Why do we have a Governor General?

[charter.rights]

If Her Majesty decided to veto or quash any law that our government had passed, it would be considered an attack on democracy and I'm certain Canada would have much international support in removing her at that time. For now the Queen benignly serves as a figurehead and a reminder of our history.

You missed a salient point. As the sovereign, head of state and Commander in Chief the Queen has the Armed forces, the justice system and the government at here disposal. If there was a move to break away, we would be left with nothing. She controls all the shots.

You did notice that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not a constitution of the people? It was given to us (signed by) the Queen and requires her permission to amend or disregard. Its sole purpose is to define the rights and freedoms we have under Her rule. It does not give us the authority to go it alone.

[cybercoma]

I still stand by my point that we'd have international support to seperate from the monarchy if the Queen crippled our government in such a manner. In theory, we may not be able to pass federal laws to support action because the Queen would not approve such a move, but her refusal would clearly be an attack on democracy and would only serve to garner support for Canada. This is all presuming our government has chosen to illegally act independent of the monarchy to make it possible to secede from it.

[Smallc]

I still stand by my point that we'd have international support to seperate from the monarchy if the Queen crippled our government in such a manner. In theory, we may not be able to pass federal laws to support action because the Queen would not approve such a move, but her refusal would clearly be an attack on democracy and would only serve to garner support for Canada. This is all presuming our government has chosen to illegally act independent of the monarchy to make it possible to secede from it.

For example though, if we had a severely corrupt government who was not serving the will of the people after being elected, the GG or Queen could step in the protect democracy and the Crown. The Crown is simply another check an balance in our system as well as a part of our proud tradition.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Smallc

[whowhere]

If Her Majesty decided to veto or quash any law that our government had passed, it would be considered an attack on democracy and I'm certain Canada would have much international support in removing her at that time. For now the Queen benignly serves as a figurehead and a reminder of our history.

Who would this international support be from? who the US? who else, the list would be quite short. In case haven't you haven't noticed Canada is a lone wolf. Most of the countries of Europe have subordinated themselves to the European Union and its constitution. The Euro Block is 450 million people strong. The US is about 300 million. Canada thirty five million. Of this 35 million, 30 - 40 % are post 1982 economic migrants who have no knowledge or interest in Canada beyond their paycheque.

Need I remind you these economic migrants swore allegiance to the Queen. So who exactly would protest the Queen's move to quash any law and acts of the political parties who are not acting in the interest of Canada or pre-1982 Canadians? If it is determined by the Queen's office these economic migrants are the source of the move to oust her from Canada it would be within here right to expel these migrants as they are not honoring their citizenship oath!!!

The Queen is not a figurehead, she is the sovereign of Canada. The 1982 Constitution was suppose to be the gift of democracy to Canada. The Conservative and Liberals have done what they could to screw Canadians out of their democracy. The way I see it, pre-1982 Canadians became shareholders in Canada. Without shareholder approval (a national referendum) the Conservative and the Liberals have watered down the position of Canada's shareholders. At 1982 Canada's population was about 20 million. At 2008 it is 34 million, mostly through economic migration. In order to bolster and balance out Canada's shareholder position would require pre-1982 Canadians having proportional voting rights. A pre-1982 Canadian would have 20/34 = 1.4 votes to 0.6 votes for post 1982 economic migrants votes. To make this so would require an appeal to the queen.

For the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the government bureaucrats to have spit on the heritage and history of Canada by driving Canada into economic and cultural immolation for their own gain is reprehensible.

If anyone knows the history of migrants to Canada would know these migrants came from Britain, the commonwealth countries, and other British colonies. The majority of Canada's Pre-1982 demographic lines are English and French ancestory. However, during the world wars Canada became a destination for those of Europe fleeing from this. Canada's pre-1982 demographic lines also includes European war migrants. As it is pre-1982 Canadians don't have the luxury of picking up and returning to France or Britain. If so where's the Euro-passports? Who would not want to be reunited with their ancestors?

Britain and France have subordinated themselves to the European Union. It is doubtful pre-1982 Canadians would have a problem subordinating themselves to the European Union if it meant the Freedom and Access to France, Britain, Italy, and any other European Country.

You can delude yourself into thinking your voice matters in Canada and the Queen is a figurehead but the facts and the actions of the Conservatives and Liberals speaks for themselves. Canada is being prostituted to the world for their own gain.

[Argus]

I may be missing a whole layer of political knowledge here, but please help me understand why do we have a Governor General who also appears to be "Commander-in-Chief of Canada"?

My understanding was Canada is no longer a colony and even less - a Monarchy.

Why do we spend tax money on maintaining political structure dedicated to a foreign country's Monarch?

And why is the Monarch's image on our money?

Now I'm no history expert but I'm pretty sure USA (a former British colony) has none of that...

Should Canada step above its colonial past and promote its own values as a multinational country?

I hope I'm not offending anybody's feelings but some things just strike me as illogical...

It's called history. You probably don't know much, not being Canadian.

[cybercoma]

Of this 35 million, 30 - 40 % are post 1982 economic migrants who have no knowledge or interest in Canada beyond their paycheque.

I apologize, I didn't realize this conversation was yet another attack on immigration. Edited September 7, 2008 by cybercoma

[Rue]

What other national symbol costs taxpayers at least $117,950.00/year plus expenses?

I'm not suggesting we get rid of the position, but to write her off as nothing more than a symbol could be considered oversimplifying.

The GG was always intended to be a symbol of the head of state. Symbolic heads of state what ever form they are chosen to manifest themselves in cost money. The point is you call it a President, a GG, a grand poopbah whatever, its still a symbol and that is all it is a sumbol and its going to cost what-ever form it takes and quite frankly compared to other symbolic head of states its actually gives us good value for the money.

The ceremonies and protocols of this symbol are supposed to provide continuity and consistency whole the government of the day changes. Its ceremonial only. So like I said if you feel you want to change the symbols of our nation-be my guest. But I like the word beaver.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Rue

[Rue]

You missed a salient point. As the sovereign, head of state and Commander in Chief the Queen has the Armed forces, the justice system and the government at here disposal. If there was a move to break away, we would be left with nothing. She controls all the shots.

You did notice that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not a constitution of the people? It was given to us (signed by) the Queen and requires her permission to amend or disregard. Its sole purpose is to define the rights and freedoms we have under Her rule. It does not give us the authority to go it alone.

Of course not. The title of head of state, Commander in Chief, etc., etc., has no power. It is purely ceremonial and symbolic and no she can not act as a military dictator and initiate anything politically. The GG controls nothing. The Prime Minister, the PM's cabinet, and the politicians elected in Parliament have the actual political power. In theory the judicial system interprets how far that power can go before it becomes illegal (unconstitutional) so the judiciary is supposed to check and balance it. The GG has no power at all. You might need to sit down with Prof. Hogg and have him explain to you the difference between ceremonial and real power.

Look GG Michelle is cute but no she can't order anyone to do anything, except of course her husband to put the toilet seat down.

[fellowtraveller]

And there is another example of the grass always being greener on the other side. It's not even worth responding to.

Too many inconvenient facts for you?

[whowhere]

The GG was always intended to be a symbol of the head of state. Symbolic heads of state what ever form they are chosen to manifest themselves in cost money. The point is you call it a President, a GG, a grand poopbah whatever, its still a symbol and that is all it is a sumbol and its going to cost what-ever form it takes and quite frankly compared to other symbolic head of states its actually gives us good value for the money.

The ceremonies and protocols of this symbol are supposed to provide continuity and consistency whole the government of the day changes. Its ceremonial only. So like I said if you feel you want to change the symbols of our nation-be my guest. But I like the word beaver.

Name one country in history that became a force/democracy onto itself without a fight/war/conflict. 000000000000!! If Canada wants to break free of the Monarch, the Statue of Westminister is quite clear. Canada requires the Parlimentary approval of Britain, Austrialia, New Zealand, and two other countries I can't think of. Funny thing is, I don't recall Canada ever satisfying the requirements of this law. The only way Canada could break free of the monarch is 1/ to satisfy the Statue of Westminister or 2/ create a new constitution from scratch and put it to the people. Either way, would require the support of the United States or Europe for a newly constituted Canada to have international support.

World democracy as you state is actually because of Canada/Quebec. Canada/Quebec is the straw that broke the Camels back which brought about the world democracies you boast about. Canada/Quebec is the reason the United States is an independent Country. To secure an independent united States pre-1759 Canadians fought along side the Americans for 4 years. France & Spain provided the US with arms, money and troop reinforcements which brought about an independent United States. The United States was recognized as an Independent Country in the signing of the treaty of Paris. The United States betrayed France and made a side deal with Britain around the signing of the treaty of paris. In a last attempt to recapture Canada/Quebec the Marquis Lafayette of France spearheaded a final campaign to recapture Canada but the Americans were less than enthusiastic in their support because they already got what they wanted! Independence.

France Support Came at a price. King Louis the XV or XVI tried to recover the cost of this support by taxing the crap out of the people. This led to a revolt and gave rise to Napoleon. You may have heard about him?? Napolean wreaked havoc on Europe for 30 years and brought an end of the ancien regime of Europe and paved the way for the president style republics in Europe as you boast about. Europe was destabalized and struggled for 200 years before becoming a United European Union.

The Europeans paid for Canada with their blood at the hands of Napoleon. Had France not bankrupted itself in its support to regain Canada and Free the United States it is doubtful Europe would have felt the scourge of Napoleon. What gratuity has the United States Shown towards Quebec/Canada? Bupkis!

Your notion that Canada does not have to comply with the statue of Westminister and the Governor General is symbolic is your delusion. It is obvious Canada is being sold out by Canada's politicians and bureaucrats. To put an end to this sell out, the shortest path is Rideu Hall in Canada and Buckingham palace in England. Since 1970 the Queen has defered all disputes with the Commonwealth Countries and former Colonies to the International Court of Justice. Because of this Canada Can be brought before the International Court to account for its conduct since the 1982 constitution.

[Smallc]

Too many inconvenient facts for you?

No, I happen to believe that this is the best country in the world. I see nothing that proves otherwise.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Really, how so. Do you think every single member of the military is a monarchist. I sure as hell ain't.

You should really consider learning the difference between past tense and present tense. Whatever the case, I personally find it somewhat dismaying that members of the military would not have unflinching devotion to our Head-of-State.

Actually no, I'm simply pointing out that not all Republics inevitably turn into communist/fascist dictatorships. As well all economies go through a slump. However Ireland is considered a success story due to their large economic growth.

I never stated this. Again you fabricate. I said that both the far right and left wings have to create their own "monarchs" in the form of dictators that do not have the same checks that have developed in our system. Certainly a republic could become a dictatorship; didn't Plato state that republics tend to degenerate into tyrannies? And are we not seeing that process in the United States?

By the way, the United Kingdom currently has many problems. Perhaps we should get rid of the monarchy just so those problems don't replicate here.

Well, this is the work of the elected government, isn't it? If the monarchy had more power, this would not be the case.

[M.Dancer]

Name one country in history that became a force/democracy onto itself without a fight/war/conflict. 000000000000!!

Wrong.

Iceland. Norway. Slovakia, Czech Republic to name a few...

[PoliticalCitizen]

We should get rid of the Monarchy altogether, it's an outdated institution which isn't in I think the best traditions of the west. We should move over to a Republic, and hopefully once QE2 is gone, perhaps we'll finally move towards that.

Not really, she's a figurehead and that's about it, with no mandate from the Canadian people.

I agree.

A "Constitutional Monarchy" is insulting the freedom of the citizens who don't want to be "subjects" to anyone.

A "Constitutional Monarchy" where the "Monarch" is a token ruler of a different country is twice as insulting - it denigrates both the citizen and their country.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Both the far right and left have produced their own "monarchs"--dictators--and societies where people's rights are fundamentally negated. Our monarchy has eveloved over the centuries into a stable and moderate institution, where as communism and fascism were rapidly forced upon people via revolution, and with devestating consequence.

Changing Canada's form of government is much more than simply taking her picture of our money. It means undoing everything that we've done up until now to create this great country; it means disrespecting the legacy of those soldiers who fought and sacrificed in two World Wars.

OK, why don't we put the pictures of fallen soldiers on the money?

At least they have done something to earn respect... What has the Queen done besides being born?

And the question that bothers me the most: "WHERE IS OUR KING ???"

[jay22]

OK, why don't we put the pictures of fallen soldiers on the money?

At least they have done something to earn respect... What has the Queen done besides being born?

And the question that bothers me the most: "WHERE IS OUR KING ???"

So what you just want to screw all of canadas history.

[guyser]

And the question that bothers me the most: "WHERE IS OUR KING ???"

Relax, probably will be along soon enough.

[Rue]

My response to your comments I have placed in quotation marks Whowhere;

"Yes, I want to call you stupid."

Well how about you start by reading what I wrote. I referred to the on-going debate of questioning whether the symbolic meaning of the GG's office is relevant or not. That was the topic I was responding to not the poster being stupid and the poster is well aware of what I was getting at and knows I am not debating their belief of the lack of meaning of the synmbol, just the practical reality that what-ever symbol it will be, someone will complain. I frankly have designed a Canadian flag base on an aboriginal design of a maple leaf that continues to change shape which I believe would be better then the current boring red Maple Leaf but then it is just that, a personal opinion and no doubt someone may find it as stupid as that dumb missile on the Newfoundland flag which ruins an otherwise nice flag design. Lol. Those are personal opinions. You know the difference between a personal opinion and a fact?

Now this quote I love from you;

"It is quite obvious you are ignorant to history. If the queen was inclined she could veto/quash every law and action put forward by the parliament and legislatures. The Queen's sovereign/authority over Canada is represented through the govenor general and the leftenant governor. Read the British North America Act and the 1982 constitution."

Couple of things. First off if I am ignorant it would be ignorant OF not TO history.

Now I seldom get pissy with people on this forum and I have admitted to Buffy my favourite poster already that I am stupid and ugly too and everyone knows I know that but you know have been a lawyer since 1982 and have a Master's degree in law and have practiced and taught law. How about you?

More to the point you are absolutely and utterly wrong. Neither the Queen nor the Governor General nor a Lieutenant Governor can veto or quash any law whether it be in Britain or Canada.

May I kindly suggest to you that the Queen and these titular states of Parliament only can carry out what they are told by the Prime Minister or Premier of the day. They have no independent power to do anything. You are misunderstanding what you appear to think you have read. You are giving literal meaning to some passages and unfortunately to understand how a law actually is applied you have to do more then that. In this case there are many more laws, doctrines, protocols and unwrittten protocols you will first need to understand to understand why our head of state is a symbol only and the real head of state although not so named is our Prime Minister.

Now you state;

"The idea Canada stems from democracy amplifies your idiocy."

No it just shows you did not read what I wrote nor did you understand what I wrote.

The point you are trying to get across again is misdirected by your attempt to insult me personally and more to the point your attempt to deny that the founding principles and fundamental doctrines and protocols behind the laws of Canada was to promote a constitutional monarchy and a democractic political system through a parliamentary system based on the British model has not been shown by you to be untrue. In fact all you have done is insult me with what appears to be a reference to a subjective opinion of yours you believe is "smarter" than mine.

Here let me try phrase it. The idea of people electing a member of Parliament by popular vote to represent them in the legislature is called a democratic system. You may not think that make sit democratic but that is the popular usage of the concept. The system of having a monarch as the symbolic figurehead is referred to as a constitutional monarchy and in fact why Canada was originally referred to as a Dominion until the Statute of Westminister no longer applied. We were a Dominion as long as the last court of appeal was the Privy Council in Britain. Once we created our own Supreme Court of Canada we changed.

Now as for your comment;

"The people of Canada have never spoken for Canada."

The last time I looked there had been many general elections called in both the provinces and federal government resulting in the popular election of members of the federal and provincial legislative assemblies. If you want to deny that, be my guest but making the above swseping pronouncement can't change that fact.

Now you stated;

"The 1982 constitution is an attestment to this fact. Was there a Canada wide referendum to the people to agree to this constitution? NO!! "

You are going to have to explain the above one to me. You seem to have missed the role of the provincial and federal parliaments in the above matter and who elected both. You also seem to believe to be a democracy the popularly elected government is obliged to hold referendums. You seem to be confusing your own personal political opinions as to what you think a democratic system should feature with what a democratic system like Canada's features. The reason countries like Canada, Britain, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand or other countries similiar to ours don't always hold referendums is because it would make it impractical to run government if every single move had to be voted for.

Referendums of popular votes are a political tool an elected legislative assembly may choose to engage in to bolster an arguement it is representing the popular views of its majority but the givernment of the day has no obligation to do so during its term of office and that is why if it is a majority government it seldom does and if it does its very unusual and usually over an issue that crosses political party lines.

You state;

"However, this constitution did bring forward a voting formula to amend the constitution. Given the influx of economic migrants and the cultural imolation inflicted on Canada since this 1982 constitution by the Conservatives and Liberals will most certainly bring about a challenge and protest as to its legitimacy before the international Court of Justice. Notably, those of Quebec."

Again I have no idea what you are referring to. Quite frankly it is a bit incoherent. You start by making reference to an alleged influx of economic migrants and cultural imolation inflicted on Canada since 1982 which again has no reference so I again must assume is your subjective personal opinion. I have no idea what it is based but it clearly has nothing to do with the legal system I thought you were lecturing me on nor for that matter does it in any way support your contention that Canada is not democratic. It is illogical to suggest a nation can not be democratic because it takes in new citizens as you are arguing.

You then make some reference that someone is challenging the constitution in international court. May I respectfully suggest to you no one has done such a thing and more to the point if they do which is highly unlikely it won't be for the reasons you are stating.

There are in theory some legal arguements the aboriginal community could initiate and end up in international court but the Supreme Court of Canada has already made it clear it will uphold the aboriginal legal rights guaranteed in the constitution which makes going to international court a moot point.

In theory if Quebec tried to seperate that could end up in international court because the federal government on behalf of the aboriginal collective and Anglophones in Quebec would argue both groups have the reight to seperate as well and that is what the Supreme Court of Canada has already hinted could happen.

Now as for Quebec's legal claims that certain federal legal initiatives including the amendment of the constitution without its approval were unconstitutional in case you haven't noticed, even the seperatists of Quebec conceded the point they were legal but we all agree politically it exasperated federal-provincial tensions between Quebec and Ottawa and which is why Mr. Harper made the recent statement Quebec is a nation within another nation.

As for Quebec the very reason the constitution was created as it is was to allow it to co-exist and continue to evolve side by side the Anglo component of Canada and engage in an on-going dialectic process. Canada was designed precisely to avoid the civil war of the U.S. and the rebellion that saw the U.S. come about.

You stated;

"Canada is not the Canada it was once was prior to British Occupation of 1759, nor the immolation post 1982. "

Psst Canada did not exist prior to 1867. You sure you are an expert on Canadian history? Now your reference to the word immolation I continue to find bizarre. I am not sure who you think is killing themselves. Last time I looked no one was lighting themselves on fire.

Now then, you went off on a tangent in regards to the origins of the U.S. You attempt to suggest the rebellion leading to the creation of the United States is the same political and legal situation and context Canada is today with Britain.

Today if Canada wanted to end any vestige of British symbols in its governmental system it has a constitutional framework of ruels it must follow but here is a hint, Britain has zero legal say in it, and no there will be no rebellion or war. Britain does not tax us or have any control over us or our laws try as hard you might to suggest such a thing.

Your continued reference to what appears to be blaming immigrants for something I do not follow. It has no rational or germaine connection to the features of the application of the legal system you claim to be discussing.

You stated;

"The fact is, the Queen is not a symbol she is the sovereign of Canada."

No that is not a fact it is your personal opinion and your personal opinion does not change the law or how it works nor does it change the fact she is both.

You stated;

" The intent and spirit of the 1982 Constitution has been breached by the conservative and liberal party."

That is your subjective personal opinion.

You stated;

"In this unity Canada's Constitution could have been amended by the people to reflect advancements to this unity."

No you are wrong. You can't amend Canada's constitution by a referendum. It is far more complex then that. There are actually many other procedures and processes that would have to be followed and in fact a popular referendum is not even a component required although it might be a good political thing to do.

You again state;

" What has happened in place of was the 1982 constitution was used as a basis to drive Canada into a cultural immolation. Not only has Canada been driven into cultural immolation since 1982 the Conservative are giving out Canadian Citizenship in Mcdonald's happy meals. "

With due respect I found the above statement which again is a subjective opinion of yours difficult to follow. I am not sure how you arrived at the conclusion taking in new citizens means a country is not democratic but such a contention is not logical as it has nothing to do with what constitutes the criteria to qualifty as a democratic state.

You stated;

"The conservatives are pandering to employers."

Again the above is your subjective partisan political opinion.

So is this one;

"The conservatives are giving away Canadian jobs and watering down the voice of Canada."

More to the point your above comment is illogical. If in fact the Conservatives are bringing in more new citizens that means they are bringing in more people to vote and that means increasing the voice of Canada and not taking jobs a way from Canadians, just adding to the manpower source. Seems to me you are suggesting someone who becomes a Canadian citizen is not a Canadian. Quite frankly I am not interested in how you subjectively decide is acceptable to you as a Canadian. I prefer what the law says on that matter, the same law Stephen Harper as much as I hate his haircuts and suits and politics, follows and obeys.

You then ask this question;

"Where's the referendum from the Canadian people to support the watering down of their voices through the conservative's puppetering?"

I suppose it is in the same place as the referendum asking the Canadian people to vote on deporting anyone that does not meet your definition of Canadian.

Oh Canada. Another happy citizen.

Your idea that Canada stems from valueing what you think (through your vote) is a tard fallacy. Like what the Conservatives are doing to Canadian Jobseekers, the people of Canada has never spoken for the acts or decisions made on their behalf.

Because the spirit and intent of the 1982 constitution has been breached by the political parties of Canada. The 1982 constitution is null and void. To make this official would involve the queen's office and a move to bring the matter before the International Court.

You want to rid Canada of the Governor General? There will be a fight. The fight may not be a physical fight but it will certainly be a legal fight.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Rue

[Rue]

For example though, if we had a severely corrupt government who was not serving the will of the people after being elected, the GG or Queen could step in the protect democracy and the Crown. The Crown is simply another check an balance in our system as well as a part of our proud tradition.

No they could not. You are trying to create a power that is not there. The GG or the Queen does not have the power to decide what is in the best interests of the people. Such an opinion must only come from the Prime Minister of the Day telling him what those best interests are.

In theory the GG could force an election but that is as far as they could go. In Canada if an elected politician is corupt the GG or Queen has no legal power. There is an impeachment process and eventually there would be a reference to the Supreme Court which would make a finding that the corupt politician no longer has the legal ability to sit.

Before that would happen the member would have resigned. There is ample precedent for that.

The GG and Queen have no legal role in that with due respect and never have.

Even the vague right to force the call of an election or chose the other elected party has been used only once and technically had the parliament wanted it could have simply called another election. It chose not to.

[Rue]

If Canada wants to break free of the Monarch, the Statue of Westminister is quite clear. Canada requires the Parlimentary approval of Britain, Austrialia, New Zealand, and two other countries I can't think of.

You are absolutely wrong. Dead wrong. But do quote the law that says the above.

[Rue]

I am going to guess and say the reference to Canada needing permission from Britain, Australia and New Zealand to become independent may have come about from someone misreading the following;

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger...ederal/1931.htm

Actually may I suggest to those who are mistaking the scope and extent of the GG's actual power they first start with this web-site and;

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/monar...nadianSymbolism of the Monarchy

It states and I quote;

"As the monarchy holds no real power in Parliament (see above) it cannot “represent the nation” in the political or legal sense of the phrase. The nation’s legislatures, courts, and heads of government perform this political and legal representation. Instead, the monarch’s representation of the nation is social or cultural."

Herte's another one that is not to difficult to follow either;

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/324/Independence.html

I also found this web-site which is the republican arguement, i.e., the argument to do away with the monarchy entirely;

http://www.canadian-republic.ca/history.html

http://www.canadian-republic.ca/faq.html

In case anyone cares, to amend the constitution requires certain procedures be followed including votes held in both the federal and provincial legislatures some requiring the unanimous agreement of all of them, some only an accumulated vote based on certain amounts from each region of Canada.

In fact today's amending formula would make it impossible to pass without the approval of Quebec, Alberta or Ontario.

Holding popular vote referendums may or may not be required. They would probably take place if each legislative assembly did not feel it had moral authority to proceed without one but I would think for example if the Quebec legislative assembly had a majority of members who did not agree with a proposed federall initiated constitutional amendment they would not feel the need to consult the masses through a referendum to get a second opinion unless there was a huge uproar.

[Smallc]

No they could not. You are trying to create a power that is not there. The GG or the Queen does not have the power to decide what is in the best interests of the people. Such an opinion must only come from the Prime Minister of the Day telling him what those best interests are.

In theory the GG could force an election but that is as far as they could go. In Canada if an elected politician is corupt the GG or Queen has no legal power. There is an impeachment process and eventually there would be a reference to the Supreme Court which would make a finding that the corupt politician no longer has the legal ability to sit.

Before that would happen the member would have resigned. There is ample precedent for that.

The GG and Queen have no legal role in that with due respect and never have.

Even the vague right to force the call of an election or chose the other elected party has been used only once and technically had the parliament wanted it could have simply called another election. It chose not to.

This was where I got the idea that they could do such a thing:

The Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 that saw Prime Minister Gough Whitlam dismissed by the nation's normally apolitical Governor General, in response to a prolonged budget deadlock in parliament.

The King-Byng Affair of 1926, where Governor General Viscount Byng of Vimy refused a request by Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King that Parliament be dissolved and new elections called. Instead, Byng dismissed King and appointed Arthur Meighen as Prime Minister.

http://www.google.com/search?q=constitutio...CA260#Australia

Also:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wik...Reserve%20power

Edited September 8, 2008 by Smallc

[whowhere]

When I have a moment I will redress certain posts but all things considered before the rise of so called modern democracy Europe was ruled by divine right. What was that exactly? The kings and queens of Europe were Christian kings and Queens. The people of the day were led to believe the kings and queens of the day were exercising God's will on earth. The vatican/rome was central to this ancien regime. Canada was a christian colony which was lost to a christian Country Britain who broke away from the vatican and had its own spin on Christianity. Nonetheless the Queen is a Christian Queen and she IS the sovereign of Canada.

The Queen used her sovereignty to impose the 1982 constitution on Canada. There was no democratic vote by the people but somehow in 1982 the Queen had authority enough to Act on Canada but in 2008 she does not, absurd. State where in the 1982 constitution or other documents where she relinquished her sovereignty over Canada. She hasn't, so therefore she is still the sovereign of Canada.

Because the Queen supposedly is/was an extension of God on Earth I will sleep fine at nights knowing this is the God you are up against.

Deuternomy 2:31

31: And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land.

32: Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.

33 And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.

34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

35 Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took.

36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river Arnon, and from the city that is by the rive, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the Lord our God delivered all unto us:

Go fuk yourselves with your dementia. The Queen had authority in 1982 to create the constitution. In 2008 the Queen has authority to revoke the 1982 Constitution. Tit for tat.

[guyser]

Go fuk yourselves with your dementia. The Queen had authority in 1982 to create the constitution. In 2008 the Queen has authority to revoke the 1982 Constitution. Tit for tat.

Nah...we will let you bogart it all.

[charter.rights]

Nah...we will let you bogart it all.

"The Crown" is not some fictitious figure head. Lawyers judges and officers swear to uphold the sovereignty of the Crown. Every act of parliament must received "Royal Assent" before it is enacted in law. The government plays a little part in that they administer the people on behalf of the Crown. We are not independent or able to make decisions without the Queen's blessing.