Do you have questions about Canada's Parliamentary
democracy?
Constitutional expert Professor Emeritus Peter
H. Russell will be happy to answer questions concerning Canada's
Parliamentary democracy, how minority governments are formed, the role
of the governor general in the Parliament, etc.
Members of
the Churchill Society, the media, and public can contact Professor Russell at phruss@aol.com
or (416) 923-4919.
Q:
If the
Government Caucus loses a budget vote while the Sovereign
is in Canada, should the Prime Minister pay a visit
to the Queen or the Governor General?
A:
Our Constitution specifically assigns the
function of summoning and dissolving the House of Commons to the
Governor General. The Constitution Act, 1867 (i.e., our founding
Constitution) states in section 38 that "The Governor General shall
from Time to Time, in the Queen's Name, and by Instrument under the
Great Seal of Canada, summon and call together the House of Commons. And
section 50 states that "Every House of Commons shall continue for
Five Years from the Day of Return of the Writs for choosing the House
(subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no
longer." The Queen's presence in the country does not change the
assignment of these functions to the Governor General.
Q:
There is a
lot of discussion about proportional representation. It is my
belief that PR would eventually mean the end of the Monarchy in Canada.
PR could mean frequent changes of government and the role of the
Governor General would be much more important than now and the post
could not long be held by political appointees and we would have to have
an elected head of state. Does the professor agree?
A: You ask if I agree with your
prediction that the adoption of a PR electoral system would soon lead to
a transition to a republican head of state.
I think that your prediction, though by no means implausible, is not
likely to hold in the Canadian (or British) case. It is true, that
whatever system of PR is chosen it will likely produce parliaments in
which no party has a majority in the lower house. That is certainly the
experience of all other countries that have moved to PR. It is also true
that in minority government situations the reserve powers of the head of
state (or her representative) to use her or his independent judgment in
appointing or dismissing a PM or dissolving
parliament, are more likely to come into play, and this in turn may well
create demands for a more accountable head of state - ie an elected
President.
Now having conceded that, why do I not think such a scenario is likely
in the event of Canada (or Britain) adopting PR? First
because, arguments for a change to an elected PM are likely to run up
against the argument that an
elected head of state will become a rival to the PM and undermine
parliamentary government. That is certainly what happened in Australia.
Second, public sentiment in favour of the status quo with respect to our
monarchical arrangements - even with a switch to PR - will likely be
strong enough to turn back a republican movement. That is what happened
in New Zealand after the adoption of PR. In Canada, my sense is that
republicanism has even less chance of success for two reasons - 1)
monarchical arrangements distinguish us from the USA, and 2) many
"new Canadians" are strong supporters of a monarchical head of
state. Similarly, the monarchy is likely to survive a shift to PR
in the UK because of the overall popular strength of the institution
with the British people.
Of course your prediction may be better than mine - both of us must
admit that our knowledge of the future is imperfect. If we adopted some
version of PR and I turned out to be wrong I would be very upset as I am
a strong supporter
of retaining monarchical arrangements for the head of state in
Canada.
However,
I am also a very strong advocate of electoral reform along the lines
that the Jenkins Commission recommended for the UK and our own Law
Commission recommended for Canada. I strongly disapprove of
"fake" majority governments rejected at the ballot box by a
majority of the electorate, and I am an admirer of minority governments
and the way they increase government accountability to parliament. So I
am a constitutional monarchist that is willing to take a chance on
electoral reform.
Professor
Emeritus Peter Russell
Professor Peter H. Russell, O.C., taught Political Science at the
University of Toronto from 1958 until 1996, specializing in Judicial,
Constitutional and Aboriginal Politics. He is a past President of the
Canadian Political Science Association and an Officer of the Order of
Canada. He is the author of The Judiciary in Canada: The Third Branch of
Government, Constitutional Odyssey: Can Canadians Become A Sovereign
People? and co-editor of Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy. His book
on The Mabo Case and Indigenous Decolonization will be published in
2005, and he is currently editing an international book on Appointing
Judges in an Age of Judicial Power.
The Churchill Society is a non-partisan
charity that seeks to educate and raise awareness about Canadian
Parliamentary democracy. It provides background and historical
information but does not take formal positions or offer official
opinions on current issues.
