The Crown’s power is not just ceremonial. It has real, behind-the-scenes influence
Philippe Lagassé, an associate professor at Carleton University, recently published an essay in The National Post claiming that having King Charles III open Parliament would spur patriotism and promote civic education. While the idea of fostering civic education has merit, the specific lesson Canadians are meant to learn remains unclear.
Lagassé challenges the historic views of parliamentary democracy. Writing in the 19th century, Walter Bagehot distinguished between the “dignified” or ceremonial power of the monarchy from the “efficient” or real governing power of the prime minister and cabinet. Lagassé, however, suggests that the Crown in Canada exercises real “efficient” power, subverting Bagehot’s argument.
Drawing on David E. Smith’s The Invisible Crown: The First Principle of Canadian Government, Lagassé argues that understanding the Crown is essential to understanding Canada’s political system. However, the title of Smith’s book itself points to the problem: the Crown’s power is largely invisible. How can this hidden power be central to civic education? Lagassé’s claim seems tenuous, particularly given the difficulty of understanding a system where authority is often out of sight.
This invisibility is evident in recent events, such as the prorogation of Parliament in January and the appointment of a prime minister in March who was not a sitting parliamentarian. The prorogation, which suspended Parliament, was widely criticized for limiting parliamentary oversight. Similarly, the appointment of an individual who had not yet been elected to the House of Commons raised concerns about the Crown’s influence in determining who governs, without direct input from the public through the usual electoral process.
The Crown’s authority allows actions in the public interest, even when they bypass the written Constitution. For instance, in early April, during the election campaign, the Governor General authorized a “special warrant” allowing the spending of $40.3 billion, circumventing the parliamentary process. While this was justified as urgently needed for the public good, critics argued it looked more like partisan manoeuvring to benefit political allies.
This raises a crucial concern: the more we understand the Crown, the more we see how executive power can overshadow the legislative process and public oversight. While Lagassé claims that understanding the Crown is key to understanding our democracy, this hidden power complicates transparency and accountability, crucial components of a healthy democracy. If power operates behind closed doors, it becomes more difficult for Canadians to hold their government accountable.
Canadians should care about this debate because it’s not just an abstract argument. —It’s about who holds power and how that power is used. When we don’t fully understand how power operates behind the scenes, through the Crown’s powers that bypass Parliament, it becomes more difficult for citizens to hold elected officials accountable. Decisions about spending, political appointments and parliamentary business should be made transparently, under the full scrutiny of the public. If these processes remain hidden, it undermines Canadians’ trust in their political system (this does not deny solid grounds for some decisions being made behind the scenes, especially those involving national security).
When these executive powers remain unseen, it opens the door for the political system to be gamed, with taxpayers’ money used for partisan purposes instead of the public good. This lack of oversight creates fertile ground for patronage, favouritism and, ultimately, a government that doesn’t serve the people. Canadians deserve a government that is open, transparent and accountable to them, not one where power is wielded out of sight and where decisions that affect all are made behind closed doors.
While King Charles opened the new session of Parliament, he does not govern Canada. The proper governance of the country lies with the prime minister and cabinet, who work “in close consultation with senior public servants.” The abstract language of an “invisible crown” distracts Canadians from the reality: they are governed by real, flesh-and-blood human beings. These individuals, who wield power, may not always serve the public good but may instead advance their self-interests, just as politicians historically have done.
This recalls the education of King Charles. In 1969, the future Prince of Wales took a semester off from his studies at Cambridge to study Welsh at Aberystwyth University in Wales with Edward Millward, a leader of a party advocating Welsh independence. Prime Minister Harold Wilson recommended this to foster unity between the English and the Welsh. Had Pierre Trudeau sent Justin to study with members of the Calgary School, perhaps Canada’s political landscape would look very different today. Justin Trudeau may have developed a more discerning sense of judgment, one more attuned to the broader public interest, rather than the insular view of the Laurentian elite.
Instead, parochial interests render the “invisible crown” unable to embrace such a critical reflection on governance. In addition to encouraging Canadians to learn about the abstract role of the Crown, we might be better served by focusing on the real, human actors who wield power and whose decisions ultimately shape our political future.
John von Heyking is a professor of political science at the University of Lethbridge.
