Philippe Lagassé, an associate professor at Carleton University, recently published an in The National Post claiming that having King Charles III open Parliament would spur patriotism and promote civic education. While fostering civic education is a worthy goal, it’s unclear what lesson Canadians are meant to take from this symbolic gesture.
Lagassé challenges traditional conceptions of parliamentary democracy. Writing in the 19th century, prominent British journalist, economist, and essayist Walter Bagehot distinguished between the “dignified” or ceremonial power of the monarchy and the “efficient” or real governing power of the prime minister and cabinet. Lagassé, however, argues that in Canada, the Crown exercises real “efficient” power—challenging, if not overturning, Bagehot’s distinction.
Drawing on David E. Smith’s , Lagassé claims that understanding the Crown is essential to understanding Canada’s political system. But the title of Smith’s book itself points to the problem: the Crown’s power is largely invisible. How can something hidden be central to civic education? Lagassé’s claim is tenuous, especially given how difficult it is to grasp a system where authority often operates 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 democratic oversight. Similarly, appointing someone who had not been elected to the House of Commons raised concerns about the Crown’s role in determining who governs, without direct input from voters through the normal democratic process.
The Crown’s authority also allows actions to be taken 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. Though officially justified as urgent and in the public interest, critics saw it as partisan manoeuvring designed to benefit political allies.
This raises a serious concern: the more we understand the Crown, the more we see how executive power can overshadow the legislative process and public oversight. While Lagassé maintains that understanding the Crown is key to understanding our democracy, the hidden nature of that power complicates two essential democratic principles—transparency and accountability. When power operates behind closed doors, it becomes harder for Canadians to hold their government to account.
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 exercised. When citizens don’t fully understand how authority functions behind the scenes—particularly through Crown powers that bypass Parliament—accountability suffers. Decisions about spending, appointments, and the operation of Parliament should be made transparently and under public scrutiny. If these processes remain obscured, trust in the political system erodes. (Of course, some decisions—particularly those related to national security—do require discretion.)
When executive powers remain unseen, the political system becomes more vulnerable to manipulation. Taxpayers’ money may be redirected toward partisan goals rather than the public good. This lack of oversight creates fertile ground for patronage, favouritism, and ultimately, a government that serves insiders rather than the public. Canadians deserve a political system that is open, transparent, and accountable, not one where critical decisions are made in the shadows.
While King Charles opened the new session of Parliament, he does not govern Canada. Real governance lies with the prime minister and cabinet, who operate “in close consultation with senior public servants.” The abstract language of an “invisible Crown” distracts Canadians from the reality that they are governed by real, flesh-and-blood human beings. And like their predecessors, these individuals may act not in the public interest but in their own.
This brings to mind 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 under Edward Millward, a leader in the Welsh nationalist movement. 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 might have developed a more grounded political judgment, less shaped by the narrow perspective of the Laurentian elite and more attuned to the broader public interest.
Instead, parochial interests render the “invisible Crown” an inadequate lens through which to critically examine governance. Rather than focusing on abstract symbolism, Canadians might be better served by examining the real, human actors whose decisions shape our political future.
John von Heyking is a professor of political science at the University of Lethbridge.
©
The commentaries offered on 麻豆传媒AV.ca are intended to provide thought-provoking material for our readers. The opinions expressed are those of the authors. Contributors' articles or letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any 麻豆传媒AV.ca staff.
