Why do we have a Governor General?

[M.Dancer]

The Preceding non sequiter was brought to you by Braun, the world leader in small appliances...

[Ontario Loyalist]

What's the problem with the GG? She hasn`t said no to Harper has she? Wouldn`t the Cons look really stupid if she told Harper no and that he should go back to Parliament until a non-Confidence vote is brought forward. The Cons are putting signs up all over this area.

That's exactly right. Her role necessitates that she advise Harper to work with the mandate that Canadian voters gave him in 2006 and to respect his own fixed date election law.

[capricorn]

Her role necessitates that she advise Harper to work with the mandate that Canadian voters gave him in 2006 and to respect his own fixed date election law.

Do you have a reference for that?

[Canadian Blue]

We should get rid of the Monarchy altogether, it's an outdated institution which isn't in I think the best traditions of the west.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.

That's exactly right. Her role necessitates that she advise Harper to work with the mandate that Canadian voters gave him in 2006 and to respect his own fixed date election law.

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

[Smallc]

That's exactly right. Her role necessitates that she advise Harper to work with the mandate that Canadian voters gave him in 2006 and to respect his own fixed date election law.

Actually, unfortunately, I have recently read the law, and it seems that the PM can decide to call an election if he believes he can't govern for pretty much any reason, not just because of a no confidence vote. The law was stupid in the first place, now we find out its really good for nothing. That, and Harper broke his word, having said that there would not be an election until October 2009.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Smallc

[Ontario Loyalist]

We should get rid of the Monarchy altogether, it's an outdated institution which isn't in I think the best traditions of the west.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.

So when did the concept of a Republic come about? It has a long and sordid history, too, and in many ways one can argue that it is "outdated".

Do we really want to be like the United States, Weimar Germany, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Georgia to name but a few...?

[Smallc]

So when did the concept of a Republic come about? It has a long and sordid history, too, and in many ways one can argue that it is "outdated".

Do we really want to be like the United States, Weimar Germany, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Georgia to name but a few...?

I don't understand why some on the far right and left think that there is something fundamentally wrong with our system of government. The British Westminster system has been very successful in many countries. I see nothing wrong with it or the monarchy.

[cybercoma]

Or maybe you could just move to the States and save us the trouble of doing that.

His/her point at first glance may seem silly, however, we depend on the United States as our #1 trading partner and we also rely on them heavily for their military protection. It may be a stretch, but I don't think it's a very long one.

Edited September 6, 2008 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Don't forget, we have a national anthem, but we also have a Royal Anthem: God Save the Queen.

[Canadian Blue]

So when did the concept of a Republic come about? It has a long and sordid history, too, and in many ways one can argue that it is "outdated".

It has a long history, however I am much more in league with Thomas Paine than Edmund Burke.

Do we really want to be like the United States, Weimar Germany, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Georgia to name but a few...?

I don't mind the idea of being more like Ireland, France, and the United States. I prefer it over the idea of hereditary rule, even if the monarch is only a figurehead.

[Ontario Loyalist]

I don't understand why some on the far right and left think that there is something fundamentally wrong with our system of government. The British Westminster system has been very successful in many countries. I see nothing wrong with it or the monarchy.

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.

[Ontario Loyalist]

I don't mind the idea of being more like Ireland, France, and the United States. I prefer it over the idea of hereditary rule, even if the monarch is only a figurehead.

France is failing in its own right. Whether it's the riots or its attempts to restore its Empire, France is hardly a beacon of democracy.

Ireland? If that's the best you can do...

[Canadian Blue]

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.

I highly doubt that if Canada was to rid itself of the monarchy, we would become a fascist or communist country.

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.

Hardly, I'm sure you'll find many past and currently serving members of the military who are Republican, I'd put myself in the latter category.

France is failing in its own right. Whether it's the riots or its attempts to restore its Empire, France is hardly a beacon of democracy.

France is failing due to it's nanny state, and is beginning to improve with the election of Sarkozy. As for restoring it's empire, I really have no clue what you're talking about.

Ireland? If that's the best you can do...

Ireland is actually one of the most vibrant economies in Europe at the moment. But to be honest I'd prefer the Swiss style of government. So, we should then become more like the Swiss.

[Smallc]

Ireland is actually one of the most vibrant economies in Europe at the moment. But to be honest I'd prefer the Swiss style of government. So, we should then become more like the Swiss.

Or alternatively, we could be proud of our system. We could work within that system to make improvements if problems are found. Canada is an extremely successful country by most measures. There aren't nearly so many problems as many like to make out.

[Rue]

The Governor-General like many other things in our legal system is a symbol. She has no real power. Its a symbol. Now you want to call it stupid, well to me that is no different then saying the Maple Leaf is a dumb symbol or the beaver is a dumb symbol. There are historic origins for these symbols. If you don't like them you can vote to change them.

To me in a parliamentary democracy where the head of state is symbolic unlike the President of the United States you have a choice. You can have a President like in many countries, i.e., Israel, Italy, where its just a symbolic office no different thent he Governor General, or you can call it like we do the Governor General. Either way its just a symbolic office.

Me I appreciate history and why our symbol for head of state is the Governor General. I think its a moot Getting your colon tied up in a knot about it is ridiculous.

Its just a friggin symbol. What ever symbol we use some of you are bound to complain. That is what Canadians do complain.

I think its great we have a national symbol that gets confused with a woman's private parts. Also what other country in the world has the confidence to depict themselves as a fat rodent.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Rue

[HisSelf]

The GG is an envoy who does what the PM dictates. I think there is a purpose there, but the question is whether that purpose could not be better served by the diplomatic community.

The GG is a pretty expensive piece of kit. Has anybody ever seen Rideau Hall? Hoo boy. Now that's expensive real estate.

I do not believe that the GG serves any really useful purpose. The GG is an anachronism. But then so is the Srgeant at Arms and a whole lot of other gew-gaw vestiges left from the days when we were a colony.

[fellowtraveller]

don't understand why some on the far right and left think that there is something fundamentally wrong with our system of government. The British Westminster system has been very successful in many countries. I see nothing wrong with it or the monarchy.

It has also been seriously modified to make it work better, Australia being an example.

Here is what really dfoes not work: the Prime Minsisters Office(in a majority govt) rules the land. Whatever the PM wants in terms of legislation - he or she gets. The Opposition has no meaningful role. There are few checks and balances to the power of the PMO. The Commons is emasculated, the Senate never had a pair.

And the GG is of course utterly irrelevant.

And that is for starters. There is enormous room for imnprovemnent, but we now have a Constitution that effectively hamstrings any substantive change.

Thanks Pierre!

[Smallc]

It has also been seriously modified to make it work better, Australia being an example.

Here is what really dfoes not work: the Prime Minsisters Office(in a majority govt) rules the land. Whatever the PM wants in terms of legislation - he or she gets. The Opposition has no meaningful role. There are few checks and balances to the power of the PMO. The Commons is emasculated, the Senate never had a pair.

And the GG is of course utterly irrelevant.

And that is for starters. There is enormous room for imnprovemnent, but we now have a Constitution that effectively hamstrings any substantive change.

Thanks Pierre!

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

[Ontario Loyalist]

I highly doubt that if Canada was to rid itself of the monarchy, we would become a fascist or communist country.

Well, Steve's becoming quite the dictator, that's for sure.

Hardly, I'm sure you'll find many past and currently serving members of the military who are Republican, I'd put myself in the latter category.

Not surprisingly you don't know your history...

France is failing due to it's nanny state, and is beginning to improve with the election of Sarkozy. As for restoring it's empire, I really have no clue what you're talking about.

France is trying to meddle in Africa again.

Ireland is actually one of the most vibrant economies in Europe at the moment. But to be honest I'd prefer the Swiss style of government. So, we should then become more like the Swiss.

Geez, I was watching the Irish news show on PBS the other day and Ireland is losing jobs in a manner you'd think it was Ontario, extensive flooding, poor crops because of excessive rain due to global warming (according to the minister of environment). Do you even know what's going on in Ireland, or did you just randomly pick it?

[Ontario Loyalist]

Or alternatively, we could be proud of our system. We could work within that system to make improvements if problems are found. Canada is an extremely successful country by most measures. There aren't nearly so many problems as many like to make out.

Our system is fine except for the lack of PR, but the only real problem is Harper and his gang trying to make it look like Parlaiment is "dysfunctional" through their own disruptive tactics. Canadians are being bamboozled big time, and when the time finally comes and the histories of this administration is written boy is it ever going to make for interesting reading. If Newman is still around, I'm sure he'll entitle his book: Another Renegade in Power.

[capricorn]

Let's not forget that if we remove the GG from our system of Government, we would also have to remove the Lieutenant Governor-General from each province. I doubt there would be unanimous consent to move in that direction.

I would not want a change in our present system. Throughout our history, we have adopted national symbols and traditions that, if removed, would excise a large part of our country' identity. As is, we have difficulty identifying our own culture. How would we define ourselves if we abandon that which demonstrates where we have been on the road to what we are today?

[cybercoma]

The Governor-General like many other things in our legal system is a symbol. She has no real power. Its a symbol. Now you want to call it stupid, well to me that is no different then saying the Maple Leaf is a dumb symbol or the beaver is a dumb symbol. There are historic origins for these symbols. If you don't like them you can vote to change them.

To me in a parliamentary democracy where the head of state is symbolic unlike the President of the United States you have a choice. You can have a President like in many countries, i.e., Israel, Italy, where its just a symbolic office no different thent he Governor General, or you can call it like we do the Governor General. Either way its just a symbolic office.

Me I appreciate history and why our symbol for head of state is the Governor General. I think its a moot Getting your colon tied up in a knot about it is ridiculous.

Its just a friggin symbol. What ever symbol we use some of you are bound to complain. That is what Canadians do complain.

I think its great we have a national symbol that gets confused with a woman's private parts. Also what other country in the world has the confidence to depict themselves as a fat rodent.

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.

Edited September 7, 2008 by cybercoma

[Canadian Blue]

Well, Steve's becoming quite the dictator, that's for sure.

But then again in your simple minded world any political leader that disagrees with you is a dictator.

Not surprisingly you don't know your history...

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

France is trying to meddle in Africa again.

Link....

Geez, I was watching the Irish news show on PBS the other day and Ireland is losing jobs in a manner you'd think it was Ontario, extensive flooding, poor crops because of excessive rain due to global warming (according to the minister of environment).

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.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...y_id=E1_PNRGVPG

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.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[whowhere]

The Governor-General like many other things in our legal system is a symbol. She has no real power. Its a symbol. Now you want to call it stupid,

Yes, I want to call you stupid. 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.

well to me that is no different then saying the Maple Leaf is a dumb symbol or the beaver is a dumb symbol. There are historic origins for these symbols. If you don't like them you can vote to change them.

The idea Canada stems from democracy amplifies your idiocy. The people of Canada have never spoken for Canada. The 1982 constitution is an attestment to this fact. Was there a Canada wide referendum to the people to agree to this constitution? NO!! 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.

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

To me in a parliamentary democracy where the head of state is symbolic unlike the President of the United States you have a choice. You can have a President like in many countries, i.e., Israel, Italy, where its just a symbolic office no different thent he Governor General, or you can call it like we do the Governor General. Either way its just a symbolic office.

Did the United States magically break away from being a British colony? It took and act of war and the international support of France and Spain. Who would support Canada's move to break away from the monarchy? The voice of post 1982 economic migrants?

Me I appreciate history and why our symbol for head of state is the Governor General. I think its a moot Getting your colon tied up in a knot about it is ridiculous.

Its just a friggin symbol. What ever symbol we use some of you are bound to complain. That is what Canadians do complain.

I think its great we have a national symbol that gets confused with a woman's private parts. Also what other country in the world has the confidence to depict themselves as a fat rodent.

The fact is, the Queen is not a symbol she is the sovereign of Canada. The intent and spirit of the 1982 Constitution has been breached by the conservative and liberal party. The point of the constitution was to unite Canada. In this unity Canada's Constitution could have been amended by the people to reflect advancements to this unity. 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.

The conservatives are pandering to employers. Employers are able to claim they can't find the skills they are looking for from Canadian jobseekers and are able to recruit abroad. Once these new recruits are here they are given the red carpet treatment to Citizenship by the conservatives.

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

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

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.

[cybercoma]

If the queen was inclined she could veto/quash every law and action put forward by the parliament and legislatures.

Did the United States magically break away from being a British colony? It took and act of war and the international support of France and Spain. Who would support Canada's move to break away from the monarchy?

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.