3

I know that this would be practically be suicide for the Crown's power to do so, but hypothetically, could they?

  • Closely related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/174/… – Steve Melnikoff Mar 23 '18 at 9:57
  • Let's not conflate the Monarch and the Crown. It would, I think, "be practically suicide for the [Monarch's] power" if she were to personally veto any bill on her own initiative. But the Crown could be the government vetoing a bill (or rather, the Monarch vetoing it on the advice of her Ministers). And while that might be political suicide for them, it wouldn't be a constitutional crisis in the way you implied. – owjburnham Mar 23 '18 at 13:22
2

No, the Crown cannot veto the Canadian constitution. From parliamentum:

The Constitution Act, 1867 […] expressly confers upon the Queen or the Governor General the power to withhold the royal assent from a bill that has been enacted by the two Houses of Parliament (s. 55), but a convention stipulates that the royal assent shall never be withheld.

  • 4
    Perhaps I don't understand (likely), but doesn't your quote say the exact opposite of No? I do understand that there is a convention that the Crown shall never, but... doesn't "expressly confers upon..the power to withhold..." mean that the Crown can? – CGCampbell Mar 22 '18 at 16:39
  • Convention is binding. The Crown cannot, by binding convention, exercise some of the reserve powers afforded it in the constitution. In the same way that a Judge must follow precedent when considering a judgement. – James K Mar 22 '18 at 17:26
  • @JamesK a judge can rule against precedent, and his ruling will be treated as correct until the next judge higher corrects it. With a crown vs parliament problem there is no higher power. Would it be a constitutional crisis, would the convention be taken as the solution, or would parliament accept the setback then write something so it could never happen again? And more importantly says who? – user9389 Mar 22 '18 at 20:47
  • 1
    In the constitution as it stands the crown cannot veto a bill. Of course the constitution (as opposed to The Constitution) is an evolving concept. It is conceivable that circumstances could arise in which the Crown uses such reserve powers, but in that case the constitution has changed (even if the The Constitution has stayed the same) – James K Mar 22 '18 at 21:01
  • 1
    @JamesK In that case, I would think "a convention" needs to be shown. I guess what I mean is I think of a convention simply as a long-standing gentleman's agreement sort of thing. It seems that you are indicating that in this case the "convention" is a legally binding thing. Perhaps it would help my misunderstanding to show the convention that says the Crown can't veto. – CGCampbell Mar 23 '18 at 13:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.