Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy
You know, you're willing to give consent to a person who rarely visits Canada, shows no ongoing knowledge about the country, has no constitutional knowledge of Canada, to suddenly interfere and make a political decsion on an event that rarely happens in Canada? You must play with nitroglyceran in your spare time.
She doesn't have regular Canadian advisors, she has British advisors who know very little about Canada and would probably not make a decision in the best interest of Canada in an emergency.
Ten of billions? No no no, this is a downsizing, it has to be cheaper. First we do without a GG and see what happens. It is very unlikely the sky will fall.
The Queen is very well informed about Canada, its constitution, and system of governance. Numerous comments from Canada's Prime Ministers are other politicians prove this.
She does have Canadian advisors. She has a Canadian secretary, the Governor General briefs her about affairs in Canada, and the Prime Minister is only a phone call away. She would make the best decision in the case of emergency, if all else fails.
A change would indeed take tens of billions, perhaps even far more. The Crown's symbols are everywhere in Canada.
And, as FiveParadox has pointed out, you cannot leave the Office of the Governor General vacant. There must be a GG or a Administrator of Government (the Chief Justice) to carry out the functions of the office, without which the governance of Canada would stop dead in it's tracks.
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter
I think in India, the president (equivalent of our GG) is voted in by the House of Commons.
By both houses of the Indian Parliament, and by the state legislatures of that country, actually.
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone
Isn't it already questionable and partisan that it's the PM who chooses the Governor General? I mean, it pretty much amounts to the same thing in the sense that in the end, it's the GG who ends up taking the important decisions when they need to be taken.
But however the PM is under pressure to make a non partisan choice, and even if they don't, the GG will always make non partisan decisions.
It's not the same thing, yes the GG will normally follow the advice of the PM, but if the PM tries something outrageous, the GG will properly deal with him.
A GG has already exercised his power in the recent past. In 1975 the Governor-General of Australia (at the time, Sir John Kerr) fired the PM for attempting to govern without supply from the Senate, and continuously refusing to come to a compromise with the opposition. After consultation with the Chief Justice, he summoned Prime Minister Glough to Yarralumla (the Australian GG's residence in Canberra), and when he refused even then to come to a solution and tried to cling onto power unconstitutionally, the GG withdrew his commission as Prime Minister, summoned the leader of the opposition and made him PM, and then had an election called for both the Senate and House of Representatives, in which Glough's party lost, and the opposition became the government.