Why do we have a Governor General?

[PoliticalCitizen]

Are you qualified to write a constitution?

Just as much as you are.

The Queen is the personification of the Canadian state. The state cannot be stateless. The personification of a state cannot be foreign to it.

Nonsense.

[PoliticalCitizen]

The constitution is for the people.. who do you think benefits from all those rights and freedoms we get? Us or the queen?

Then why is she involved? It's ridiculous...

[Hcheh]

She is a degraded version of a master.

Our PM should be the head of state, not some outside figure.

A person born into a "royal" family should be checking stuff like their wardrobe, not the affairs of another country.

The English royalties should consider themselves very lucky - their ancestor heads weren't chopped off as their French cousins

How is she our "master"? You don't even have to bow down to her if you didn't want to bow.. If the PM becomes head of state, how is he less "master" than the queen is? Every country has a head of state.

Look, the PM takes care of Canada. The fact that he is not head of state makes the prime minister more leveled with the people than a president would.

[Hcheh]

Then why is she involved? It's ridiculous...

She is involved with our country so when some jackass comes around and tries to do something "unconstitutional" or something of major harm to the country - the queen can veto his/her decisions.

For example, what if Bush was the prime minister, and he wanted to start a war with Iraq against the wishes of the UN. The queen can veto his decisions. However, he is the president, no one has higher authority - who is to stop him?

Edited October 8, 2008 by Hcheh

[g_bambino]

Just like the people of Afghanistan.

Well, you could go live in Afghanistan, then. I'd rather than that you bring the current Afghani way of life here.

[g_bambino]

Just as much as you are.

So, then, you are not. I can guarantee you that 99% of our 30,000,000+ population isn't either. So, you can forget a constitution written by the people.

Nonsense.

Prove it.

Edited October 8, 2008 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Our PM should be the head of state, not some outside figure.

Now the PM is foreign too?

[Hcheh]

So, the, you are not. I can guarantee you that 99% of our 30,000,000+ population isn't either. So, you can forget a constitution written by the people.

Prove it.

I don't see why anyone is saying that the constitutional articles were not written by the people.. They were written by PM's, people in parliament.. etc. Are those not Canadian people? You think the American constitution was written by random people off the street?

Edited October 8, 2008 by Hcheh

[cybercoma]

For example, what if Bush was the prime minister, and he wanted to start a war with Iraq against the wishes of the UN. The queen can veto his decisions. However, he is the president, no one has higher authority - who is to stop him?

Not a good example. The legislative branch (parliament) of our government is dominated by the executive branch (cabinet). Decision-making, policy and legislation is more or less controlled by the cabinet. Within the executive branch, the Prime Minister holds all of the strings. He or she is responsible for appointing ministers and can remove some of them. Regardless, the PM can circumvent the cabinet entirely. Also, the PM controls the agenda for cabinet meetings and the PM has the PMO and PCO (whose secretary he also appoints) at his disposal.

Individual MPs rarely get free-votes; in fact, often times many pieces of legislation are made into confidence votes, so MPs don't get the bright idea of voting against the party. The other limitation facing the MPs in checking the PMs power is that they do not choose the party leader. The leader of the party is responsible only to party members and not directly to the MPs (even though they are party members, the rest of the party vastly outnumbers them).

So, who stands in the way of the Prime Minister of Canada? Well, there's the senate, which as it stands is largely ineffectual and not very representative of the people... and oh yeah, it's appointed by the PM. People could go the "rights" route and use the judicial branch to their advantage. This has worked somewhat in recent years, but keep in mind, the PM also appoints the Supreme Court Justices.

I'm not going to get into details about all the differences of the Presidential system in the US, other than to say that the legislative branch (congress), the executive branch and the judicial branch act more independently than in Canada. There hasn't been this fusion of the executive and legislative branches like there has been in Canada, primarily under Trudeau. Congress in the United States can veto a bill put forward by the President. Their elections are held separately, so the executive branch is entirely separated from congress in the vote as well. It's also more likely for a supreme court that is not appointed entirely by the president, it has to be given consent by the Senate as well.

I'd say the Canadian Prime Minister has more power within our government than the President of the United States has within the US government, so that's not really a good example.

Edited October 8, 2008 by cybercoma

[Hcheh]

Not a good example. The legislative branch (parliament) of our government is dominated by the executive branch (cabinet). Decision-making, policy and legislation is more or less controlled by the cabinet. Within the executive branch, the Prime Minister holds all of the strings. He or she is responsible for appointing ministers and can remove some of them. Regardless, the PM can circumvent the cabinet entirely. Also, the PM controls the agenda for cabinet meetings and the PM has the PMO and PCO (whose secretary he also appoints) at his disposal.

Individual MPs rarely get free-votes; in fact, often times many pieces of legislation are made into confidence votes, so MPs don't get the bright idea of voting against the party. The other limitation facing the MPs in checking the PMs power is that they do not choose the party leader. The leader of the party is responsible only to party members and not directly to the MPs (even though they are party members, the rest of the party vastly outnumbers them).

So, who stands in the way of the Prime Minister of Canada? Well, there's the senate, which as it stands is largely ineffectual and not very representative of the people... and oh yeah, it's appointed by the PM. People could go the "rights" route and use the judicial branch to their advantage. This has worked somewhat in recent years, but keep in mind, the PM also appoints the Supreme Court Justices.

I'm not going to get into details about all the differences of the Presidential system in the US, other than to say that the legislative branch (congress), the executive branch and the judicial branch act more independently than in Canada. There hasn't been this fusion of the executive and legislative branches like there has been in Canada, primarily under Trudeau. Congress in the United States can veto a bill put forward by the President. Their elections are held separately, so the executive branch is entirely separated from congress in the vote as well. It's also more likely for a supreme court that is not appointed entirely by the president, it has to be given consent by the Senate as well.

I'd say the Canadian Prime Minister has more power within our government than the President of the United States has within the US government, so that's not really a good example.

It may not have been the best example.. Nonetheless, the crown has reserve veto powers to use when things are dire. That is the point

[cybercoma]

It may not have been the best example.. Nonetheless, the crown has reserve veto powers to use when things are dire. That is the point

Not exactly, the crown can only make decisions at the request of the PM. IOW, her power is useless because she just reinforces his role.

[M.Dancer]

Not exactly, the crown can only make decisions at the request of the PM. IOW, her power is useless because she just reinforces his role.

Ummmm...no.

In the case of another minority she has the perogative to ask the opposition to work and form a coalition. The opposition may not be able to...but she does have that power.

[cybercoma]

Ummmm...no.

In the case of another minority she has the perogative to ask the opposition to work and form a coalition. The opposition may not be able to...but she does have that power.

In that case there would be no Prime Minister, regardless the only precedent for anything remotely similar to that was in 1926 when Lord Byng, instead of dissolving parliament, asked the opposition to form the government. A week later, the government lost a confidence motion, so Byng had no choice but to dissolve parliament.

IOW, even if the Governor General does exercise something along those lines, he or she would have to ensure that the government they put into place had the majority of seats, otherwise, the rest of parliament can just bring down the government in a confidence motion. Therefore, the GG has no effectual power.

Edited October 8, 2008 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

Not exactly, the crown can only make decisions at the request of the PM. IOW, her power is useless because she just reinforces his role.

Not exactly. The Crown normally makes decisions at the request of the PM. But, the sovereign, and thus her viceroy, retains the full right to dismiss that ministerial advice. As it was said: "It is important to note that the Royal Prerogative belongs to the Crown, and not to any of the ministers, though it may sometimes appear that way."<1> As doing so would upset the system of constitutional monarchy and responsible government, though, it's only done when absolutely necessary. That it hasn't been done for a long time, or if it has and that there hasn't been any constitutional crisis, shows that the system is working quite well.

Edited October 8, 2008 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

Since the Constitution it has never been done. I may be entirely wrong, but is it not in the constitution that the GG can only make decisions at the request of the PM?

I really wish I could remember how it was explained to me one time, but somehow the GG doesn't actually have the veto power that he or she theoretically should. It was explained that the position has become entirely ceremonial and I'm trying to remember how, but I can't.

Edited October 8, 2008 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

is it not in the constitution that the GG can only make decisions at the request of the PM?

No. The PM isn't mentioned in the constitution, save for once in the Canada Act, in regards to calling a constitutional conference on a certain date.

I really wish I could remember how it was explained to me one time, but somehow the GG doesn't actually have the veto power that he or she theoretically should. It was explained that the position has become entirely ceremonial and I'm trying to remember how, but I can't.

That's said frequently, but it isn't true. Everyone just thinks the position is ceremonial because the powers it comes with have so rarely been exercised by it alone.

Edited October 8, 2008 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

I don't know then. Bills put before the GG don't have to be signed, but there's something preventing the GG from doing that, as far as I've been told. What that is, I don't know.

[Smallc]

Since the Constitution it has never been done. I may be entirely wrong, but is it not in the constitution that the GG can only make decisions at the request of the PM?

The position of Prime Minister is not even mentioned in the constitution, so no.

[g_bambino]

I don't know then. Bills put before the GG don't have to be signed, but there's something preventing the GG from doing that, as far as I've been told. What that is, I don't know.

Royal Assent can be denied to a bill. Nothing prevents the GG or Queen from doing that except the maintenance of the stability of government; denying assent might be seen as a political move by the viceroy, who must remain politically impartial. Thus, it would only be done if the bill itself contained some threat to the system, and it has been done a number of times by lieutenant-governors in the provinces.

[jbg]

On teaching history in schools.. I believe that they offer more American history and "world" history than Canadian history. What a shame!

I am a Yank who knows little about Canada, yet somehow I wound up teaching two Peterborough, ON schoolteachers what the Plains of Abraham were and who Montcalm and Wolfe were. If the teachers don't know Canadian history how can they teach it? Edited October 8, 2008 by jbg

[Smallc]

I am a Ynak who knows little about Canada, yet somehow I wound up teaching two Peterborough, ON schoolteachers what the Plains of Abraham were and who Montcalm and Wolfe were. If the teachers don't know Canadian history how can they teach it?

I learned about that in school. In Manitoba at least, they teach Canadian History.

[jbg]

Interesyting topic. Did anyone hit on the fact that the G-G is a critical part of our democratic checks and balances? Her powers are intended to protect us from elected politicians run amok. In fact, that's why she is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, to protect us from being attacked by our own governments.

Just ask Gough Whitlam (link) about that. Excerpt below:

On Tuesday November 11th, 1975, the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Mr Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister and appointed Mr Malcolm Fraser as a caretaker Prime Minister.

The dismissal was the most dramatic event in the history of the Australian federation. For the first time, an unelected vice-regal representative had removed from office a government which commanded a majority in the House of Representatives.

A Double Dissolution election was held on December 13th, 1975, at which the Whitlam Government was soundly defeated.

The dismissal of the Whitlam Labor Government was the culmination of a series of dramatic events which began in October, 1975 with the refusal by the Senate to pass the government's budget bills.

[Hcheh]

I am a Yank who knows little about Canada, yet somehow I wound up teaching two Peterborough, ON schoolteachers what the Plains of Abraham were and who Montcalm and Wolfe were. If the teachers don't know Canadian history how can they teach it?

I believe that you get "social studies/geography" in grade 9, in grade 10 you get Canadian history, and then in grade 11 and 12, you get American and World history courses.

Gr.11 American and World history courses both have gr.12 follow-ups, while Canadian history doesn't have a follow up. I'm not saying the teachers don't know it, I am saying there is a lack of courses offered.

[jbg]

If the lg is to protect the people from government then why do they hold vested interest in corperations?

example i will give is louis hole, holes greenhouse, Lockerbie and hole one of the largest corperate entity's in the oilsands. To go farther with this I will tell you Lockerbie and hole stole money's from unions by taking MERF funds to start up spinnoff non union company's. Sorry I have a hard time understanding the lg's position in protecting the people.

Sound to me like a logical nonsequitor....

I'm not intelligent enough to understand his post. Maybe one of you could explain it.

[jbg]

I believe that you get "social studies/geography" in grade 9, in grade 10 you get Canadian history, and then in grade 11 and 12, you get American and World history courses.

Gr.11 American and World history courses both have gr.12 follow-ups, while Canadian history doesn't have a follow up. I'm not saying the teachers don't know it, I am saying there is a lack of courses offered.

The point is somehow I knew something about it even though I:

1. Am not Canadian; and
   
2. Know little or nothing about Canada.
   

I assumed it must be common knowledge.