The Queen of Canada is dead; long live the British Queen

By Philippe Lagassé - Sunday, February 3, 2013 - 0 Comments

Why the Conservatives must rethink their approach to succession

Britain's Prince William stand next to his wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge as she leaves the King Edward VII hospital in London on Dec. 6, 2012. (Alastair Grant/AP))

Canada’s most monarchist government in decades has just dealt a serious blow to the Canadian Crown. In an effort to quickly enact changes regarding royal succession, the government has introduced a bill that undermines the concept of a truly independent Canadian Crown, the foundation of Canadian sovereignty. Equally troubling, the government claims that altering succession to the throne does not require a constitutional amendment. In making this argument, the government has overlooked the very nature of the Crown in law and the Canadian constitution. However commonsensical the proposed changes to the law governing succession may be, such a cavalier approach to the Crown, to the foundation of sovereign authority of and in Canada, merits scrutiny.

Heritage Minister James Moore laid out the government’s thinking at a press conference this past Wednesday. According to the minister, succession to the throne is not a matter of Canadian law. Instead, succession is a question of British law alone. Only the British Parliament can set the rules for who ascends to the throne, while the Canadian Parliament’s only authority lies in assenting to the changes. Put differently, the authority to legislate the rules of succession belongs with the British Parliament because the Canadian constitution does not address matters of succession. The legal pretext for this interpretation is the preamble to the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which states that the United Kingdom will obtain the assent of the Dominions when altering succession to, and royal titles and styles of, their shared Crown.

For Mr. Moore, the absence of an explicit reference to succession in the codified parts of the Canadian constitution also explains why no constitutional amendment is needed to alter succession in Canada. Although the Constitution Act, 1982 states that changes to the “office of the Queen” require a constitutional amendment that is approved by Parliament and the provincial legislatures, the government interprets “office” to mean only those powers and privileges of the Crown that are identified in the codified constitution. Hence, succession doesn’t pertain to the office because succession isn’t mentioned in the codified constitution.

Unfortunately for the government, these interpretations of the Statute of Westminster and office of the Queen are problematic.

The conventions outlined in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster depended on the power of the United Kingdom to legislate for the Dominions and on the idea that all the realms were under a single Crown. Neither of these conditions holds anymore, as Australian legal scholar Anne Twomey has shown. When Canada and the other Dominions altered their royal styles and titles in 1953, the realms did not assent to British legislation; they legislated for themselves. And Canada’s act made no mention of the Statute of Westminster. In the 1970s Australia and New Zealand enacted new royal styles and titles without consulting the other Dominions, sapping the prescriptive authority of the Statute‘s preamble. Claims that the preamble still applies to succession were further undermined in the 1980s. The authority of the preamble depended on section 4 of the Statute, which allowed the British Parliament to legislate for the Dominions. The Canada Act, 1982 ended the British Parliament’s authority to legislate for Canada and abolished s. 4 of the Statute. Australia followed suited with the Australia Act, 1986, as did New Zealand with its Constitution Act, 1986. The United Kingdom is no longer able to legislate for Canada, Australia or New Zealand, even in matters of succession and even if they assent.

As important, the United Kingdom cannot legislate the succession to the Canadian throne because the British and Canadian Crown are no longer one and the same. The British and Canadian Crowns are legally distinct and independent entities.

The emergence of the distinct and independent Canadian Crown happened gradually and it took time to be properly recognized. Somewhat ironically, the process began with Statute of Westminster, which granted the Dominions legislative independence. As Canadian cabinets monopolized the authority to advise exercises of the Crown’s powers in right of Canada in the decades that followed, the idea of a Canadian Crown took shape. In the early 1950s, the title of Queen of Canada was created. During her coronation, Queen Elizabeth II was proclaimed the Queen of Canada. As the government’s own publication, A Crown of Maples notes, “The proclamation reaffirmed the newly crowned monarch’s position as Queen of Canada, a role totally independent from that as Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms.”

The final step toward a distinct Canadian Crown was achieved in 1982, when the Canadian constitution was patriated and Canada became a fully sovereign and independent state. While the 1982 patriation ended Canada’s legal ties to Great Britain, the expanded Canadian constitution retained the Crown as the concept of the Canadian state and as ultimate source of sovereign authority in Canada. This fully independent Canadian state could not have the British Crown as the source of its sovereign authority. Nor could it be a shared Crown. The only way Canada could be completely sovereign and independent was to decouple the Canadian Crown from its British counterpart.

The fact that only the Canadian Parliament and provincial legislatures can amend the constitutionally entrenched office of the Queen is a testament to this development. The Canada Act, 1982 and Constitution Act, 1982 gave the Canadian Parliament and provincial legislatures absolute control over the office of the Canadian Sovereign and the wholly independent Canadian Crown. Any claim that Canada and Britain share a Crown in the legal or constitutional sense is therefore incompatible with the complete sovereignty that Canada achieved in 1982.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson implicitly admitted as much when the succession bill was introduced in the House of Commons on Wedenesday. The minister noted the Governor General had given the bill his consent, a requirement for any bill that touches on the powers and privileges of the Crown. Since the British Crown had already given its consent to the British succession bill and the Canadian government claims that the Crown is shared, it is unclear why the consent of the Governor General, the representative of the Queen of Canada, was required. The only plausible answer is that the succession bill affects the separate and distinct powers and privileges of the Canadian Crown.

If the United Kingdom cannot legislate the rules of succession for the Canadian Crown, it follows that Canada must have the power to determine the rules of succession for its Sovereign and head of state. At present, the Canadian rules of succession are those that were inherited from the United Kingdom. And an argument might be made that they must mirror those of Great Britain absent a constitutional amendment, owing to the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867. But mirroring the British rules does not mean Canada can simply assent to British bills to bring its succession into line with the United Kingdom’s. If Canada is a sovereign state and has an independent Crown, the Canadian legislatures—Parliament and the provincial legislatures—must pass substantive legislation to ensure that Canada’s rules of succession reflect those of Great Britain, not merely assent to a British law. Here again, the Governor General’s granting of Crown consent to the Canadian bill indicates the government is at least partially aware the British and Canadian Crowns cannot be affected by the same British law.

If we accept that Canada is fully sovereign and that the Canadian Crown is fully independent, then there must be some part of the codified constitution that addresses succession, whether explicitly or implicitly. A strong case can be made that the “office of the Queen” mentioned in s.41(a) must be that provision that addresses the succession to the Canadian throne. Accordingly, any change to the succession to the throne must trigger the amending process identified by s.41(a).

Succession must pertain to the office of the Queen because of the Crown is a “corporation sole.” Corporations sole fuse an office and an office holder. The office and office holder are treated as synonymous in law. This means that, legally speaking, all references to the Queen, Her Majesty and the Crown in Canadian statutes and the constitution refer to the same thing. When the constitution speaks of the office of the Queen, then, it is referring to both the Sovereign and the Crown in the broadest sense.

Most importantly for our purposes, this further means that the office of the Queen extends not only to the current office holder, but to those who will succeed to the office. This is necessarily true precisely because the Crown is a corporation sole.

The purpose of having the Crown as a corporation sole is to ensure that successors to the office of the Sovereign retain all the powers, duties, constraints of the Crown when they ascend to the throne. Hence, when one monarch dies and is replaced by their successor, there is no need to reiterate the established powers, duties and constraints of the Crown. Nor is there any need to rewrite any statutes. Having the Crown as a corporation sole allows for a seamless and automatic transition between the current Sovereign and her successor. So, when the Prince of Wales becomes King Charles III, all references in Canadian statues and the constitution to the Queen and Her Majesty will automatically apply to him because the Crown is a corporation sole.

It is the idea of corporation sole that underlies the cry of “the king is dead; long live the king!” The Crown is never vacant and the Sovereign never dead because, as a corporation sole, the office of Queen (or King) is immediately filled by successors when a monarch passes. Hence, as the canonical jurist of English law William Blackstone noted when discussing the concept: “Corporations sole consist of one person only and his successors, in some particular fashion, who are incorporated in law, in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense, the king is a sole corporation.” The office of the Queen necessarily refers to both the current Sovereign and her successors.

To reiterate, then, altering the rules of succession requires a constitutional amendment under s. 41(a) because the Crown is a corporation sole, a legal status that was purposefully designed to ensure that the office of the Queen includes matters of succession.

Recognizing that the Crown is a corporation sole also helps us answer the question that hovers over this entire discussion, namely: how can the Canadian and British Crown be distinct if they’re both personified by Elizabeth II?

The Canadian and British Crowns are distinct corporations sole. As a result, the Queen of Canada and Queen of the United Kingdom are legally distinct office holders, just as the Canadian Crown and British Crown are distinct offices. However, the natural person who occupies these offices, Elizabeth Windsor, is the same. One woman personifies distinct and separate offices. This means that the Canadian and British Crown are under a personal union, but not a legal or constitutional one. Elizabeth Windsor holds the legally independent offices of the Queen/Crown of Canada and the Queen/Crown of the United Kingdom. But when she acts as the Queen of Canada, she is not acting as the Queen of the United Kingdom. The fact that Elizabeth Windsor is both the Queen of Canada and the United Kingdom does not mean that the two states shared a single Crown or Sovereign.

To conclude, it is worth discussing what might happen if we accept the government’s argument that succession is only a matter of British law and that changes to the rules of succession do not require a constitutional amendment. The most obvious consequence of the government’s position is that Canadian republicans will have been proved right: the Crown is an inherently British entity and Canada cannot claim to be an independent state until our ties to the House of Windsor are cut or we become a republic. The government’s view would also mean that Canada would effectively cease to be a constitutional monarchy if the United Kingdom decided to become a republic. The concept that underlies Canada’s entire system of government, the Crown, could be dismantled by another country.

The government’s narrow construction of the office of the Queen under s. 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 may lead to some interesting outcomes, too. If the office of the Queen covers only those powers of the Crown that are explicitly identified in the codified constitution, a future Parliament could pass various statutes to undermine the monarchy without consulting the provinces. One could image, for instance, a future Parliament passing a regency act that transforms the Governor General from the representative of the monarch to the personification of the Crown in Canada, owing to the Sovereign’s absence in Canada. Coupled with a new set of letters patent that transferred all of the Sovereign’s remaining authority to the Governor General, this regency act could be used to exclude the royal family from all Canadian affairs. Since this kind of act would not affect the powers of the Crown included in the codified constitution, Parliament could pass it without consulting the provinces. Of course, it is difficult to imagine that this was the intended spirit of s.41(a), but a narrow construction of the office of the Queen might allow it.

Suffice it to say, while the changes to the succession are laudable, a greater degree of caution and debate is warranted here.

Philippe Lagassé is an assistant professor of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa. He thanks James W.J. Bowden for his research assistance.

Crown consent

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, February 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM - 0 Comments

In tabling the royal succession bill yesterday morning, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson reported to the House the following.

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to inform the House that His Excellency the Governor General, having been informed of the purport of a bill entitled “An Act to assent to alterations in the law touching the Succession to the Throne” has given his consent as far as Her Majesty’s prerogatives may be affected to the consideration by Parliament of the bill, and that Parliament may do therein as it thinks fit.

So before the bill was tabled, the Governor General was consulted and provided consent for the legislation to go forward. Is that odd? Not really.

The consent of the Crown is necessary anytime a bill involves the prerogatives of the Crown—see here, here and here. Here is a list of bills that have passed Parliament with Crown consent. If the royal succession bill passes, it will be the first such bill to do so since 2001.

Crown consent has become a bit of a controversy in Britain.
With a special guest appearance by the Governor General?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 10:58 AM - 0 Comments

While the Prime Minister’s Office and Ned Franks explain the reasons for not involving the Governor General in a meeting between the Prime Minister and First Nations leaders, Charlie Angus seems to try to articulate a compromise.

But NDP MP Charlie Angus, whose Northern Ontario riding includes Ms. Spence’s Attawapiskat community, said the Prime Minister should allow the Governor-General to open any future meeting in order to build trust and “dial down the rhetoric.” “I’m concerned about the symbolism if [Ms. Spence] got sick or something happened — I think it would really throw everything off track,” he said. “If [Mr. Harper] sends some message of goodwill, we could ratchet this down a lot.”

This sounds like a proposal to have the Governor General do what he did a year ago at the Crown-First Nations gathering.

There are a couple ways to question this proposal. The first is the practical: Would this be enough to satisfy Theresa Spence and those who are following her lead on this demand that the Governor General be involved? If the answer is no, this proposal is moot.

But even if this would be sufficient to appease Ms. Spence, there is the philosophical question: Is any compromise worth making when it is based on a very problematic understanding of how our democracy works? Is it worth finding a compromise at the risk of perpetuating—or seeming to give into—a very problematic understanding of how our democracy works?

I think I generally lean towards upholding the principles of our democracy and refusing demands that seem to be based on a very problematic understanding our how our democracy works, but if having David Johnston stand up and say a few words (presuming he then takes his leave and goes back to Rideau Hall) would be enough to get past this odd stand-off, I’m somewhat tempted to say go for it and be done with it. (Alternatively, you refuse a compromise, stick with the principled view and assume that this point of dispute will ultimately pass. I suppose this calculation involves judging Ms. Spence’s present and future health and the likelihood she’ll give up her protest or otherwise be fine.)
What is the Governor General expected to do?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, January 21, 2013 at 9:50 AM - 0 Comments

Theresa Spence repeats her demand that the Governor General be involved in a meeting between the Prime Minister and First Nations leaders. And the Assembly of First Nations are apparently going to demand his presence at a meeting on Thursday.

For what it’s worth, David Johnston was part of the Crown-First Nations gathering a year ago, but he was not part of the working sessions that took place as part of that gathering. According to Rideau Hall, he participated in the opening ceremony, witnessed the smudging ceremony and honour songs, exchanged gifts with National Chief Shawn Atleo, delivered opening remarks and then departed.
The Queen sends her regards

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM - 0 Comments

Buckingham Palace won’t be getting involved in the matter of Theresa Spence’s hunger strike.

In a letter dated Jan. 7, obtained by The Canadian Press, Buckingham Palace tells a supporter of Spence that the chief should deal instead with the federal cabinet. “This is not a matter in which The Queen would intervene,” says the letter. “As a constitutional Sovereign, Her Majesty acts through her personal representative, the Governor General, on the advice of her Canadian Ministers and, therefore, it is to them that your appeal should be directed.”

The letter also says the Queen understands the concerns about the welfare of Spence, who is now well into her sixth week of protest, surviving on fish broth and tea. “Her Majesty has taken careful note of the concern you express for the welfare of Attawapiskat First Nations Chief Theresa Spence who is currently on a politically motivated hunger strike in Canada.”

Here again is Emmett Macfarlane’s take on the request that the Governor General be involved. And here is the unofficial explanation from the government as to why the Governor General wasn’t present at the meeting between the Prime Minister and First Nations leaders.
The Governor General and the Prime Minister

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, January 12, 2013 at 12:29 PM - 0 Comments

An anonymous government official explains why the Governor General wasn’t in the room for yesterday’s meeting between the Prime Minister and First Nations leaders.

Harper’s team did finally instruct the Governor General to hold a ceremonial meeting Friday evening at Rideau Hall. But there was no question of involving Johnston directly in the meetings themselves.

“Our real bottom line was that it couldn’t be the same meeting because that line can’t get blurred,” said the official. “We’re the ones responsible here, we’re the ones that can act and have to act. Not the Governor General. There’s nothing he can do constitutionally, so we didn’t want to give that impression.”

Here again is Emmett Macfarlane’s analysis of the demand that the Governor General be present.
The Governor General and Theresa Spence

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, January 12, 2013 at 12:38 AM - 0 Comments

The Governor General’s remarks to First Nations leaders this evening at Rideau Hall.

Without a doubt, there remains much hard work to be done. In a country as vast and diverse as Canada, our differences are many, and sometimes they can overshadow all that we have in commonas people. As mothers and fathers, as Elders and grandparents, sisters and brothers and aunts and uncles. As children.

Our differences can also make it easy to forget that diversity is one of our country’s true strengths. I have always believed that our greatest potential lies in what we have yet to learn from each other, and I am confident that by working together in a spirit of respect, we can create the conditions in which Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people can thrive equally, according to their hopes and dreams. And we know that we learn best with open minds. As I am fond of saying: minds, like parachutes, work best when open.

Mr. Johnston offered a “special welcome” to Chief Theresa Spence and expressed concern for the health of her, Raymond Robinson and Jean Sock. Chief Spence though apparently came away feeling disrespected and plans to continue her hunger strike.
The Governor General and First Nations

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 11, 2013 at 2:38 PM - 0 Comments

Emmett Macfarlane considers the Governor General and his place, or lack thereof, in the current discussion.

The governor general’s role is almost entirely symbolic, in that it reflects the source of sovereign power in the Canadian state. But that power should only be exercised by state institutions, comprising the executive, legislature and judiciary. The governor general plays no political or policy role. He has no autonomous capacity to act in First Nations’ interest. Nor does the Queen, for that matter, and if she tried, it would rightly be regarded as an affront to Canadian constitutionalism.

This does not mean the governor general cannot or should not meet with First Nations. In fact, he was present at last year’s Crown-First Nations “gathering” which was meant to mark renewal in the relationship. But it would be inappropriate for the governor general to attend today’s meeting, which was the product of political protest and which is supposed to focus on policy demands (such as those concerning the government’s omnibus legislation).
On the power of the Governor General

By Emmett Macfarlane - Friday, January 11, 2013 at 2:15 PM - 0 Comments

A debate about the role of the David Johnston may seem arcane, but it’s also revealing

Adrian Wyld/CP

The politics surrounding the Idle No More movement were never going to be neat and tidy.

First, non-aboriginal Canadians have an embarrassing lack of understanding of the history of the relationship between First Nations and “the Crown.” When native leaders speak of a “nation-to-nation” relationship they are speaking to a history of settler-indigenous relations that were expressly predicated on the notion that two sovereigns were reaching agreements via treaty.

There is a strong, legitimate argument to be made that the foundation of Canadian federalism rests on a federal relationship between the Crown (first the British Crown, then the distinct Canadian Crown) and aboriginals, and that self government for First Nations constitutes another “order of government,” much like the federal and provincial orders of government already familiar to most grade schoolers.

Understood through federalism, the “nation-to-nation” conception shouldn’t be so scary to non-aboriginal Canadians because–despite how some appear to interpret it–it doesn’t mean indigenous nations are their own independent countries. Instead, it means we recognize aboriginal sovereignty in the sense that they are owed the rights that flow from historical treaties as recognized by section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act. This fact was recognized by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1996, and is something which many of the aboriginal activists behind Idle No More support. Continue…
The meeting goes on

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 11, 2013 at 1:49 PM - 0 Comments

The AFN confirms that National Chief Shawn Atleo and approximately 20 First Nations leaders—including representatives from Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta and the Yukon—are presently meeting with the Prime Minister.

Rideau Hall has confirmed that this evening’s ceremonial meeting with the Governor General is also set to occur.
A vice-regal compromise?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:02 PM - 0 Comments

With the Manitoba chiefs having just announced that they will not attend tomorrow’s meeting unless the Governor General is present, the Prime Minister’s Office sends out a statement.

The Prime Minister has asked the Governor General to host a ceremonial meeting with First Nations leaders at Rideau Hall following the working meeting on Friday afternoon, and the Governor General has accepted.

And Rideau Hall confirms.

“His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, has accepted to host a ceremonial meeting at Rideau Hall on Friday, January 11, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., where First Nations leaders will be welcomed following the working meeting with the Prime Minister and Government officials.”
An important moment, if it happens

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

A senior government source tells the Star that the Prime Minister understands the importance of Friday’s meeting with aboriginal leaders, but the Globe wonders if the meeting will happen at all—some chiefs apparently agreeing with Theresa Spence that the Governor General must be present. Or, as one chief explained to APTN, “If there is any honour in this Crown the governor general better get his ass there.” (I believe the proper phrasing is “his right honourable ass.”)

There is a lot of history between First Nations and the crown—some of First Nations leaders have requested a meeting with the Queen later this year—but it’s not clear to me what the Governor General could be expected to do here. If this were a larger summit or gathering, you might imagine the Governor General participating in an opening or closing ceremony. But this is said to a be a working meeting—Shawn Atleo has specifically noted the difference—and the Prime Minister and his cabinet are responsible for government policy.

In that regard, APTN lists a few potential demands that are being considered.

According to a draft position from Manitoba’s Southern Chiefs Organization obtained by APTN National News, it appears First Nations leaders are planning to put repealing the Bill C-45 and Bill C-38, the government’s omnibus budget bills on the table.

The draft outline, which APTN National News was told broadly, reflected the direction of discussions, also called for Canada to set a timeline and process to scrap the Indian Act and replace it with a “Treaty Recognition and Implementation Act.”

Fully repealing 900 pages of legislation—the combined extent of C-38 and C-45—seems a rather large request at this point, but the Indian Act is already up for debate and there seems unanimous agreement that it must (somehow) be replaced.
Theresa Spence won’t attend

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 12:59 PM - 0 Comments

After some confusion this morning, Chief Theresa Spence is now officially unwilling to attend Friday’s meeting unless the Governor General is present.

“We have sent a letter to Buckingham Palace and requesting that Queen Elizabeth II send forth her representative which is the Governor General of Canada. I will not be attending Friday’s meeting with the Prime Minister, as the Governor General’s attendance is integral when discussing Inherent and Treaty Rights,” stated Chief Theresa Spence of the Attawapiskat First Nation.
Letters to the Prime Minister

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 4:55 PM - 0 Comments

Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett and NDP leader Thomas Mulcair have each written to the Prime Minister to encourage him to meet with aboriginal leaders.

New Democrats believe that constitutionally required consultation is more than a means to an end. It is a demonstration of reconciliation, a continuing effort to bring together First Nations and other Canadians. The many protestors, young and old, who are gathering at rallies across Canada want their government to act honourably towards that goal of reconciliation.

As you know, Chief Theresa Spence of Attawapiskat First Nation has also embarked on a hunger strike, living in a tipi on the Anishinabe traditional territory of Victoria Island in the Ottawa River, barely a kilometer from Parliament. I ask that you please act swiftly to avoid a personal tragedy for Chief Spence.

Theresa Spence’s hunger strike is in its ninth day. The CBC has spoken to Governor General David Johnston about Chief Spence and the Idle No More protests.
Saul on a wall: John Ralston Saul’s portrait unveiling

By Paul Wells - Monday, December 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM - 0 Comments

Former governor general Adrienne Clarkson stands with her husband John Ralston Saul after his official portrait was unveiled at a ceremony at Rideau Hall on Dec. 17, 2012. (Adrian Wyld/CP)

David Johnston used the word “tradition” at least three times as he introduced the subject of Rideau Hall’s latest portrait this morning. The current Governor General is a voracious reader, an early advocate of the internet, and a stickler for propriety; he will not have been unaware that advance coverage of John Ralston Saul’s portrait unveiling generated not inconsiderable online umbrage over the fact that Saul, while he may have his charms, was never the Governor General of Canada, and why are my tax dollars etc., etc., etc.

Johnston said nothing to address the monetary question, but here’s the answer: portraits of former viceregal consorts that hang at Rideau Hall, such as this one of Gerda Hnatyshyn, are paid for by the subject. As for the who-does-he-think-he-is bit, the incumbent guarantor of the viceregal office’s propriety was quick to remind the little crowd that his predecessor Adrienne Clarkson had worked with Saul in continuation of “a tradition of governors general and their spouses working together for a better country.” He then mentioned the paintings and photos of previous spouses that line the august joint’s corridors. (Gabrielle Léger, who read portions of two Throne Speeches after Jules Léger suffered a stroke in office, stands with him in his official portrait.) “Today’s portrait unveiling is a continuation of this tradition.”

Populist dudgeon thus banished, Johnston moved on to what we may perhaps call the Clarkson-Saul legacy. Continue…
Vote night

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 7, 2012 at 10:00 AM - 0 Comments

Last night, the House defeated an opposition motion that called on the government to reverse cuts to science and research and an opposition motion that called on the government to reverse cuts to search-and-rescue.

After dealing with eight votes on the estimates, the House then passed Conservative MP Brian Storseth’s private members’ bill to delete certain sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act by a vote of 153-136.

Conservative MP Dan Albas’ bill to allow for the interprovincial importation of wine passed by a vote of 287-0.

NDP MP Randall Garrison’s bill to add gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act passed at second reading by a vote of 152-130.

Liberal MP Hedy Fry’s bill to amend the Criminal Code to clarify that “cyberbulling” is an offence passed at second reading after the Speaker broke a tie.

And, finally, a Bloc motion that sought to have the governor general pay income tax was defeated by a vote of 147-141.
Save us, Your Excellency

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at 5:27 PM - 0 Comments

Rick Mercer rants and calls on the Governor General.
Taking command

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 1:01 PM - 0 Comments

Within this story about efforts to deliver foreign aid in Haiti is an intriguing anecdote about Michaelle Jean’s role in the deployment of the Canadian Forces in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake.

Two years ago, Ms. Jean, then governor-general, was having dinner with U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson at Rideau Hall when the earthquake struck. After working the phones, she managed to convince Canada’s Chief of the Defence Staff, Walter Natynczyk, to send help immediately instead of waiting for an official call from the Haitian authorities.

The Governor General does hold the title of commander-in-chief, but there is probably an interesting discussion to have about the precedents and implications of a Governor General getting involved in overseas deployments.
A Double-E G-G?

By Colby Cosh - Saturday, January 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM - 0 Comments

In the journalism game, we call it “burying the lede”. Friday’s Postmedia papers have a column by Stephen Maher in which he waxes utopian about “modernizing” Canada’s monarchy by introducing an elected head of state. “Pfaugh,” I hear you say, “I’ve read it all before.” For the most part, you have. After all, most of the heavy lifting in the argument is done by the mere use of the loaded word “modernizing”; who’s against modernity? Maher chats admiringly about other countries (Jamaica and Ireland) for a few hundred words before letting fly with an easily-overlooked bomblet of originality:

If the prime minister is able to hold consultative elections to select senators—a question the Supreme Court may ultimately decide—then surely we could select our governor-general the same way.

My reaction to this idea was: “Good heavens, I suppose that’s right.” I’ve never heard anyone suggest it before, even in technical literature on the constitution. But like Senate elections, it would appear to be a natural consequence of responsible government: the prime minister can presumably use whatever process he likes—a reality show, a Ouija board, a lottery—to arrive at a candidate for recommendation to the Queen.

It’s hard even to count the things that would have to happen before it would be in some credible political leader’s interests to advocate an elected governor-general. But, then, it wasn’t political leadership that got the Senate-reform ball rolling in the first place.
This year’s constitutional crisis

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, December 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM - 0 Comments

The Liberals want the Governor General the block the Canadian Wheat Board bill.

The government will almost certainly seek Royal Assent for this legislation in the coming days. As Leader of the Liberal party, I would ask most respectfully that full consideration be given to awaiting final disposition of this matter by the courts before the legislation receives Royal Assent.

Though long before the Federal Court ruling, David Johnston has actually already been asked about the possibility that he would deny royal assent to a bill concerning the Canadian Wheat Board.

After pausing and then saying he couldn’t say much without “definitely crossing some lines,” Johnston said he felt it would no longer be appropriate for the Governor General to veto a bill that had passed in both the House of Commons and the Senate. “To take it away from that particular matter, and put it in a more general context, we do have responsible government,” Johnston said. “Canada really is the birth of responsible government…. They may have had it in the States, but it took a civil war between 1860 and 1865 to solve some of those issues. Canada’s had responsible government since 1842, and that’s really what’s at stake” if a Governor General were to veto a bill.
‘Their duty to remember’

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, November 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

The Governor General’s message on the occasion of Remembrance Day.

The terrible price that they paid during the conflicts that shaped our era reflects the sad reality of times of war, but it also speaks to the tremendous courage and unwavering determination needed to successfully complete their missions. We will never forget the men and women who, in spite of the danger and perils, gave their all to protect the ideals of justice and freedom. They deserve our gratitude and utmost respect.
One year in

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 3, 2011 at 3:32 PM - 12 Comments

No one outside of Rideau Hall seems to have marked the passing of David Johnston’s first anniversary as Governor General this past weekend. Here is my brief take from the current print edition, which is mostly bolstered by everyone else’s lack of notice.

It has been a quiet start to his term. Though that’s not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, presented with a chance to rebut that adjective, he declines. “I don’t have any rebuttal,” he said in an interview last month. “I regard myself as a quiet person. As a university president for almost 27 years, [I learned that] quiet and steady and robust in the importance of the institution are good approaches.”
David Johnston keeps calm and carries on

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 3, 2011 at 12:10 PM - 2 Comments

He’s no Adrienne Clarkson or Michaelle Jean, but the Governor General believes a quiet and steady manner suits him, and his job

Photograph by Blair Gable

Standing on the steps of Parliament Hill, behind a thin wooden podium, David Johnston is delivering his 123rd speech as Governor General. The occasion is the Canadian Police and Peace Officers’ 34th Memorial Service. He speaks carefully and deliberately. “I would like to pay tribute to all of the men and women in uniform who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our communities safe throughout our history,” he says, his words echoing off the buildings of downtown Ottawa. “On behalf of all Canadians, I am grateful for all that you have done for this country.”

He returns, walking purposefully, to his seat. Later he will lay a wreath and afterwards he will greet family members of the fallen, visit briefly the memorial behind Centre Block and then slip inside for a reception in the Hall of Honour. The next morning he will fly to British Columbia, the 10th province to officially make his acquaintance (having been to the Yukon and Nunavut, he has only yet to visit the Northwest Territories). On Oct. 1, he celebrates his first anniversary as the Queen’s representative.

It has been a quiet start to his term. Though that’s not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, presented with a chance to rebut that adjective, he declines. “I don’t have any rebuttal,” he said in an interview last month. “I regard myself as a quiet person. As a university president for almost 27 years, [I learned that] quiet and steady and robust in the importance of the institution are good approaches.”

Continue…
‘This dark day in our history’

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 3:53 PM - 0 Comments

Governor General David Johnston’s statement on the anniversary of 9/11.

At the time, I witnessed the incredible generosity of Canadians and all those who worked together to help the American people. And today, countless individuals are devising and undertaking initiatives to benefit those whose lives were affected by the attacks. Those events turned the world as we knew it upside down, but the extraordinary courage shown by the rescue workers as they tried to save lives, despite the threat, will forever remain a source of inspiration.
The reserve power

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, July 5, 2011 at 9:38 AM - 15 Comments

Earlier this year, Nicholas MacDonald and James Bowden argued that the Governor General has no discretion to refuse a request to prorogue Parliament. In the latest issue of Canadian Parliamentary Review, Peter Russell counters.

On that question, it is my view, and it is a view that I believe is shared by a great many constitutional scholars, that “in this democratic age, the head of state or her representative should reject a prime minister’s advice only when doing so is necessary to protect parliamentary democracy.” Those words of mine are quoted, with what I take to be approval, by MacDonald and Bowden in their article. The justification for the convention is to ensure that parliamentary government is democratic and not controlled by an hereditary head of state or her representative. It follows that if a prime minister’s advice seems seriously adverse to the functioning of parliamentary democracy, it should not be followed. An authoritarian prime minister might be as much a threat to parliamentary democracy as an authoritarian sovereign.