Get rid of the Governor General
- Thread starter JonB2004
- Start date
I think not said:By the way Five. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I am telling you what to do, I am just viewing it from the outside. And I grantr you I have a hard time understanding it, because we did away with it. That was a disclaimer.
Anyway, it strikes me as odd Canada being a "left leaning" (considered Progressive) country in general would want the Queen. Isn't Monarchy and Progressive somewhat of an oxymoron?
no its not oxymoronic
its just plain ------moronic
I agree with both I think not and Cortez, that the American system of Government is near perfection and a work of art. Though.... a slightly different electoral methode would be needed to accomade a multi party system and not the two party system. Which would mean the electoral collage would have to change for sure as well.
But the American system with checks and balances is perfect. Beautiful. Every body of governments checks the next, all four!
In Canada we have all four but only two of them work, and only one is elected.
USA
Sup-Court, Senate, Congress, President
Canada
Sup-Court, Senate, Parliment, Governor General
Blue = working branches of government
But the American system with checks and balances is perfect. Beautiful. Every body of governments checks the next, all four!
In Canada we have all four but only two of them work, and only one is elected.
USA
Sup-Court, Senate, Congress, President
Canada
Sup-Court, Senate, Parliment, Governor General
Blue = working branches of government
cortezzz said:
Yes and No, it requires fixing. Checks and balances are fine. We can use some Constitutional refinements in the form of Amendments. I also disagree with the Supreme Court being appointed for life.
Finder said:
The Electoral College favors a two party system, however other parties can and DO participate, depending on the amount of supporters and signatures they have, remember Ross Perot? He's an example. It does need refining, it isn't perfect, but I do agree with it.
Constitution aside the American government is one of the best the world has ever seen. The Constitution is merely the laws and rights of the land in a nutshell.
Finder said:
Well it's the Constitution that has shaped the government and has provided the separation of powers (checks and balances). This is why amendments would be required to change a few things. For example, Clinton had passed a law (approved by the Senate and Congress) for the line item veto. It was struck down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional (and it was), we would need an amendment for that. And we need it.
You guys make me jealous that you actually have a government which works right. *sighs* all we have is all power concentriated pretty much in parliment with the sup-court the ability to interprete the constitution. Our system really sucks. But if the GG had some exective powers and if the Senate had some teeth then we'd have an ok system. Nothing like the USA still.
And this is part of the reason why I don't worry about how "far" Bush can go, he can get stopped one way or the other. I'm sure our forefathers had arrogant leaders like Bush in mind when they put the Constitution together lol.
Very true, but the only problem in the system is showing right now. What happend when one party controls every single check and balance of the government. In a sence..... even though the USA has been considered a two party state, it really is only a one party state right now. Hopefully that will change with the Democrats taking the Congress.
Finder said:
Your argument has merit, but it also doesn't work quite that way. See how many laws were struck down of late by both republicans and denocrats alike, and nothing Bush can do about it.
Also,look at the Patriot Act, where provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional, despite being voted by republicans and democrats.
Like I said, we need a couple of revisions, but nothing major, in my opinion.
We can start by hanging all the lobbyists lol.
ITN
Could we please start with the media first before the lobbyists?
Re the GG: I have always maintained a nice big picture of the Queen, and a potted fern on a stand in a roped off area would be as sufficient as the Queen's representative at a lesser price.
Could we please start with the media first before the lobbyists?
Re the GG: I have always maintained a nice big picture of the Queen, and a potted fern on a stand in a roped off area would be as sufficient as the Queen's representative at a lesser price.
Re: Reforming the Government
Here are my suggestions, so as to ensure that the system of governance in Canada is effective and democratic, while respecting the heritage of the country and keeping changes to the Constitution Acts at a minimum (since amendments to the constitution are an extremely hard thing to do).
:arrow: The House of Commons
I don't think that we need to impose too many changes here; I do think that perhaps one day we should consider comprehensive changes to the Constitution Act, 1867, in terms of designating somewhere around one hundred Members of Parliament would be selected based on the popular vote (therein becoming a mixed first-past-the-post, and direct representation system; whether or not such Members would have the same rights and privileges as those duly elected would be up for extensive debate).
:arrow: The Senate
The Governor General of Canada should, by a new convention (and therefore no change to the constitution) only summon a Senator where she receives advice to that end from both the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Province which that Senator would represent. In the event of a long-term disagreement between the Prime Minister and the Legislature, the advice of the Legislature should be deemed supreme. In this way, Senators could better represent their provinces, and would have a mandate to exercise the true power of the Senate to that end.
:arrow: The Supreme Court
I am quite opposed to notions of electing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Puisne Justices; we should never be asked the question of whether we want to have left-wing or right-wing justices — we shouldn't have justices who have won a popularity contest, we should have justices who the Government selects based on who can do the job properly. We should, however, have a better system in place to ensure that these appointments are sound (the Ad Hoc Committee created to that end by the current Government of Canada was a good start).
:arrow: The Governor General
Appointments of Governors General of Canada should only be made where Her Majesty the Queen of Canada receives the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate (obviously, the advice of the Speakers represents resolutions of their respective Chambers). The incumbent Governor General should continue until the appointment process is complete (however, if the process takes more than one year, then the Queen's Administrator for Canada should assume their authority until the appointment process is complete). In this way, whosoever is appointed as the Governor General would have a mandate from the legislative component of the Parliament of Canada to exercise his or her reserve powers, in the event that doing so is required (although let's hope it never is).
Just some suggestions. Any thoughts?
Here are my suggestions, so as to ensure that the system of governance in Canada is effective and democratic, while respecting the heritage of the country and keeping changes to the Constitution Acts at a minimum (since amendments to the constitution are an extremely hard thing to do).
:arrow: The House of Commons
I don't think that we need to impose too many changes here; I do think that perhaps one day we should consider comprehensive changes to the Constitution Act, 1867, in terms of designating somewhere around one hundred Members of Parliament would be selected based on the popular vote (therein becoming a mixed first-past-the-post, and direct representation system; whether or not such Members would have the same rights and privileges as those duly elected would be up for extensive debate).
:arrow: The Senate
The Governor General of Canada should, by a new convention (and therefore no change to the constitution) only summon a Senator where she receives advice to that end from both the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Province which that Senator would represent. In the event of a long-term disagreement between the Prime Minister and the Legislature, the advice of the Legislature should be deemed supreme. In this way, Senators could better represent their provinces, and would have a mandate to exercise the true power of the Senate to that end.
:arrow: The Supreme Court
I am quite opposed to notions of electing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Puisne Justices; we should never be asked the question of whether we want to have left-wing or right-wing justices — we shouldn't have justices who have won a popularity contest, we should have justices who the Government selects based on who can do the job properly. We should, however, have a better system in place to ensure that these appointments are sound (the Ad Hoc Committee created to that end by the current Government of Canada was a good start).
:arrow: The Governor General
Appointments of Governors General of Canada should only be made where Her Majesty the Queen of Canada receives the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate (obviously, the advice of the Speakers represents resolutions of their respective Chambers). The incumbent Governor General should continue until the appointment process is complete (however, if the process takes more than one year, then the Queen's Administrator for Canada should assume their authority until the appointment process is complete). In this way, whosoever is appointed as the Governor General would have a mandate from the legislative component of the Parliament of Canada to exercise his or her reserve powers, in the event that doing so is required (although let's hope it never is).
Just some suggestions. Any thoughts?
I don't see any compelling need to make any changes to the G-G as an institution, or the Senate for that matter. Apart from all the good constitutional information provided by our resident expert FiveParadox (that name always makes me think of 10 mallards flying over a Ukrainian settlement in Saskatchewan... ), the G-G has another important role: the pomp and ceremony associated with being the Head of State. The U.S. President, for instance, is the nation's Chief Executive Officer as well as being Head of State, so there are a lot of ceremonial duties he has to perform when he could certainly be doing something more important and useful, like his executive functions. The Prime Minister in constitutional monarchies like Britain, Canada and Australia is the CEO, but not the Head of State, that falls on the monarch or the G-G, so the tiresome business of extending formal courtesies to visiting Heads of State from elsewhere, throwing parties for foreign dignitaries, cutting ribbons at supermarket openings, etc., is not a necessary part of the PM's duties.
If we do away with the G-G, somebody will still have to perform those functions the G-G currently does, those duties won't go away. I suppose we could do something similar to the French model, with both a Prime Minister and a President, but except for electing a President, we could get pretty much the same effect by simply changing the title from Governor-General to President. And if we start electing people like that rather than appointing them, suddenly they have a political legitimacy they've never had before, and there's no way to predict what effect that'll have. It's the same argument against electing the Senate: it'd give the Senate a political legitimacy it doesn't currently have, and the consequences are not really predictable. Abolishing the G-G and electing the Senate may seem like simple and obvious things to do, but they're not, they have deep and complex implications that go to the heart of our constitutional arrangements.
Bottom line for me: nothing's broken in this context, so don't try to fix it.
edited to fix format errors. I hate having to admit I make mistakes...
If we do away with the G-G, somebody will still have to perform those functions the G-G currently does, those duties won't go away. I suppose we could do something similar to the French model, with both a Prime Minister and a President, but except for electing a President, we could get pretty much the same effect by simply changing the title from Governor-General to President. And if we start electing people like that rather than appointing them, suddenly they have a political legitimacy they've never had before, and there's no way to predict what effect that'll have. It's the same argument against electing the Senate: it'd give the Senate a political legitimacy it doesn't currently have, and the consequences are not really predictable. Abolishing the G-G and electing the Senate may seem like simple and obvious things to do, but they're not, they have deep and complex implications that go to the heart of our constitutional arrangements.
Bottom line for me: nothing's broken in this context, so don't try to fix it.
edited to fix format errors. I hate having to admit I make mistakes...
Yes, off with the queen's political head in Canada. Charles may by king?!?!?! Scary.
Dump the monarchy ASAP.
A Cdn republic with a GG inst could be okay. Elected but with little power. Perhaps it could weaken the dictaorial power of a sitting PM.
Dump the monarchy ASAP.
A Cdn republic with a GG inst could be okay. Elected but with little power. Perhaps it could weaken the dictaorial power of a sitting PM.
RE: Get rid of the Govern
nobody wants to see charles king, dump, he is a joke.
but my question is this: is ANYONE ever truely impartial?...really?
nobody wants to see charles king, dump, he is a joke.
but my question is this: is ANYONE ever truely impartial?...really?
Appointed positions make me suspicious;
plumjobs for the "deserving",
legitimized spending channels to divert tax revenue .
Reeks of camouflaging a failing( the common peoples) state with much pomp and circumstance.
Just ask some pensioner relying on OES, CPP and little assets ,the working poor, the many students getting indebted to reach at least a decent level of income with little gurantee of job , on and on.
There are pressing needs in many sectors of our nation.
Dropping the G.G.'s would be the least hurtful!
The queen the (or one of) the richest person(s) on this earth should consider spending her own means for room and board and such, coming over here.
At least I would consider this as a return of owing interest on the riches the colonies have transfered to the Crown of the Empire where the sun never sets.
Also consider that all Provinces maintain Prov. G G. in addition to federal one.
plumjobs for the "deserving",
legitimized spending channels to divert tax revenue .
Reeks of camouflaging a failing( the common peoples) state with much pomp and circumstance.
Just ask some pensioner relying on OES, CPP and little assets ,the working poor, the many students getting indebted to reach at least a decent level of income with little gurantee of job , on and on.
There are pressing needs in many sectors of our nation.
Dropping the G.G.'s would be the least hurtful!
The queen the (or one of) the richest person(s) on this earth should consider spending her own means for room and board and such, coming over here.
At least I would consider this as a return of owing interest on the riches the colonies have transfered to the Crown of the Empire where the sun never sets.
Also consider that all Provinces maintain Prov. G G. in addition to federal one.
Re: The Governor General of Canada
Even if Canada were to cease to recognize Her Majesty the Queen of Canada as the head of state (a measure which I would vehemently oppose), I would suggest that we should retain the Governor General of Canada — the function that she should one day be called upon to play should not be left to the partisan Prime Minister of Canada. I would suggest that it is imperative that we have an arbiter, whose powers are ultra vires those of the Prime Minister, to act as the protector of democracy (Heaven forbit such a need ever arises, though).
Even if Canada were to cease to recognize Her Majesty the Queen of Canada as the head of state (a measure which I would vehemently oppose), I would suggest that we should retain the Governor General of Canada — the function that she should one day be called upon to play should not be left to the partisan Prime Minister of Canada. I would suggest that it is imperative that we have an arbiter, whose powers are ultra vires those of the Prime Minister, to act as the protector of democracy (Heaven forbit such a need ever arises, though).