And the New GG Is.....

g_bambino · July 8, 2010

But even you seem to realize the idea that things are or should be cemented in place takes precedence.

Precedence? To what?

Some things should be difficult to alter. I know why the Crown and its offices are so hard to change. The question was: does Moonbox? The answer is: apparently not.

Smallc · July 8, 2010

The Governor General provides constitutional legitimacy to many different things that happen within this country. Sometimes, the things that we see as mere symbolism are in fact symbols of real importance.

One of the governor general’s most important responsibilities is to ensure that Canada always has a prime minister and a government in place that has the confidence of Parliament. In addition, the governor general holds certain reserve powers, which are exercised at his or her own discretion.
The governor general presides over the swearing-in of the prime minister, the chief justice of Canada and cabinet ministers. It is the governor general who summons, prorogues and dissolves Parliament, delivers the Speech from the Throne, and gives Royal Assent to acts of Parliament. The governor general signs official documents and regularly meets with the prime minister.

The governor general promotes Canadian sovereignty at home and represents Canada abroad. At the request of the prime minister, the governor general:
hosts visiting heads of State;

conducts visits abroad;

receives foreign heads of mission (ambassadors and high commissioners); and

signs diplomatic documents.

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=13288

The Governor General is really the oldest public office in Canada....it is of, no matter how it seems, the utmost importance.

g_bambino · July 8, 2010

Wouldn't it be so much easier to have you explain what the Governor General actually DOES???

What would be easier is for you to just answer the question I asked you.

eyeball · July 8, 2010

Precedence? To what?

I'd say precedence over who (the governed).

Some things should be difficult to alter. I know why the Crown and its offices are so hard to change.

You agree with why you mean.

eyeball · July 8, 2010

The Governor General provides constitutional legitimacy to many different things that happen within this country. Sometimes, the things that we see as mere symbolism are in fact symbols of real importance.

Yes but to whom and why is or should be more of an issue than it is.

The Governor General is really the oldest public office in Canada....it is of, no matter how it seems, the utmost importance.

Crown office you mean.

August1991 · July 8, 2010

It's a pointless and redundant position. It's the cushiest and most ceremonial job you could have in Canada and hardly ever does anything of consequence.
Perhaps we might not be hugely better off without it, but we'd save money and be no worse off.

I suppose we could choose random Canadians to send to foreign funerals. But who would make the decision of who to be PM in the event of a hung parliament, as the British say?

In theory, the Head of State - as the ultimate approver - should also ensure that any laws do not contravene the constitution or somehow nefariously hurt Canadians.

You must be glad we don't have a foreign head of state involved, then.

Bambino, you know as well as I do that Queen Elizabeth is no more Canadian than Matt Damon.

ToadBrother · July 8, 2010

Sure I can, it's because a governor general predates and precedes Canada's existence. It's the chicken to our egg.

Petrified egg I might add.

I'm sorry. Could you explain that so that this point had anything to do with the last? You seem to be constructing a non sequitur here.

Smallc · July 8, 2010

Bambino, you know as well as I do that Queen Elizabeth is no more Canadian than Matt Damon.

She's no more British than him, either.

M.Dancer · July 8, 2010

She's no more British than him, either.

She's German...

Smallc · July 8, 2010

She's German...

Well, she's really not any nationality.

eyeball · July 8, 2010

I'm sorry. Could you explain that so that this point had anything to do with the last? You seem to be constructing a non sequitur here.

Authority flows down from on high - it does not well up from below. That point was cemented into place long before we ever had a chance to say otherwise.

ToadBrother · July 8, 2010

Authority flows down from on high - it does not well up from below. That point was cemented into place long before we ever had a chance to say otherwise.

But what it means has changed radically over the last three hundred years. The powers, indeed the very theory of what the Crown constitutes, was completely altered in 1689. Parliament is supreme and the Crown cannot act in defiance of it. You're talking like we're living under some sort of absolutism here.

eyeball · July 8, 2010

But what it means has changed radically over the last three hundred years. The powers, indeed the very theory of what the Crown constitutes, was completely altered in 1689. Parliament is supreme and the Crown cannot act in defiance of it. You're talking like we're living under some sort of absolutism here.

If it looks and quacks like a duck... I think the feeling of living under something must be pretty relative across the ages, but it's still under no matter how you cut it. I'm betting it doesn't feel that much better today than it did 3 centuries ago.

Our representatives still act and drag their defiance out to such an extent that it seems like the better part of a person's lifetime passes by before any meaningful change becomes apparent.

As for still living under a system that was dreamed up by people 300 years ago, I think its well past time we had another kick at how we govern ourselves.

Edited July 8, 2010 by eyeball

Martin Chriton · July 8, 2010

As for still living under a system that was dreamed up by people 300 years ago, I think its well past time we had another kick at how we govern ourselves.

I'll agree w/ this comment. We've innovated in so many different areas in the past century it's laughable to see some people arguing that some part of our current system is necessary because that's how it was done in the past.

This kind of attitude is why some countries still have kings of queens. It's laughable and pathetic.

ToadBrother · July 8, 2010

If it looks and quacks like a duck... I think the feeling of living under something must be pretty relative across the ages, but it's still under no matter how you cut it. I'm betting it doesn't feel that much better today than it did 3 centuries ago.

I don't even know what duck you're referring to here. We have a Queen, yes, and Her representative is the Governor General, but the constitutional constraints are very great, and the only real latitude the GG or the Queen has is when it is necessary to select a new government, and even only then when we're dealing with the fall of a government or an election that produces too close a call for even an easily selectable minority government.

Our representatives still act and drag their defiance out to such an extent that it seems like the better part of a person's lifetime passes by before any meaningful change becomes apparent.

You seem to think our representatives are different than other countries' representatives. My years of looking at a number of systems suggests quite the opposite, that pretty much all legislatures, regardless of how they're constituted or who the head of state is and how exactly executive power is used, at the end of the day democratic representatives behave in such a fashion.

As for still living under a system that was dreamed up by people 300 years ago, I think its well past time we had another kick at how we govern ourselves.

A fine enough sentiment, but devoid of meaning. Give me an example of a kind of government you would replace the current one with, and what actual practical advantages it would have that would make opening the constitutional can of worms (and all the dangers that go along with that, lest we forget Meech Lake and Charlottetown) worth the effort.

Smallc · July 8, 2010

This kind of attitude is why some countries still have kings of queens. It's laughable and pathetic.

And yet it is many of those countries that are the most progressive examples of successful democracy. Coincidence?

ToadBrother · July 8, 2010

I'll agree w/ this comment. We've innovated in so many different areas in the past century it's laughable to see some people arguing that some part of our current system is necessary because that's how it was done in the past.

By the same token, rejecting a system merely because of its age seems utterly idiotic. There has to be reason for change other than the infantile "I just want something different?"

This kind of attitude is why some countries still have kings of queens. It's laughable and pathetic.

Ah, I see, so you're just against having a monarchy. What would you replace the monarchy with, and what actual practical difference would it make at the end of the day?

g_bambino · July 8, 2010

Bambino, you know as well as I do that Queen Elizabeth is no more Canadian than Matt Damon.

When was Matt Damon ever King of Canada?

g_bambino · July 8, 2010

I'd say precedence over who (the governed).

A clause written into a document approved by the leaders chosen by the representatives that were elected by the governed takes precedence over the governed. Gotcha.

g_bambino · July 8, 2010

Well, she's really not any nationality.

She's no nationality by citizenship laws, but she is the personification of sixteen nations. One could say she has no nationality, she is nationality.

Smallc · July 8, 2010

Precisely....no matter where she lives, she's just as much Canadian as you or I (perhaps more so)...because she is the personification of the Crown.

eyeball · July 8, 2010

A clause written into a document approved by the leaders chosen by the representatives that were elected by the governed takes precedence over the governed. Gotcha.

There's an awful lot of room here to insert just about anything between what people think they're voting for and what they finally get.

August1991 · July 8, 2010

When was Matt Damon ever King of Canada?

Maybe Matt Damon was a Canadian in the Toronto media? The Toronto media may play fantasy sometimes, but at least it knows that Matt Damon is not Canadian.

Bambino, you live in a fictional/fantasy world where the Queen Elizabeth is a "Queen of Canada". (As I say, she's no more Canadian than Matt Damon - or let me add a few other names: Robin Leach and Simon Cowell.)

Bambino, the Soviet Union was a fiction/fantasy too, that collapsed in August 1991.

Edited July 8, 2010 by August1991