Checking the balance
The political structure of our government is outdated and it’s time to give it a facelift. On Oct. 10, the Globe and Mail published an article exploring the topic of what the Governor General’s role in Canada should be. (back to story...)
Discuss this story (4 comments)
All discussions are moderated. Please see our full comment policy for details.
Thank you for the correction. Guilty as charged.
I do, however, believe the proverb is still salient to the piece.
I'm sorry, but this is not a very well-written piece of work, even by the Journal's standards. Besides the Abraham Lincoln thing (Google'absolute power corrupts absolutely' and the right author comes up as the first hit. Come on), the author seems to have a very superficial understanding of Canadian government and history.
Take the King-Byng crisis. Meighen did not create a coalition; he actually had the most seats from the previous election. It was the Liberals, with less seats, that maintained government with the support of the Progressive party. When the Liberals lost a vote of confidence (not a 'deadlock' as the author claimed), King went to get Parliament dissolved, but Byng decided to give Meighen a try instead. That government only lasted another couple of days before it too was defeated.
Indeed, Canada's only real example of a federal coalition would have been the Unionist coalition that was in power during World War I.
Then the author makes the utterly fallacious comparison between the Prime Minster and US President. Of course the PM has more power in our system. We don't have an independent Executive, but rather one dependent on responsibility to the House of Commons. While the President cannot control votes in Congress, he also does not lose his job when he does lose one of those votes. (And BTW, it's 2/3rds of each house to override a veto, not 60%)
That's why having constitutionally entrenched election dates during minority governments is an absurd idea that would erode accountability rather than creating it. The government only maintains power with the consent of our representatives. If the government cannot, then we get to decide the makeup of the next house.
As is the idea of directly electing the governor general. Not only would that fly in the face of the monarchical makeup of the system (how can you elect someone who's job it is to represent the monarch), but it is the lack of the democratic mandate that prevents the GG from using all of those reserve powers. Without a congressional system with an override, how would we pass legislation where an elected GG refuses to give Royal Assent? Would it have been better during the coalition crisis of the GG held an elected position with vested interests? (contrary to what you say, there was a strong possiblity of denying the prorogue request. It was the non-political nature of the GG's job that prevented the chaos that could have followed).
The problem with our system is not an appointed Governor General, but rather the unwillingness for MPs to have any level of independence like you often see in the UK. It is the House that acts as the democratic check on the government, and we citizens who control the house. If we start electing some MPs with backbone, then maybe we'll start to see a more responsive government.
Kevin, thank you for your comment, I'd like to address some of your points.
Firstly, I again apologize for the minor details of my supporting points. I assure you next time there will be more rigorous fact-checking.
It seems you have missed my point. You seem to think I said the problem with our system is that we have an appointed governor general. I argued that problem with the Canadian system is, that there is too much power in the hands of the Prime Minister, and that we must check it more effectively. It was right there in the title, "Checking the balance."
You say that the House of Commons acts as a check on this power. But I maintain that a whipped majority vote on a bill in the House of Commons faces no real obstacle to passing.
Do we need politicians with more backbone? Certainly. See my first opinion piece, "Raising the political bar." But we need give them some room to maneuver. Thus, fixed election dates. Fixed election dates would allow those MP's with the courage to stand up for their views to do so knowing that they will have two or more years to do so before facing the public again.
To the criticism about Canadian history. What the King-Byng Crisis hinged on was the Governor General's refusal to call an election at the Prime Minister's request. As a result of this, King went on to win a majority of seats in the election that followed. The point was that the last time a Governor General refused the request of Canada's elected leader, that leader turned it into political capital and benefited from it. No governor general has denied the Prime Minister since, including Michaelle Jean.
Also, your definition of deadlock is more restrictive than mine, I think of it as a political situation in which neither side has the upper hand, which was clearly the case in 1926.
Speaking of the governor general, you asked how you elect someone who represents the monarch. As I suggested by writing that changes to the Senate and federal election laws would be easier to pass, changing the constitution in terms of monarchy is difficult, requiring a majority of votes in all provincial and federal legislatures to pass. Certainly it would require some tinkering, but this is how it would be done: We would change the symbolic repository of authority in Canada from the Queen to the people.
Finally, comparing the Prime Minister to the President of the United States, which I have already partially addressed. You say that the President of the United States faces no fear of losing his job when trying to pass legislation, as opposed to our Prime Minister, who faces confidence votes regularly.
Point taken. But in a majority parliament the Prime Minister is not going to lose a confidence vote unless half his caucus is stricken by H1N1.
Thank you for pointing out my factual errors, and thank you for arguing the other side. It is because of reasonable arguments like yours that I love debating politics.
Journal comments policy
The comments on this website do not represent the views or opinions of the Queen's Journal, but of the comment-writer alone. Libelous comments and unsubstantiated allegations will not be printed, nor will comments that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, marital status or mental or physical ability. All comments are moderated, and may take up to 24 hours to be posted on this site barring any unforeseen circumstances. The Journal reserves the right to refrain from publishing comments. Comments are not edited for grammar or spelling, or for vulgar language outside of the above restrictions. The Journal respects your privacy. By posting your comments in our feedback forum you give us permission to post and publish your name, city and comments on the Journal website. All submissions must contain the email address of the comment-writer. Thank you for your co-operation.
north bay
October 20, 2009 at 7:41 a.m.
The comment "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" was originally used by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton or Baron Acton.
It's pretty hard to believe someone from Queen's can mis-attribute such a famous proverb. Abraham Lincoln? Did you just use the most famous American politician you could think of?
Even the slightest bit of scholarly research can go a long way.