A contemporary misconception exists in Canada that the Governor General
and the Lieutenant Governors are politically impotent. In fact, they have
considerable power both of a legal and political nature. Using the province
of Alberta as an example, this article looks at the ways various Lieutenant
Governors have exercised the powers given to them by law and convention.
The Lieutenant Governor was envisioned to function in a dualist role, as
a representative of the monarch, but more clearly as a Dominion officer
doing the bidding of the Federal Cabinet. Peter J.T. OHearn recounts this
office was by no means ceremonial,
In the early days, some governors, notably in the new provinces, actually
conducted the administration. There were exciting clashes in Quebec and
British Columbia between strong-minded governors and their ministries,
leading to the dismissal of five Cabinets. In the first half-century of
Confederation, governors refused assent to twenty-six bills and reserved
sixty-four for action in Ottawa.1
The frustrations felt by the provinces lead them to challenge assertions
that Lieutenant Governors possessed limited powers. From 1867 onwards,
Oliver Mowat, the Premier of Ontario, attempted to change the notion of
subordination of the Lieutenant Governor.
The fulcrum for Dominion interference was the Lieutenant Governor. Appointed
and removed by the Dominion Government; considered by the Imperial Government
as well as by the Dominion Government as merely a Dominion Officer mainly
useful for bringing Provincial policies into harmony with those of the
central Government; the Lieutenant Governor must have appeared to Mowat
as likely to prove a Trojan Horse within the Provincial Citadel.2
In Liquidators of Maritime Bank v. Receiver General (1892), the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council effectively reversed some twenty-five years
of Constitutional law and practice. Until that point, the Lieutenant Governor
was regarded primarily as a representative of the federal government. However,
after the Maritime Bank went bankrupt, the New Brunswick government, eager
to regain its funds, argued that the Lieutenant Governor was the representative
of the monarch and possessed all of the prerogative powers of the Crown.
This meant that the government of New Brunswick could use Crown prerogative
as a basis for claiming priority over other creditors seeking to recover
funds from the liquidators of the Maritime bank. The court agreed with
this argument. The historical significance of this case lies in the fact
that legally speaking the Lieutenant Governor would no longer be viewed
as a Dominion Officer or in anyway subordinate to the central government.
The Lieutenant Governor in Alberta
Alberta has a long history of interventionist Lieutenant Governors going
back to the years of Social Credit and William Aberhart. The Social Credit
period in Alberta, especially between 1936 and 1938, witnessed considerable
intervention by both the Lieutenant Governor and the Governor General.
In this period, several precedents were established on the role and authority
of the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor.
Early into Aberharts term, the Lieutenant Governor was already expressing
concerns over some legislation. On March 31, 1936, in a letter to the Premier,
Walsh noted, I have a very great objection on principle to the enactment
by Order-in-Council of legislation which should be enacted by statute.3
Walsh continued to express his reservations noting I think that such legislation
should be enacted only after full discussion in the open forum of the legislature
by those elected for that purposes rather than in the Executive Council
chamber by a few of those so elected.4 Lieutenant Governor Walsh issued
Aberhart this ultimatum: change the provisions of the Act or provide legal
opinion regarding whether the law was ultra vires.
Several months later Walsh once again threatened intervention. On August
31, 1936, he wrote to Aberhart deeply troubled over a proposed Act relating
to the reduction and settlement of debts. In the letter, Walsh expressed
sympathy for the difficulties besetting the Aberhart government, but clearly
outlined his objections, I cannot too strongly condemn the ruthless fashion
in which the Act proposes to deal with the rights of creditors
have some rights in this country as well as debtors.5 Walsh warned such
legislation would further batter Albertas damaged financial reputation
and that the proposed Act might be ultra vires as it encroached upon the
banking jurisdiction exclusive to the Dominion government. It was therefore
possible that the Dominion government would disallow the legislation.
Therefore, Walsh provided Aberhart with three options. First, delay the
passing of the bill until the conclusion of the next session. Second, send
the legislation for review to the Supreme Court of Alberta. Third, do nothing.
In this event Walsh casually mentioned, I have the power under section
55 of the British North America Act to reserve this bill for the signification
of the Governor General's pleasure.6 Walsh noted that, If however I find
that I can constitutionally do so I will feel myself quite justified in
reserving it.7 In the end, Walsh elected not to withhold Royal Assent.
The Supreme Court of Alberta did review this legislation, renamed the
Reduction and Settlement of Debts Act. It is likely that Walsh a former
Alberta Chief Justice and earnest opponent of the Act - played a role in
alerting the courts.
In February 1937, Mr. Justice A.F. Ewing of the Supreme Court of Alberta
ruled the Reduction and Settlement of Debts Act unconstitutional. In June
of that year, the provincial government was ultimately unsuccessful on
appeal. On October 25, 1938, the appeal court refused to hear the Aberhart
governments second appeal application. By 1937, the regularity of unconstitutional
bills passed by the Alberta legislature made it necessary for a mode of
intervention independent from time consuming judicial reviews: vice-regal
intervention by both Albertas Lieutenant Governor and Canadas Governor
Disallowance and Reservation
Albertas longest serving Lieutenant Governor was John Campbell Bowen.
His tenure illustrates that the Lieutenant Governors efficacy in protecting
of civil liberties and ensuring the constitutionality of provincial legislation.
However, Bowens insight and guardianship were not immediately apparent
to his contemporaries. Bowen was roundly criticized during the Constitutional
Crisis of 1937-38 for demonstrating weakness unbecoming of a Lieutenant
Governor. Mackenzie King would note in his diary on February 1, 1938:
conservation with the Lieutenant Governor Bowen of Alberta who impressed
me as a very delicate man, and not altogether suited for the post he occupies
Nonetheless, he was largely able to overcome this.
When William Aberhart assumed office of premier of Alberta in 1935, he
asked for eighteen months to establish a new order, which would free Albertans
from the economic evils of the Great Depression. By 1938, it was clear
that Aberharts measures had failed. In the meantime, Aberhart had raised
serious alarm over his policies and legislation. On August 16, 1937, Arthur
Meighen corresponded with Senator William Griesbach, foreshadowing the
intervention of the Federal government and the Lieutenant Governor. What
cannot be forgotten Meighen wrote, is that the people of Alberta are
still citizens of Canada and they are still entitled to the safeguards
of our Constitution. If Provincial legislation is always to be allowed
to go unless upset by the courts, then the very sheet anchor of Confederation
In August 1937, Aberharts government, eager to implement social credit
economics passed the Credit of Alberta Regulation Act, the Bank Employees
Civil Rights Act and the Judicature Act Amendment Act. In an early letter
dated August 11, Prime Minister Mackenzie King had requested that William
Aberhart first send the legislation for review to the Supreme Court of
Canada to judge its constitutionality. Having already received Royal Assent
of the Acts the previous day from the Lieutenant Governor, Aberhart refused.
Major constitutional concerns were raised over the legislation even to
the extent that the Lieutenant Governor should not have granted Royal Assent.
For instance, the Credit of Regulation Act Section 7 stated that any banker
while unlicensed, be capable of commencing or maintaining any action...in
respect to any claim, in law or equity.9
The Judicature Act Amendment
Act absurdly proposed what was tantamount to an unilateral Constitutional
amendment by stating that No action or proceeding of any nature whatsoever
concerning the Constitutional validity of any enactment of this Legislative
Assembly of the Province shall be commenced, maintained, continued or defended,
unless and until permission
has first been given by the Lieutenant Governor
in Council. The Bank Employees Civil Rights Act essentially denied any
civil right of unlicensed employees of chartered banks. Bowens decision
not to reserve the Acts was called into question. Would, for example, William
Walsh have granted Royal Assent to these three bills? Bowens failure to
intervene demonstrated some weakness, yet the subsequent federal disallowance
certainly prompted an awakening of his guardianship of the Canadian Constitution.
Following this incident, Bowen exhibited great care in granting Royal Assent
and availed himself of independent legal advice.
This is not to say that Bowen remained unconcerned over the August 1937
legislation. In fact, on the last day of session, August 6, Bowen called
on Premier William Aberhart and the Attorney General John Hugill to discuss
the constitutionality of the proposed Acts. In a rather bizarre turn of
events, Hugill advised against Royal Assent. Hugill would later explain
his position in a letter to Aberhart,
On the afternoon of Friday, August 6th, 1937 shortly before the special
session prorogued I went with you for an audience with the Lieutenant Governor
in his room at his request. There I had the temerity to differ with the
opinion you gave of the competence of our Provincial Legislature to enact
certain Bills then awaiting His Honours pleasure and upon which he sought
A shocked Aberhart attempted to refute Hugills opinion to Bowen despite
lacking any legal experience or qualifications. Upon leaving the Lieutenant
Governors suite Aberhart suddenly fired his Attorney General. Of greater
surprise, was Bowens granting Royal Assent to the Credit of Alberta Regulation
Act, the Bank Employees Civil Rights Act and the Judicature Act Amendment
Act¸ over the concerns of the Attorney General.
As foreshadowed earlier that year by Walsh, legislation that violated the
Constitutional division of provincial and federal powers would result in
disallowance by the Governor General-in-Council, which promptly occurred
on August 17, 1937. Federal Justice Minister, Ernest LaPointe, remarked
to the House of Commons, The statutes of Alberta in question constitute
an unmistakeable invasion of the legislative field thus assigned to Parliament.
They conflict with the dominion laws and virtually supplant dominion institutions
designed by Parliament to facilitate the trade and commerce of the whole
dominion.11 Aberhart refused to fulfil his obligation to publish the disallowance
in the Alberta Gazette so the federal government published the disallowance
in the Canada Gazette.
In response to the disallowance, James Mackinnon, Liberal MP for Edmonton
West, and the only Liberal MP in Alberta, proposed a course of action for
the Lieutenant Governor in September 1937. If Aberhart were to re-introduce
the bills in the Legislative Assembly for the fall session, the Lieutenant
Government should refuse Royal Assent. In the event that Aberhart asked
for dissolution of the legislature with the intent of making the federal
disallowance an election issue, the Lieutenant Governor should refuse the
request and instead commission Alberta Liberal Leader E.L. Gray as Premier.
Lieutenant Governor Bowen conveyed this plan to the federal government
as Mackenzie King memorialized in his diary on September 28, 1937. The
Lt. Gov. Bowen had written Lapointe, King wrote, indicating he might
refuse dissolution if requested and possibly form a new ministrya mad
Ernest Lapointe had warned Lieutenant Governor Bowen that Aberhart might
want to reintroduce the legislation. Elements of the disallowed legislation
were reintroduced in legislation for the fall session. Perhaps predictably,
the new legislation included new unconstitutional provisions. These were
apparent in the Bank Taxation Act, an Act to amend the Credit of
Regulation Act and the Act to ensure the publication of accurate news and
information. The Bank Taxation Act would allow the province, to levy taxes
of one- half per cent per annum on all paid-up capital of the banks and
one per cent per annum on their reserve funds and undivided profits.12
The recently disallowed Credit of Alberta Regulation Act was rewritten
to drop all reference to the banks and substitute the words credit institutions.
All such credit institutions were to come under the direction of the Social
Credit Board.13 The Accurate News and Information Act was described by
David Raymond Elliot.
The Accurate News and Information Act required that every Alberta newspaper
publish any statements furnished by the chair of the Social Credit party
which has for its objective the correction or amplification of any statement
relating to any policy or activity of the Government of the Province.
The bill further directed that newspapers could be ordered to reveal in
writing all sources of their information and the names and addresses of
[as well as] writers of any editorial, articles, or news
item appearing in their papers. Failure to abide by this ruling would result
in the prohibition of the publication of said newspaper, the prohibition
of anything written by an offending writer and the prohibition of the publication
of any information emanating from any offending person or source.14
The new legislation generated further anxiety and concern in both Ottawa
and Alberta. However, opinions on what to do in response were mixed among
members of the federal Cabinet. Some Liberals thought that the legislation,
rather than being disallowed, should be allowed to pass. The Banks themselves
could challenge the legislation afterwards in the courts. King noted however,
that as Liberals, they must uphold the constitution. The debate was settled
in favour of LaPointes view that
the Lieutenant Governor should reserve
any such legislation.15 It was clear that the Lieutenant Governor was
On October 1, 1937, Bowen wrote to Aberhart with respect to the proposed An Act to Amend and Consolidate the Credit of Alberta Regulation Act. Bowen
noted, As Attorney General and one who is not versed in the Law, you could
hardly be expected to give me legal advice, therefore I am asking that
you be good enough to appoint an independent solicitor to review the said
Bill for my information. In this respect I would suggest that you ask Mr
Sidney B. Woods to do this for me.16
On October 6, 1937, the Lieutenant
Governor announced his reservation of the Bank Taxation Act, An Act to
amend the Credit of Alberta Regulation Act and the Act to ensure the publication
of accurate news and information for the Governor General-in-Council who
sent the bills on to the Supreme Court for review. The following spring
the Supreme Court of Canada would determine that all three were in fact
The hallmark of Federal legislative and vice-regal influence is evident
on this reservation. On October 9, 1937, Mackenzie King met with Governor
General Lord Tweedsmuir. After gossiping about the scandalous abdication
of King Edward VIII, they settled into the matter of the Alberta Legislation,
and, as Mackenzie King recounted in his diary,
He asked me as to whether I had advised Bowen of Alberta re reserving bills.
I told him of what he had written Lapointe and what I had advised Lapointe
to do, having to dissuade him from the wrong course [of wanting to dismiss
[Bowen had] proposed in discussing his position and leaving it
to him to withhold or pass as he might wish.
It is clear that the Governor General held no objection to this course
of action. While the King government supported Bowen, it did not force
Bowen to reserve the legislation. Bowen was quite happy to do so, even
proposing to dismiss Aberhart if necessary - a prospect that the Prime
Minister was extremely uncomfortable with.
The Aberhart government would also challenge the Governor General-in-Councils
authority to disallow and the Lieutenant Governors power to reserve legislation.
On September 30, the Aberhart referred the question of disallowance to
the Supreme Court of Canada. On October 2, the federal government accepted
this referral. On March 4, 1938, the Supreme Court ruled that the powers
of reservation and disallowance were subject to no limitation or restriction.17
In Alberta, Aberhart was deeply upset at the Lieutenant Governor and publicly
swore revenge. The Premiers rage and vindictive attitude nearly provoked
another Constitutional Crisis. Bowen and Aberhart confronted each other
again in the spring of 1938, this time over the closing of Government House,
the Lieutenant Governors official residence. The idea to close Government
House had its origins in a grass-root Social Credit movement. The Social
Credit membership, angered by the interference of the Lieutenant Governor,
demanded Bowens resignation. When it became apparent, the Lieutenant Governor
would not resign, the Social Credit Party resolved to shutter up the vice-regal
In March 1938, the committee of supply of the Alberta Legislature took
unequivocal action and eliminated all grants for the upkeep of Government
House effective March 31, 1938. Government House, as the press widely reported,
was to be closed. Unfortunately, nobody thought to tell Bowen. The Lieutenant
Governor continued in residence forcing the government to fund Government
House for the month of April through a special warrant Bowen signed himself.
By the end of April, there was a more confrontational tone. The Lieutenant
Governor was informed late Saturday April 29th that he would have to vacate
Government House by May 3. The Lieutenant Governor refused to leave without
an Order-in-Council. Aberhart argued that an Order-in-Council was not necessary.
To end the standoff, Aberhart cut off the utilities to the building and
fired the staff. Government House was beset by protestors. Other concerned
citizens and Aberhart supporters wrote letters to the Lieutenant Governor
attacking him. Bowen eventually capitulated, signed the Order-in-Council
on May 6, and left Government House on May 9th.
Publicly humiliated, Bowen ensured he had the last word. As Norman Ward
Publicly, Bowen did not challenge the governments right to dispossess
him, claiming only that it must be done in the right way. Privately he
was so upset that he had to take to his bed, where he brooded over possible
courses of action. Deprived of even a secretary, he considered the humiliation
of his office; he feels, a faithful correspondent (and Liberal organizer)
reported on May 14 to James, that the Kings representative has been insulted
to a point that might lead to grave consequences if allowed to go unchallenged.18
The closing of Government House and the denial of administrative and other
support by Aberhart angered the Lieutenant Governor. The Lieutenant Governor
began to implement an accelerated version of the Mackinnon plan proposed
in September 1937. Bowen approached E.L. Grey, the Alberta Liberal Leader
who would note,
When I was first approached I was opposed to the idea. This situation is,
however, so serious that I am inclined to believe it is my duty to step
in. I feel that if something drastic is not done the Social Credit forces
may have a solid western block in the very near future.19
The removal of Aberhart and the end of Social Credit in Alberta seemed
imminent. The Lieutenant Governor would forcibly remove the Premier from
However, this plan reached the ears of Prime Minister Mackenzie King courtesy
of the provincial Liberals, including E.L. Grey, who sought Kings advice
on the matter. On May 19, 1938, King noted in his diary,
Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Mackinnon came to the office to talk over the Alberta
situation before going to Council. The present Lieutenant Governor wants
to dismiss the Alberta ministry, and has asked Grey to form a ministry,
which is to be one composed of the different political parties of the Province.
It is sheer madness. Action of the kind would almost certainly have repercussions
in Saskatchewan, which would cause the Liberals the election there, and
might bring on a sort of civil war in Alberta. I had Gardiner phone Gray
and MacKinnon phoned the Governor.
Aberharts dismissal was averted as Mackenzie King persuaded Bowen to consider
another course of action. Norman Ward has argued that, his near dismissal
[of William Aberhart] was not a partisan matter, in which an unprincipled
representative of the monarch sought to rid himself of a premier whose
views he considered dangerous. Nor was it in essence the product of a Constitutional
impasse which required the opening of a rarely used safety valve
was nearly dismissed for his closure of Government House, the residence
of the Lieutenant Governor, not because of a constitutional impasse.
Affronts to vice-regal ceremonial functions justified or not - can have
serious political consequences, as politicians are liable to forget that
they do not exercise power they merely grant advice to Her Majestys representative.
The Bowen example serves as a powerful example that no vice-regal should
be ostracized. It also illustrates the tremendous power potentially wielded
by a Lieutenant Governor. Some may argue that this incident was Bowens
abuse of vice-regal power. The author disagrees. However, even if such
abuse were conceded, Bowens actions not violate the written laws of the
Constitution. Had Bowens dismissed Aberhart, Aberhart would have had no
recourse. It is possible, however, that Bowen might have found himself
dismissed by the Governor General on the advice of Prime Minister Mackenzie
King. King thought that any intervention would damage the chances of the
provincial Liberals in the 1938 elections in Saskatchewan. Mackenzie King
was not sympathetic to Aberhart, as he had noted in diary on October 1,
1935, my feeling is that Aberhart should be hanged. His action has been
bribery and corruption.
This tradition of vigilance established by Bowen is not merely an academic
anachronism. It is an enduring part of Albertas political memory, a legacy
continued by Alberta Lieutenant Governors Ralph Steinhauer, Gordon Towers,
Bud Olsen, Lois Hole and most recently Norman Kwong.
Ralph Steinhauer shows his mettle
Throughout his tenure, Ralph Steinhauer, Albertas first Aboriginal Lieutenant
Governor, championed native rights in the province in opposition to the
policies of Premier Peter Lougheed. On early example occurred in October
1976. That month, Steinhauer delivered a controversial speech at the University
of Calgary enumerating the injustices suffered by native people both past
and present going so far as to raise the possibility of refusing assent
to legislation that would be detrimental to native rights and interests.
Steinhauer also described his frustration at being an aboriginal Lieutenant
Governor, It [native affairs] has become a hot political issue but my
lips now must be officially sealed on political questions-although sometimes
I feel like I am going to blow up.21 Nonetheless, Steinhauer felt a responsibility
to depart from the traditional political neutrality.22 Steinhauer also
seemed aware that his outspoken behaviour might cost him his job, If I
get too controversial, I suppose they will be looking for a new Lieutenant
In July 1976, several Alberta native chiefs joined Steinhauer at ceremonies
hosted by the Queen at Buckingham Palace in commemoration of the signing
of Treaties 6 and 7. Steinhauer had convinced Peter Lougheed to support
and finance the trip and secured the Governor Generals permission by asserting,
it is the wish of the native people that a representative deputation of
should visit the United Kingdom.24 Although, a Royal Visit to Canada
was planned for the following year, Steinhauer argued, Albertas Indians
attach special significance to their being able to travel to visit her
in her own home.25
The Governor Generals permission, however, was conditional.
The Governor General and the federal government wanted assurance that the
visit to England would not be a political event to draw attention to problems
which are of concern to the Indian people of this country.26 Steinhauer
promised to ensure the occasions political neutrality. Upon being presented
to Her Majesty, however, Steinhauer promptly raised native issues for discussion.
Upon return to Edmonton, Steinhauers account of the events in London appeared
in a sympathetic article written by Jim Davies of the Edmonton Journal:
I was just stating facts. Because of the Indian Act, arent we wards of
the government? Isnt that a fact? You should read the act. Just about
every clause begins With the consent of the governor-in-council the Indians
Steinhauer saw no incongruity between the Lieutenant Governors role and
political commentary, The Queen has the right to speak out. If Im the
representative of the Queen here, I have the same privilege.28 Steinhauer
would also detail his philosophy on the role of the Lieutenant Governor.
Having no regrets over his comments made in London Steinhauer would not
make apologies, The truth has got to come out. When you state facts, things
come out that are not that pleasant to the ears of government.29
Pondering Refusal of Assent
Controversy over First Nations concerns also came to a head over amendments
to the Land Titles Act. As the Calgary Albertan reported on April 18, 1977,
the amendments were aimed at,
blocking any attempt by Alberta Indians to declare an interest in land
in the northern area of the province, including the Athabasca oil sands.
A caveat declaring an interest in the lands was filed by some Indian bands
in 1975 and a court hearing was due to be held. The provincial government,
worried by comments made when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on a similar
point recently, rushed in with amendments to plug any possible loopholes
that might favour the Indian case.30
The Supreme Court decision in question was the Paulette Caveat Case in
the Northwest Territories, which concerned the Alberta government to the
extent that the Attorney General of Alberta unsuccessfully petitioned the
court to intervene.
The proposed Bill 29, the Land Title Amendment Act, would place restrictions
on the filing of caveats on Crown land which option was frequently employed
by native groups in securing land claims. The use of caveats was an attempt
to forbid registration of any person as Transferee of ownership of, or
of any instrument affecting the said estate or interest.31
could file a caveat preventing the development or sale of land until their
land claim challenges were resolved. The most disconcerting caveat in the
eyes of the provincial government was the Syncrude or Whitehead Caveat,
which threatened to delay oil sands development and transfer ownership
of the land from the Crown to natives including mineral and surface rights
as guaranteed by treaty. Lieutenant Governor Steinhauer spoke against the
legislation and hinted that he was considering withholding Royal Assent.
Steinhauer had been asked to refuse Royal Assent by native leaders including
the prominent leader of The Métis Association of Alberta, Stan Daniels
whose press release of May 2, 1977 read,
In our opinion, this bill is directed against Native People and infringes
on the Federal Governments right to legislate in the area of Native Affairs.
By denying us the right to file a caveat, the Provincial Government is
saying that the native people dont have an aboriginal right. These rights
have been recognized in the Treaties and settlements given to both registered
and non-registered Native people over the last 100 years.32
The Alberta Human Rights and Civil Liberties Association apprised the Lieutenant
Governor of their objections on May 5, 1977 recommending the Alberta Attorney
General refer the legislation to the Alberta Supreme Court to determine
whether it violated the Alberta Bill of Rights. The Association added,
it was suggested by several native groups that you may, in fact, feel
obligated to resign rather than give Royal Assent to this Bill.33
Steinhauer refused to resign over the matter noting later that he would
sign the legislation If the Bill is within the constitution, I have no
choice, I have to sign
I checked into it.34 In fact, the Lieutenant Governor
did not get the best possible advice on the matter. While the changes to
the Land Titles Act did not explicitly violate any section of the B.N.A
Act, 1867, the legislation did violate the spirit, or convention, of the
Constitution. The new legislation prevented natives from obtaining rights
guaranteed under other Constitutional documents, the native treaties. The
Crown had failed to uphold their treaty obligations under Treaty 6, 7 and
8, such as providing reserve land.
However, Steinhauer did eventually conclude that Bill 29 did not stifle
native land claims, The bill does not completely kill the rights of the
Indian people to negotiate land claims, as there was a way around the
revisions, In any case its a caveat worth the paper its written on?
Its just a stalling procedure.35
Soon thereafter, allegations arose that Premier Lougheed had petitioned
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to restrain Lieutenant Governor Steinhauer.
Grant Notley, leader of the Alberta New Democrats, raised the question
of whether or not Lougheed had intervened in the Alberta Legislature. In
light of statements attributed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor concerning
federal requests that he restrain public comments, particularly with respect
to native questions, is the Premier in a position to assure the Legislature
that at no time was there any provincial representation to federal authorities
with respect to statements made by His Honour?36 Lougheed balked at answering
the question in the House arguing that such questions violated the privileges
of the House.
Steinhauer later admitted to getting in to hot water, resulting in an
order from Ottawa (not Edmonton) to cool his mouth off.37 Steinhauer
described the threshold for his outspokenness, In this job you can speak
out providing you dont condemn too much.38
Had he chosen to refuse Royal Assent, would Steinhauer have been justified?
It is an important question. Had Canadian politicians adequately addressed
native problems? On November 6, 1981, Eugene Steinhauer, President of the
Indian Association of Alberta and brother of the former Lieutenant Governor,
wrote to Premier Peter Lougheed noting that the provincial government had
ratified the Constitution binding native groups without consultation,
We understand that Dick Johnston, of your office, has gone to England to
talk about our Rights. In this case we must tell you that the Alberta government
has no legal or Constitutional jurisdiction to speak on our behalf in England.39
Minority rights must be protected and the Lieutenant Governor, as a guardian
of the Constitution, is bound to ensure such protections. A Lieutenant
Governor with a strong consideration for native rights might have provided
recourse for natives and averted the travesty of failing to include Canadas
first nations in the Constitutional negotiations of 1978 to 1982. It is
doubtful that Lougheed would have been able to proceed in this manner had
Steinhauer still been Lieutenant Governor.
Keith Brownsey has compared the number of bills passed by the Alberta Legislature
with the number of orders-in-council signed by the Lieutenant Governor.
In 2004, there were 591 Orders-in-Councils, but only 35 bills. While the
passing of bills involves debate, the issuing of Orders-in-Councils does
not. Some of the Orders-in-Council issued by the Klein government were
substantial in scope and they included, regulations for the generation,
sale and transmission of electricity, the creation of regional health districts,
and back-to-work legislation for teachers.40 Many of these measures, along
with other Orders-in-Councils, should have been submitted as bills and
withstood public scrutiny.
Circumventing the Legislature is part of the problem with the parliamentary
process in Alberta. Albertas history of large majority governments has
entrenched the practice of public spending via Orders-in-Council the approval
of which is at the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor. Some Alberta
Lieutenant Governors have felt compelled to remind the executive that this
process subverts and circumvents the democratic process. Two of the Lieutenant
Governors that served in the 1990s raised concerns on the way the government
In February 1993, Lieutenant Governor Gordon Towers refused the advice
of one of his Alberta ministers when he declined to sign an Order-in-Council
that he felt inappropriate. The Order-in-Council was a 1.5 million grant
proposed by Economic Development Minister Ken Kowalski. Gordon Towers noted,
If I hadnt had the situation corrected within the department, within
the ministers, within the Cabinet, then I would have gone to the Premier
Towers insisted the Office of Lieutenant Governor is not just a rubber
At least one Alberta cabinet minister expressed surprise at Lieutenant
Governor Towers intervention. Ernie Isley, who had brought forth the Order-in-Council
noted, I was not surprised he had the power
but I was surprised he used
the authority . . . I can remember him holding it up and a subsequent discussion
on it ... He was justified in feeling comfortable before he signed it.43
Liberal Treasury Critic Mike Percy noted at the time that Towers actions
exhibited the integrity of the lieutenant-governor. It was the right thing
Despite the fact that Lieutenant Governor Gordon Towers, and
his successor Bud Olsen, were from different political parties, they shared
the same concerns over the use of special warrants and Orders-in-Council.
Lieutenant Governor Bud Olson noted concern,
that the government had resorted to paying its bills in the past without
legislature scrutiny because that to me is wrong. He made it clear that,
unless it was an emergency situation, he would view dimly any special warrants
that cross his desk and hinted strongly he could refuse to sign, It would
be very, very tempting to say, Try this in the legislature first and
see what they think of it
Thats what I would be tempted to say and I think
Im in my Constitutional duty doing it that way.45
Recent Examples of Intervention
One need look no further than the two most recent incumbents, Lois Hole
and Norman Kwong for examples of intervention by Alberta Lieutenant Governors.
Early in her term, Hole prompted a fierce political debate over the role
of the Lieutenant Governor with comments on Bill 11, which would have permitted
the privatization of some health care services. Her Honours comments came
on March 15, 2000, during a charity event in Red Deer. Hole admitted that,
although her family typically chose not to talk politics with her, her
son had asked: What will you do with the health bill?46
It is clear the remark was not intended to threaten the Premier with a
withholding of royal assent. As Ken Munro has noted, The innocent comment
soon became blown out of all proportion with some mischievous individuals
in the press suggesting that the Lieutenant Governor was going to refuse
assent if Bill 11 passed through the Legislative process.47 Nancy Macbeth,
the Liberal leader, noted that while Holes comments were unusual for a
Lieutenant Governor, they nonetheless had merit: Shes close to the people
and hearing that theyre saying and the government isnt.48
of the Lieutenant Governors intentions, a debate arose over the Lieutenant
Governors right to express personal opinion.
At the time, Constitutional scholars such as Allan Tupper commented on
the Lieutenant Governors right to refuse the advice of the Premier on
assenting to legislation. As Tupper wrote,
my view is that a Lieutenant
Governor not giving assent to a bill passed by a majority government would
be unconstitutional. I would go past that and say that its no longer an
operative part of the Canadian Constitution.49 However, laws are not made
inoperative by lack of use; laws must be amended or repealed. Popular
opinion seemed to disagree. The
Edmonton Journal editorialized thus: As
Lieutenant Governor, it is her job indeed, her primary responsibility
to remain aloof from the political debates that occasionally divide members
of the legislature and the people who democratically chose them in an election.50
At odds with this sentiment, however, is the Lieutenant Governors job
description as provided by the Constitution Act, 1867. Holes comments
were merely conveying to the public that as Lieutenant Governor she would
be ensuring that the Premier realized that the legislation was controversial
and that there was widespread opposition to it. She ensured that the Premier
would have the best interests of Albertans in mind.
Another reporter with the Edmonton Journal noted Lois Holes Bill 11 comments
were a break with tradition.51 However, where did this so-called tradition
originate? The reactions provided by political observers seemed rather
unusual considering that Alberta has had a tradition of interventionist
Lieutenant Governors since it had become a province.
On January 21, 2005 during his installation ceremony at Government House,
Albertas new Lieutenant Governor, Norman Kwong, provoked controversy over
his comments on Albertas proposed smoking ban. Kwong openly disagreed
with Premier Klein who felt that a province-wide smoking ban in public
places and work environments was unfair. Klein had noted, Lets not be
overboard on this issue.52 The Premier also felt that those employed in
a smoking environment should find another job if they found the practice
distasteful. The new Lieutenant Governor hoped his comments would encourage
youngsters not to adopt the harmful practice, I hate to jump on people,
the way they live their lives
But if you asked me if I was in favour or
not, I think Id have to be in favour of a ban.53
While these comments
were contrary to the Premiers position they did not conflict with the
established positions of several government departments and organizations,
which found the proposed ban helpful to the general health of Albertas
citizenry. Iris Evans, Kleins own health minister, had proposed the smoking
ban. The proponents for the smoking ban included AADAC (Alberta Alcohol
and Drug Abuse Commission) whose senior manager for tobacco reduction Lloyd
Carr argued, The more you limit the places where people can smoke, the
more quit attempts they will make.54 The Chief Medical Officer for the
Capital Health Region concurred with the ban, In terms of preventing exposure
to environmental (second-hand) tobacco smoke, particularly for people who
are working in places like bars, I think it is important to have a smoking
Under such pressure, Klein was forced to admit that he was in the minority
and rather than dismissing the smoking ban with an executive veto. Klein
promised instead to consult his caucus, We will have a debate through
the (standing) policy committees, and I will make sure that those are open,
and then in the legislature.56 In an effort to ensure that children were
not becoming smokers, Kwong provided open support to a majority in favour
of a ban helping to force a more democratic resolution of the issue. And
despite provincially employed experts weighing in on the issue to the detriment
of the Premiers position, somehow the Lieutenant Governors comments were
seen as inappropriate. The
Regina Leader Post reported that newly appointed
Alberta Lt.-Gov. Norman Kwong shunned royal protocol and waded into the
contentious smoking debate Thursday, publicly disagreeing with Premier
Ralph Kleins stand opposing a province- wide ban on smoking in public
places and at work.57 Larry Johnrude and Bill Mah of the Edmonton Journal
noted almost verbatim, the criticism of the Leader Post. Clearly, the shunning
of royal protocol was a disastrous offence from the medias perspective,
but the shunning of democratic debate by the Premier was less so. The criticisms
were echoed by members of the general public including one Thomas Koch
of Spring Lake, Alberta, who criticized the Lieutenant Governor,
Under a Constitutional democracy, the role of the monarch and her representatives
is largely ceremonial and involves political activity only in dissolving
the legislature and swearing in of democratically elected representatives
might consider cutting a few ribbons, hosting a few afternoon teas and
leave the politics to the voters and their elected representatives.58
Koch had failed to note that it was the democratic majority that favoured
the ban, a fact that would be subsequently seen when the smoking ban was
passed in the Legislature. The whole controversy was perhaps exaggerated
but if we view democracy as being the will of the people the Lieutenant
Governor was not going against the democratic process. He was supporting
1. Peter J. T. OHearn, Q.C. Peace, Order and Good Government: A New Constitution
for Canada, The Macmillan Company of Canada: Toronto, 1964. p. 100.
2. J.M. Beck, The Shaping of Canadian Federalism: Central Authority or
Provincial Right? Copp Clark Publishing: Toronto, 1971. p. 70.
3. PAA 69.281 1038 Microfiche Lieutenant Governor William Walsh Letter
to William Aberhart.
5. PAA 69.289 1038 Microfiche Lieutenant-Governor William Walsh Letter
to Premier William Aberhart August 31, 1936 p. 2.
8. Arthur Meighen letter to William Griesbach August 16, 1937 Edmonton
Archives MS 209 F 284 9.
9. Credit of Regulation Act Section 7.
10. Ernest Watkins. The Golden Province Political Alberta, Sandstone Publishing:
Calgary, 1980. p. 126
11. Canada, House of Commons. Debates, 1938, p. 178.
12. David Raymond Elliot. Bible Bill: a biography of William Aberhart,
Reidmore Books: Edmonton, 1987. p. 272-3.
15. Mackenzie King, Diaries. Tuesday September 28, 1937
16. PAA 68.289 Microfiche Lieutenant-Governor Bowen letter to Premier William
Aberhart October 1, 1937.
17. S.C.R. 71,  2 D.L.R. 8
18. Norman Ward. William Aberhart in the Year of the Tiger. The Dalhousie
Review Vol. 54, No. 3 p. 477.
20. Ibid. p.475.
21. Jim Davies, Edmonton Journal July 12, 1976 (accessed from Alberta
Legislature Library Microfiche-Lieutenant Governor 1976).
24. PAA 87.265 J-2 Ralph Steinhauer Letter to Governor-General Léger, Jules
November 27, 1975.
26. David E. Smith. The Invisible Crown: The First Principle of Canadian
Government, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1995 p. 55.
27. Jim Davies. Edmonton Journal. July 12, 1976. (accessed from Alberta
Legislature Library Microfiche-Lieutenant Governor 1976).
30. Calgary Albertan. Steinhauer refuses to resign. April 18, 1977 (accessed
from Alberta Legislature Library Microfiche-Lieutenant Governor 1977).
31. PAA 85. 401 Alberta Status Indian Land Claims.
32. PAA 79.338 Box 9 L-9 Métis Association of Alberta Press Release May
33. PAA 79.338 Box 9 L-9 Alberta Human Rights and Civil Liberties Association
Letter to Lieutenant Governor Ralph Steinhauer May 5, 1977.
34. Steinhauer caught in controversy. Calgary Herald April 18, 1977.
(accessed from Alberta Legislature Library Microfiche-Lieutenant Governor
35. Demarino, Guy. Lieutenant-Governor walking a tightrope. Edmonton
Journal. April 16, 1977. (accessed from Alberta Legislature Library Microfiche-Lieutenant
36. Province of Alberta. Alberta Hansard 18th Legislature 3rd Session April
21, 1977. p. 876.
37. Guy Demarino. Lieutenant-Governor walking a tightrope. Edmonton Journal.
April 16, 1977.
39. PAA 85.401 903 Eugene Steinhauer Letter to Premier Peter Lougheed November
40. Keith Brownsey. Ralph Klein and the Hollowing of Alberta. From Harrison,
Trevor W. The Return.of the Trojan Horse: Alberta and the New World (Dis)
Order, Montreal: Black Rose Books, 2005 p. 33.
41. Joan Crockatt. Lt.-Gov. wouldnt OK grant from Kowalski; [FINAL Edition].
Edmonton Journal. Edmonton, Alta.: Dec 23, 1994. p. A.1.
42. The Gazette. Alberta lieutenant-governor blocked iffy grant; [FINAL
Edition] Montreal, Que.: Dec 24, 1994. p E.3.
45. Ashley Geddes. I expect to be in trouble all the rest of my life;
Bud Olson, lieutenant-governor of Alberta, former Liberal Cabinet minister,
unrepentant pragmatist, has always said what he thinks. [FINAL Edition]
Edmonton Journal Edmonton. Dec 15, 1996. p. F.3.
46. Hole Hints and involvement; The Calgary Herald. Calgary, Alta.: March
17, 2000 p. A.6.
47. Ken Munro. The Maple Crown in Alberta: The Office of Lieutenant Governor
1905-2005, Trafford: Victoria, 2005. p. 107.
48. Ashley Geddes. Lt.Gov. wont block passage of health bill. Edmonton
Journal. Edmonton, Alta.: March 18, 2000 p. A.1.
49. Jeff Holubitsky. Experts doubt Hole would kill bill. Edmonton Journal.
Edmonton, Alta.: March 17, 2000 p. A.18.
50. Lois Hole made an error. Edmonton Journal, Edmonton, Alta.: March
18, 2000 p. A.18.
51. Ashley Geddes. Lt.Gov. wont block passage of health bill. Edmonton
Journal. Edmonton, Alta.: March 18, 2000 p. A.1.
52. Larry Johnsrude and Bill Mah. Kwong comes down on side of smoking
ban; [Final Edition] Edmonton Journal. Edmonton, Alta.: Jan 21, 2005.
56. Graham Thomson. Ralph left gasping; [Final Edition]. Leader Post,
Regina, Sask.: Jan 25, 2005. p. B.7.
57. Kwong enters smoking debate; [Final Edition] Leader Post. Regina
Sask.: Jan 21, 2005. p. F.5.
58. Thomas Koch. A Matter of opinion: Lt.-Gov. Kwong overstepped his bounds;
Edmonton Journal, Edmonton, Alta January 23, 2005. p. A. 13.