The importance of a constitutional monarchy

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 03/05/2025 (401 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

On April 8, I had the honour of speaking at one of the monthly evenings hosted by Lt.-Gov. Anita Neville at Government House. My topic was the role of vice-regal representatives of King Charles — the Governor General and lieutenant-governors — in our national and provincial systems of cabinet-parliamentary government.

Given U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff war and his claim that Canada should become the 51st state, I started with the observation that Canada and the U.S. are different in many ways, including the fundamental features of their constitutions.

Canada and Manitoba have cabinet-parliamentary systems with dual heads of government. The vice-regals are the formal heads of state, while the prime minister and premiers are the political heads of government who are answerable to Parliament or the legislature and ultimately to voters. Vice-regals are above the political fray and symbolize tradition, unity and the constitutional order.

In the U.S. presidential-congressional system, the president is both the head of state and the top political leader. People who want to attach loyalty to the country and its constitution often make the president the target of their sentiments.

Vice-regals operate at the intersection of law and politics. It is hard to prove conclusively, but a case can be made that their presence in the governing process is one of a number of obstacles preventing an all-powerful political actor from abusing the constitutional rules.

To the extent they are aware, most citizens see the vice-regal role as simply ceremonial. Meeting visiting dignitaries, serving as patrons of worthy causes, bestowing honours on outstanding citizens, and participating in community events are examples of important vice regal activities which otherwise would have to be performed by political leaders.

Vice-regals are more than figureheads. Constitutional documents might suggest they are benign dictators because so many actions in the governing process are done in their name. That is misleading, however. In practice, their role is shaped and limited by unwritten constitutional conventions which means major actions are almost always based on the advice and recommendations of first ministers.

In short, there are limits on the vice-regal role, but there are also important opportunities for them to have influence in the governing process.

The most general authority of vice regals was expressed by Walter Bagehot (author of The English Constitution, 1867) who wrote that under our constitution the monarch or his representatives has three rights — “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn.”

It is difficult to know how often this prerogative is used by Canadian vice-regals, because any advice offered to first ministers takes place in confidential conversations, which may or may not happen on a regular basis.

There are a number of other sources of potential vice-regal influence which can only be highlighted briefly.

First, it is the duty of the vice-regal to ensure there is a functioning government in place at all times. After an election or a leadership contest for the governing party , the vice-regal invites the leader of the party with the greatest number of seats in the House of Commons or the legislature to form a government. Normally this is a straightforward decision, but in a minority government situation an astute judgment call about which party can obtain majority support in Parliament/ legislature may be involved.

Second, there is also a constitutional provision which grants vice-regals the authority to dismiss a prime minister or premier. This power might be used if a prime minister refused to resign after losing an election. Another situation might be when a prime minister/premier loses majority support in the House of Commons or the legislature but refuses to resign or to seek a dissolution and an election. There has never been a dismissal of a prime minister and the last time a premier was dismissed goes back to 1905.

Third, vice-regals have the authority to grant a request that the Commons or a legislature be dissolved to allow for an election to occur. The passage during the 2000s of fixed date election laws nationally and provincially was meant to remove an unfair advantage for first ministers in terms of controlling the timing of elections. However, a loophole was created by the constitutional requirement to respect the discretionary powers of vice-regals to grant a dissolution.

Controversy has surrounded several decisions by vice regals to grant dissolutions when a governing party faced political trouble in the form of a pending confidence vote in the House of Commons/legislature or when a first minister simply wanted to take an opportunistic advantage of favourable political circumstances to call an early election. It appears there is an emerging binding constitutional convention that vice regals must always grant a dissolution when a government retains majority support in the House of Commons or the legislature.

Fourth, approval of the vice-regal is needed to prorogue the Commons or the legislature. Prorogation is different from dissolution. It involves the end of a session but not the end of a parliament/legislature. All business before the legislature is lost and a new session begins with a speech from the throne outlining the legislative agenda of the government. Granting prorogation can be controversial when a request is seen as a way to avoid a parliamentary showdown. The vice-regal may choose to limit the duration of a prorogation.

Canada’s constitutional monarchy is part of our national identity and it provides protection for our democratic traditions.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba. The above views are his own.