The effect of a Tory appointed Govenor General

[g_bambino]

[T]rue democracy is a terrible idea that almost no country on earth uses. Representative democracy is a much better tried and true system.

We really should not be elevating "popular democracy" to "true democracy". True democracy is a system wherein all people are guaranteed rights and a role in the process of governance, not just the mainstream, as exists in the popular form. As I've said elsewhere, popular democracy is actually self-destructive, as it will, if left uncheked, always succumb to a tyranny of the majority.

[+]

Edited January 9, 2010 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

We really should not be elevating "popular democracy" to "true democracy".

You're correct, my bad.

[fellowtraveller]

Well, that depends on what you mean by "Canada"; if it is as a synonym for "Elizabeth II", then yes, they are requred to give allegiance to it. If not, then no.

[tidy]

It is not at all specific to the Queen:

Allegiance is not, however, given to that royal figure as an individual so much as to the Crown and other institutions and concepts the sovereign represents within both the federal and provincial spheres,[n 2][10][12] including the state, its constitution and traditions,[9] unity, authority,[13] and democracy,[10][12][14] as well as, in the military context, the highest authority in the Canadian Forces.[15][16]

any MP may refuse to take an oath of allegiance, but they are then not permitted to sit in the House, vote or get paid.

Edited January 11, 2010 by fellowtraveller

[g_bambino]

It is not at all specific to the Queen:

Except for where it mentions, well... the Queen. So, then, you must have meant "Canada" as a synonym for Elizabeth II. That's fine.

any MP may refuse to take an oath of allegiance, but they are then not permitted to sit in the House, vote or get paid.

True.

[Topaz]

Except for where it mentions, well... the Queen. So, then, you must have meant "Canada" as a synonym for Elizabeth II. That's fine.

True.

So if that is true,the Bloc only has to obey the rule, to become a MP, they only have Quebec's interest at heart and not Canada's. So if their actions aren't following the vow they took, why are they still there?

[g_bambino]

So if that is true,the Bloc only has to obey the rule, to become a MP, they only have Quebec's interest at heart and not Canada's. So if their actions aren't following the vow they took, why are they still there?

The promise made isn't to keep Canada's best interests at heart, but to recognise the Queen's authority and obey her laws. Within those parameters, MPs can fight for whatever they were elected for. There were separatist MPs in Ottawa in 1867; what applied to them then applies to MPs now.

[fellowtraveller]

The promise made isn't to keep Canada's best interests at heart, but to recognise the Queen's authority and obey her laws. Within those parameters, MPs can fight for whatever they were elected for. There were separatist MPs in Ottawa in 1867; what applied to them then applies to MPs now.

that is not the intent of the oath at all. MPs swear an oath to the Queen and to the Crown. You may have noticed that 'the Crown' is intended in Canadian law at every level to mean the state- federal or provincial.

[Rue]

There is no "re-appointment". The Governor General serves until their commission is revoked by the Queen, whether that's three years, five years, or fifteen years after they were sworn-in.

While you are at it Bam you might also want to explain to this Ashley character the GG is a figurative position in our constitutional system and has no political power or significance politically. He seems to infer there is some mystical power attached to the GG.

Given Ashley's other posts maybe he's worried a Jewish person will be appointed GG.

On a more serious note it is time for a native GG for the obvious reason.

Either that or go with Shania Twain.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Rue

[August1991]

There is no "re-appointment". The Governor General serves until their commission is revoked by the Queen, whether that's three years, five years, or fifteen years after they were sworn-in.

The tradition is a term of five years. If it is renewed, it is also tradition for the PM to state for how long.

So because Preston Manning doesn't fit into your idea of a model GG he isn't fit for the job. So people on the right aren't allowed to be picked to be GG. How progressive of you.

Manning has done far more for this country than you give him credit for, and those who appointed him on a 165 living limit Companion of the order of Canada agree with me.

That's a good point. I think that it's fair to say that all of our recent GGs have been left wing. Ray Hnatyshyn was a centrist.

another analogy: do you think a single Bloc MP speaks sincerely when they pledge allegiance to Canada, as they are required to do?

We still don't know how Jean voted in the 1980 or 1995 referendums. Her husband's views are better known.

Yes. And I'll go further to say that no former prime minister should be made viceroy; other former ministers was bad enough.

If Ed Schreyer can be GG, I don't see why Preston Manning can't be.

-----

Incidentally, we have a poll on this question in another thread.

[Mr.Canada]

He'll reappoint Jean. There's no reason not to. She's shown herself to be non-partisan, independent and an all-around good GG. It'll look good on him if he reappoints her and bad if he doesn't. It's almost 100% certain he'll offer the job again.

So it'll look bad if he doesn't because she's black right? So if he doesn't reaapoint that means he's a racist right?

[ToadBrother]

So it'll look bad if he doesn't because she's black right? So if he doesn't reaapoint that means he's a racist right?

What is exactly you're trying to say here? What does the color of her skin mean? She's done the job well, certainly with more dignity, to my mind, then the last couple of GGs. Certainly Harper has no reasons to complain, she's made no noises of any kind about the last two prorogations, both questionable in their own way.

Or is it that you don't like having a black GG? Are you really sure you want to push this one? I'd recommend disengagement. You've said enough strange things that this road can only make you look worse.

[ToadBrother]

If Ed Schreyer can be GG, I don't see why Preston Manning can't be.

There's no reason Manning couldn't be GG, other than the fact that the last man on Earth to put him in Rideau Hall would be Stephen Harper.

[Topaz]

Has anyone have any guesses who he would pick, guesses for a male, guesses for female. Naturally, he would pick someone that would agree with him, so he could prorogue Parliament yearly. For a male he would pick, Wilson or how about Mulroney!! The female, boy this tough one, he could leave the present GG there, but someone new, how about the woman leader of the senate? He could make Finley leader of the senate. Just don't make Duffy GG!!

[William Ashley]

Has anyone have any guesses who he would pick, guesses for a male, guesses for female. Naturally, he would pick someone that would agree with him, so he could prorogue Parliament yearly. For a male he would pick, Wilson or how about Mulroney!! The female, boy this tough one, he could leave the present GG there, but someone new, how about the woman leader of the senate? He could make Finley leader of the senate. Just don't make Duffy GG!!

Male GWB Dubya

Female - His Wife

reasoning - He'd do anything for an extra term in office.

Edited January 14, 2010 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

Male GWB Dubya

Female - His Wife

reasoning - He'd do anything for an extra term in office.

Canadian PMs do not have office "terms"....stop watching so much American TV.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Canadian PMs do not have office "terms"....stop watching so much American TV.

If Harper really did have balls then he would appoint Don Cherry.

[William Ashley]

seeing as the national post article stating deep sources state that there is a turnover...

so for those who thought that she would get another term, what are you thinking now?

Funny no one here guessed the general or inuit person.

[Argus]

Has anyone have any guesses who he would pick, guesses for a male, guesses for female. Naturally, he would pick someone that would agree with him, so he could prorogue Parliament yearly. For a male he would pick, Wilson or how about Mulroney!! The female, boy this tough one, he could leave the present GG there, but someone new, how about the woman leader of the senate? He could make Finley leader of the senate. Just don't make Duffy GG!!

Is there a reason why there has to be two threads on the same topic?

The topic was started by a column in the Post. That column speculated he had his eye on an Inuit woman to replace Jean, who apparently had offended the PMO over that "i'm head of state" nonsense a while back.

[Smallc]

Better check your dates Argus.

[Machjo]

So lets see.

Parliament resumes March 4th or 5th...

Budget tabled -- no bite when is the next chance for a non confidence motion?

April?

The Govenor Generals term is up in August?

There is usually about a month - so, is this an issue worth an election to the opposition?

What are peoples thoughts on the Tories having the chance to have majority in the Senate and select the GG for the next five years?

Would they reappoint Jean or who would they pick?

Seeing that the GG is supposed to stand above partisan politics, does it really matter what 'party' picks her? In the end, it's the Queen that decides, not the PM. Sure he may select, but in the end the Queen must approve. She usually does, but if the PM made a blatantly partisan pick, she could decline.

[Machjo]

He probably will re-appoint Jean, but I wish he wouldn't. The Liberals appointed their choices, Harper should appoint his choice. Someone who is not a former CBC announcer would be nice for a change.

My "dream" GG is Preston Manning. Both because I truly believe there's not another soul in the country who deserves it more, but also because it'll make people on the left's heads explode.

Now there's a non-partisan appointment

[Machjo]

So because Preston Manning doesn't fit into your idea of a model GG he isn't fit for the job. So people on the right aren't allowed to be picked to be GG. How progressive of you.

Manning has done far more for this country than you give him credit for, and those who appointed him on a 165 living limit Companion of the order of Canada agree with me.

That in itself should be a more than good enough resume should it not?

Seeing that the GG is supposed to be above politics, we'd need to know his accomplishments outside of the realm of politics, obviously.

[Moonbox]

Seeing that the GG is supposed to stand above partisan politics, does it really matter what 'party' picks her? In the end, it's the Queen that decides, not the PM. Sure he may select, but in the end the Queen must approve. She usually does, but if the PM made a blatantly partisan pick, she could decline.

I highly doubt it. Realistically the Queen has less power in Canada than the Governor General. If the Queen tried to interfere with our politics like that she'd be laughed off the face of the loonie.

[Smallc]

If the Queen tried to interfere with our politics like that she'd be laughed off the face of the loonie.

Don't be so sure. She's had to do it in other place. If there came a time when the Queen had to step in to mediate a problem in Canadian politics, then I don't think anyone would be laughing.

[ToadBrother]

I highly doubt it. Realistically the Queen has less power in Canada than the Governor General.

Well of course she does, as she is here so infrequently. But, constitutionally, the Queen is superior to the GG, as it is the Queen who appoints the GG, on the advice of the Government.

If the Queen tried to interfere with our politics like that she'd be laughed off the face of the loonie.

There are potential situations. The Australian Constitutional Crisis literally ended in a race. If Whitlam had in fact been able to phone the Queen and ask that Kerr be removed, the Queen would have been forced to directly intervene in Australian political affairs. The Queen has in fact had a direct role on one occasion since the patriation of the Constitution, and that is in September 1990 when Brian Mulroney invoked Section 26 of the British North America Act and directly asked the Queen to appoint eight Senators so that he could clear out the deadlock in the Senate created by Liberal senators stalling passage of the GST bill.

So there are, in fact, conceivable situations in which the Queen has and still could become involved rather directly in governmental issues. She is our Queen and constitutional monarch, the embodiment of the Crown in Canada. The GG is simply her representative.

Edited February 23, 2010 by ToadBrother