RefedBC.com

Part 3 of this mini series showed the confusion that results from mention of “the Queen” when there are two titles called “the Queen”.  One is the British Queen with no executive power over Canada in international law, and the other is a title, not a person, with no executive power over Canada in Canadian domestic law - the “Queen of Canada”.

Part 3 also revealed that “The Crown” is defined in Canadian law as “the Sovereign”, and therefore can have no executive power over Canada.

This Part 4 will show that there is no requirement in the Constitution Act 1982 for Royal Assent to be given to a parliamentary Bill, and also reveals how “convention” is used by the politician-class and by judges.

7 Giving Royal Assent to Canada’s laws

When the representatives of the Canadian people today ‘pass a law’ in parliament it does not have the force of law in Canada until the head of a foreign State agrees with it. The GG as the representative of one of two foreign queens has the power to ‘withhold Royal Assent’ to the bill. The Canadian PM seems to have given her that power in his Letter Patent when he appointed her.

However, this arrangement that REQUIRES parliament to pass a bill and then send it to the GG for Royal Assent is not mentioned in the Constitution Act 1982. Nowhere in the Act is that practice REQUIRED.

This signature is the Royal Sign Manual.

However, this arrangement that REQUIRES parliament to pass a bill and then send it to the GG for Royal Assent is not mentioned in the Constitution Act 1982. Nowhere in the Act is that practice REQUIRED.

It can therefore be nothing more than a convention. It is a practice that should be repealed. It is difficult for a human mind to find the logic in a PM passing a bill in parliament and appointing an unelected person with the power to veto that bill. And all the while the people have no say in the bill or the veto.

As in Canada, Australia has the same constitutional problem, and the Australian Attorney General’s office replied in May 2001 to a Freedom of Information request by an Australian citizen. The citizen had requested a copy of “the empowering document or legislation issued by the UK government empowering the Queen of Australia [read also Queen of Canada] to use the Royal Prerogatives granted to the Queen of the UK, in particular the Royal Sign Manual.”

The Royal Sign Manual is simply the Monarch’s signature used to grant her assent to parliamentary bills. – it is affixed by the GG to the bill to grant Royal Assent to Australian [or Canadian] bills.

The Australian Attorney General’s reply ? [copy on file]

“…no such document, as described by you in your request, exists…”.

So the situation in Canada seems to be that

1. There is no requirement in the Constitution Act 1982 for a bill to receive the Royal Assent from the GG in order to become law.
2. The Queen of Canada has no Royal Sign Manual and no authority to use the British Queen’s Sign Manual [signature] to give Royal Assent to parliament’s bills.
3. The Queen of Canada has no constitutional authority to grant or withhold Royal Assent. The Queen of Canada is not mentioned in the Constitution Act, 1982. All reference to the Queen in the Constitution Act, 1982 is to Queen Victoria of the UK.
4. The Canadian GG as the representative of either Queen has no constitutional authority to grant or withhold Royal Assent.

8 Law v Convention

Because politicians have never allowed the Canadian people to limit their politician powers with a constitution, the politicians are free to use laws selectively if they wish. They can also circumvent laws in the same way the judiciary can, by the use of what they call convention. Convention is the creation of new rules, or a new doctrine, that must be obeyed, but which inconveniently for the politicians do not exist in the law books. One example is the British doctrine of the “indivisibility of the Queen”. Overnight this became the new doctrine of the “divisibility of the Queen” when it solved headaches for the British politicians and judiciary. This maneuver allowed the British queen to simultaneously become the Queen of all the Commonwealth countries.  Footnote 1.

So the right of the British parliament to legislate the status of the monarchy [going back to the Act of Settlement, 1701] was undermined by a one paragraph statement by one judge. Easy – just announce a new convention. Done deal.

The same resort to a handy convention happens in Canada. In fact a Canadian Chief Justice once defined the Canadian constitution as a combination of statutes and conventions. A proper constitution is neither a statute nor a convention – it is a written binding contract between citizens and their government.