It doesn't matter how you look at it, as a calculated observation or as a rookie mistake. By passing any comment at all on UPC leadership candidate Danielle Smith's proposed Sovereignty Act, Alberta's Lieutenant-Governor Salma Lakhani just went political..She crossed a line..She actually went waaaaay over the line..It's this simple: Like the Governor General herself, Canada's lieutenant governors simply have no official opinions about anything. Therefore, when she was asked whether she would sign a Sovereignty Act if one were presented to her, the right answer would have been that IN her role as Lieutenant Governor meant she could not possibly comment..Instead, she said that her office would review the legislation. Speaking at the Alberta Day event on the legislature grounds, Her Honour continued in the manner of someone explaining constitutional law to somebody who didn't even know Canada was a constitutional monarchy: "We are a constitutional monarchy, and this is where we do checks and balances. I’m what I would call a ‘constitutional fire extinguisher.’ We don’t have to use it a lot, but sometimes we do have to use it.".A "fire extinguisher?" What monumental presumption! How could she possibly know?.Danielle Smith comments, "I respect our Lieutenant Governor's role ensuring the constitution is recognized and enforced. That is exactly why the Alberta Sovereignty Act will be rooted in the Constitution, specifically Sections 92-95, with special notion to 92A along with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.".But Ms. Lakhani has foolishly already pronounced that this piece of legislation that has not been written, let alone seen and read by herself or her office, may be compared to a fire that needs to be extinguished..She has clearly prejudiced her position. Now, what does she do? In the event that Ms. Smith's legislation was judged to be 'constitutional,' it would be very hard for her to dodge the charge that she gave in under pressure. On the other hand, if 'her office" advises against accepting it, 'well, she never liked it from the start, did she? The fix was in.'.This is exactly why viceroys should follow the example of Her Majesty the Queen: Regarding the business of government, they do not and should not pass an opinion on what may or may not and should or should not be done. Yes, as Ms. Lakhani helpfully offered, monarchs and their viceroys have turned down laws that have been duly passed by legislatures. As most journalists know, laws suppressing free speech that were passed in 1937 by the-then Social Credit government were refused by the Lieutenant Governor of the day. However, this was after-the-fact..Ms. Lakhani is offering her opinions in advance. Some might say she was giving a warning..Ms. Lakhani represents the Queen. In her long 70-year reign, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has never to my knowledge fired a warning shot across the bows of any politician, regarding any legislation. It is frankly an outrageous lapse..And in any case, as noted constitutional expert Philippe Lagassé points out, "it is not the Crown’s place to assess the constitutionality of legislation. We already have a branch of the state that does that: the judiciary. If a bill is unconstitutional, it can be challenged in the courts after it becomes law. That’s how we deal with unconstitutional legislation today.".Such is her misunderstanding of vice-regal protocol, that if Her Honour does not immediately repudiate the statements she made earlier this afternoon, I do not see how she can effectively perform her vice-regal function..That is, she must be removed from office.
