALL SORTS of people, including many, many people who should know better.

But if Andrew Heard jumped off a bridge…
Lord Kitchener's Own

I should add too that I don't consider myself someone who "would prefer that “head of state” be applied exclusively to the Queen" per se.

I just can't believe that it's really so much to ask that the term Head of State only be applied to the Head of State.

MBToday

Who was Lord Kitchener?
Tim

once again you make a diversion. this is your only tactic, and proves you will (in both of our lifetimes) lose. Your cause -the monarchist cause in Canada- is failing. The Canadian people overwhelmingly want a Canadian citizen as Head of State. Monarchist League types are sadly out of touch if they think that most Canadians think any foreign resident should have any actual powers as head of state. Your reply that the Queen is a Canadian is a fallback on the LEGAL interpretation -the law changes and morphs along with culture. The law changes and is not STATIC.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

How do you know you're in Canada? A visitor asks an assembly of its citizens "So, who's in charge around here?" and, in lieu of an answer, a constitutional debate, replete with warring dictionaries, erupts…
John E

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Who cares.

The real question should be "why do we have a foreign queen as our head of state or even as a part thereof?"

TedTylerEzro

If it bothers you so much, next time the parliament declares fealty to a new Sovereign, we can make Prince Harry King of Canada instead of whoever is going to be King of England (Charles or William).

But I'll be damned if I'm going to live a presidential system.

Tim

Who said anything about a presidential system?

Guest

This is our system…it is our history, it comes from our history. To ignore it or deny it is wrong, but if it to be changed, this would be significant and require actual informed debate, rather than misinformation. The fact is, our system hangs on a system of inter-locking accountabilities that include–even if a figurehead–an overarching Crown. The Queen is part of Parliament, the GG is the head of the Executive, representing the Queen, advised by the leader of whomever garners the majority of support of the House of Commons. You can't just say, off with her head (i.e. the head of state) because it seems to reduce or diminish the power of the executive. The fact is, the elected representatives–i.e. the DEMOCRATIC system would lose their effective voice, since they would lose the capacity to have the ultimate authority indicate, yes the confidence in your government is gone, so be off with you and look to the loyal opposition to form a new government.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Oddly enough that's a good example. Answering the question "Who is Canada's Head of State" tells us a lot about the founding premises of our country, just as answering the famous question you raise tells us a lot about the logic that underlies the concept of a separated intellect.

And just for kicks, here's the best answer I once got to that famous question:
- if separated intellects (a.k.a. angels) exist, they can't be said to be "on" anything
- likewise, they can't dance
- they can't be numbered since each would be a different species

Now if someone could answer the Head of State question with that much precision I'd be delighted.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Oddly enough that's a good example. Answering the question "Who is Canada's Head of State?" tells us a lot about the founding premises of our country, just as answering the famous question you raise tells us a lot about the logic that underlies the concept of a separated intellect.

And just for kicks, here's the best answer I once got to that famous question:
- if separated intellects (a.k.a. angels) exist, they can't be said to be "on" anything
- likewise, they can't dance
- they can't be numbered since each would be a different species

Now if someone could answer the Head of State question with that much precision I'd be delighted.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Oddly enough that's a good example. Answering the question "Who is Canada's Head of State?" tells us a lot about the founding premises of our country, just as answering the famous question you raise tells us a lot about the logic that underlies the concept of a separated intellect. In both cases the question may have little practical impact, but is an excellent means of delving into the principles of the subject at hand.

And just for kicks, here's the best answer I once got to that famous question:
- if separated intellects (a.k.a. angels) exist, they can't be said to be "on" anything
- likewise, they can't dance
- they can't be numbered since each would be a different species

Now if someone could answer the Head of State question with that much precision I'd be delighted.

TedTylerEzro

Ach! Stick an "in" after live would ya, gentle readers?
Be Gone monarchy

Folks until we fix the real problem; a British monarchy in Canada, then we will have this problem over and over again. Where is a Pearson when we need such a person today/ He led the battle in the 60s to get us a Canadian flag. The monarchists were against it then, and once again they want to keep an archic institution like the British monarchy in Canada, Let it go ;its harmful to us.
Be Gone monarchy

This is Canada! We are an independent nation.Let's put Canadian heroes, artists, musicians and other role models on our stamps and coins. Let's follow the model of other democratic countries such as India, Germany and Israel and name our own home-grown president as Head of State. The office of GG was be reformed; but the big reform can begin when the British monarchy is gone.
Be Gone monarchy

You must remember that we did not have a Canadian born GG until 1952. A common Canadian could not even represent the British Queen , it had to be a Duke, Lord or some other person from Britain who thought they were better than us.