Can Justin Trudeau be Removed?

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Sigh. It is terrible to see the poor sad neocons lamenting the loss of power. Better get used to it. The last time a Trudeau was elected he was in power for 16 years.



That's not true. The last time a Trudeau was elected, he was in power for 4 years. March 3, 1980–June 29/30,1984.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,168
2,814
113
Toronto, ON
I hope he cannot. No democratically elected PM should be removed in a non-democratic manner. Period. This is not to say I will vote for him in 4 years or cheer if he is re-elected.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,638
1,865
113
I don't believe Lizzy still has a gov't here. :)

I always thought Canada's Head of State was Queen Elizabeth II and that she has the power to fire any of her Canadian PMs and her Canadian governments.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,638
1,865
113
Technically yes. But I doubt she ever would.

I woudn't bet on that, if I were you. It's one of the powers granted to her under her royal prerogative and she has used it before - she dismissed her Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and the entire Australian parliament in 1975.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Didn't the Statute of Westminster preclude that ability?
No, it didn't.

The Statute of Westminster, 1931 was a law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that stated that the UK Parliament would no longer pass legislation without the consent of the appropriate dominion. For example, the Canada Act, 1982 (which enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) required the consent of the Canadian legislature before the UK legislature could pass it.

However, that statute relates only to legislation. It does not relate to the royal prerogative. There are several powers that continue to be exercisable by the Queen alone, and not by the Governor General or another Canadian domestic representative. For example, only the Queen can appoint governors general; only the Queen can veto a bill within two years of royal assent by the governor general; only the Queen can consent to the appointment of an additional four or eight senators above the Senate's maximum seat count (provided that the regional senatorial balance is maintained).

There are other powers that continue to be possessed by the Queen, and many, many more that can also be exercised by the Governor General as the Queen's representative. These powers are all unaffected by the Statute of Westminster, 1931.

I woudn't bet on that, if I were you. It's one of the powers granted to her under her royal prerogative and she has used it before - she dismissed her Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and the entire Australian parliament in 1975.

Well, that's just not correct. The Queen has never dismissed an Australian prime minister.

In fact, Buckingham Palace advised the Government of Australia that Her Majesty was specifically refusing to involve herself in this Australian political crisis. Rather, Mr. Gough Whitlam A.C., Q.C., then the prime minister, advised the Right Hon. Sir John Kerr, A.K., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., Q.C., then the governor general, of his desire for a half-dissolution of the Australian senate. The governor general refused, and instead dismissed the prime minister.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
No, it didn't.

The Statute of Westminster, 1931 was a law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that stated that the UK Parliament would no longer pass legislation without the consent of the appropriate dominion. For example, the Canada Act, 1982 (which enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) required the consent of the Canadian legislature before the UK legislature could pass it.


I stand corrected. Thank you. :)
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Sigh. It is terrible to see the poor sad neocons lamenting the loss of power. Better get used to it. The last time a Trudeau was elected he was in power for 16 years.

ANd been gone longer but we are still stuck with the messes he created.

No, it didn't.

The Statute of Westminster, 1931 was a law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that stated that the UK Parliament would no longer pass legislation without the consent of the appropriate dominion. For example, the Canada Act, 1982 (which enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) required the consent of the Canadian legislature before the UK legislature could pass it.

However, that statute relates only to legislation. It does not relate to the royal prerogative. There are several powers that continue to be exercisable by the Queen alone, and not by the Governor General or another Canadian domestic representative. For example, only the Queen can appoint governors general; only the Queen can veto a bill within two years of royal assent by the governor general; only the Queen can consent to the appointment of an additional four or eight senators above the Senate's maximum seat count (provided that the regional senatorial balance is maintained).

There are other powers that continue to be possessed by the Queen, and many, many more that can also be exercised by the Governor General as the Queen's representative. These powers are all unaffected by the Statute of Westminster, 1931.



Well, that's just not correct. The Queen has never dismissed an Australian prime minister.

In fact, Buckingham Palace advised the Government of Australia that Her Majesty was specifically refusing to involve herself in this Australian political crisis. Rather, Mr. Gough Whitlam A.C., Q.C., then the prime minister, advised the Right Hon. Sir John Kerr, A.K., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., Q.C., then the governor general, of his desire for a half-dissolution of the Australian senate. The governor general refused, and instead dismissed the prime minister.
Seems like far too much power for an unelected foreigner to have over our country.
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
Technically, yes. Any PM can be removed under the right circumstances. Its just not very likely. Non confidence votes against a majority government are probably impossible in practice. The party could also replace him as leader, also not very likely.

Taxpayers will fund mosques, Korans

 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
Actually look at the political horizon trouble brewing for many. Remember when campaigns
ran to get the young out to vote? Nothing worked for decades now they are becoming the
empowered and they are supporting people like Bernie in the States at least for now.
In Canada the young I talk to are going Liberal in droves Tories and NDP being pushed aside.
What do they want?

cheap education without working two or three jobs.
Clean energy less dependence on oil and coal
They want more say about what happens in the workplace
More taxes on the rich (they are not rich yet)
They want churches and other in some words other parasites to pay taxes
They want the companies paying their share
They want real food and NO GMO (science is not the issue they don't like GMO
They want election reform (end first past the post)
Legalized pot
A lower voting age
and not being involved in military actions anywhere

Do I agree not in some cases but the fact is they don't want any government like Harpers
and they were not fussy on Mulcair they want youth and a leader in their image and they
intend to keep him around.
Personally until recently I didn't like him at all but I know one thing he ain't Harper and
that right now is good enough for me
The list goes on and there will soon be more of them than there is of us

As for many I speak too they love Trudeau and he will soon be their political and spiritual leader as well.

If he carries out his promise to somehow create more summer jobs for the young, he will gain even more supporters. I am quite happy to see the younger generation more engaged in politics. Who else is to take over once us old folks have bit the dust.