Wow I read it again your right but again I say that the GG is not purely symbolic and still has powers
just wondering about the governance of Canada ?
- Thread starter selin
- Start date
The GG is the Queen's representative and can act without deference, and has in cases of progroguing or dissolving parliament, and even appointing a government without an election.
It must be, the Liberals did it at least four times under Chretien, and Bob Rae did it many times as premier of Ontario.
But this time it was done by a monority government because it wanted the hearings to end which they won't
Well, whomever "governs" Canada needs to do better. The Hypogrit nannies haven't done very well, neither have Cons. And the monarchy is just a bowsprit. It may be at the front of the ship, but all it does is break wind.
just wondering about the governance of Canada ?
A great many people wonder with you. It has been said that our chain of governance is thus, firstly TelAviv secondly Old London terdly Washingtonmachine and lastly and hardly worth mention at all a quaint provincial town called Ottawahaha. Beyond that we cannot devine the machinations of governance nor from which quarter comes the most rapturous love of our superiors,and neither do we care having invented hockey and curling we have much to distract us from the mundane worries of nation maintenance which for the most part has been subcontracted to abler tentacles.
A great many people wonder with you. It has been said that our chain of governance is thus, firstly TelAviv secondly Old London terdly Washingtonmachine and lastly and hardly worth mention at all a quaint provincial town called Ottawahaha. Beyond that we cannot devine the machinations of governance nor from which quarter comes the most rapturous love of our superiors,and neither do we care having invented hockey and curling we have much to distract us from the mundane worries of nation maintenance which for the most part has been subcontracted to abler tentacles.
Now, I like that :thumbright:, you must be an ex naval guy, you probably have some good boatswain and coxwain lines too :salute:.
Canadian democracy is a complex system. So much so that many Canadians do not understand it even though they think they do. A good deal of what takes place in the governing of Canada is in the form of what is called "convention." A convention is something that has been done in a certain way for such a long time that it has become a tradition. The Governor General and the monarchy in Canada is filled with conventions. For example when ia bill is passed in Canada it cannot become a law without being approved by the Governor General. This is called royal assent. Since the 1840s royal assent has never been withheld. As a result royal assent has become a convention. In theory the Governor General could refuse royal assent but she would be going against almost 200 years of convention and the likelihood of that happening is about zero.
There are many other conventions in Parliament, such as the way a session of Parliament is opened, the speech from the throne, bowing to the speaker when voting, and so on. Even the idea of political parties and the way they sit in the House of Commons is convention. You won't find any of these rules written down in the Canadian constitution; it is simply the way things are done.
There are many other conventions in Parliament, such as the way a session of Parliament is opened, the speech from the throne, bowing to the speaker when voting, and so on. Even the idea of political parties and the way they sit in the House of Commons is convention. You won't find any of these rules written down in the Canadian constitution; it is simply the way things are done.
Aye convention, best that the greater part never be committed to paper lest the ruling club be deduced.
Not to be pedantic, but I believe you're combining usage with convention. If I recall PoliSci 1000, usage is an accepted procedure that is customary but has not yet evolved into a convention. Your references to the throne speech, deference to the speaker and seating in the House, would, I believe, fit into this category. Convention is a usage that has over time become "consitutional". The requirements that the government must have the support of the House to continue in power and that the Governor General must never withhold royal assent are conventions. The custom that the Prime Minister must sit in the House and not the Senate is a usage that has not yet become a convention. And none of this is enforceable by law - if the GG refused royal assent, that would be legal - but not constitutional!
The GG does have some reserve powers. In 1926 Viscount Byng refused MacKenzie King a dissolution, and in 1975 the GG of Australia dismissed the Prime Minister when he refused to resign. But it's unlikely either of these would occur again.
AFAIK, no country's written constituion has ever explicitly spelled out just how parliamentary democracy is "supposed" to work. A quick read of the constitutions of Australia, Germany and Japan reveals little more than ours, though in Germany's and Japan's the realtionships are implied.
Sorry for the long-windedness.
I remember when Canadian parliament passed the law legalizing gay marriage, the religious right petitioned to the Queen, demanding that she direct the GG not to give Royal assent to the law (and also to direct her representatives in all the Commonwealth countries to withhold Royal assent to similar legislations).
It didn’t come to anything of course; the Queen simply ignored the petition. But the power to withhold Royal assent is a real power, if never used so far.
What happens if the monarch has insurmountable objections to the law and simply cannot give the Royal assent? Well, that doesn’t mean that the legislation dies, a way must be found out of the dilemma.
This happened in Belgium. The Belgium Parliament passed a law legalizing abortion. As a Catholic, the King had a big problem with it; he simply could not give it the Royal assent.
They found a way out of it. The King abdicated, somebody else was crowned the King. That somebody else signed the legislation, giving it the Royal assent. Then he in turn abdicated, the original King was crowned once again and everybody was happy. But even here, the lack of Royal assent could not stall the legislation.
We all know how it's supposed to work and how it does. The topic is about Canada ... NOT Belgium.
No they would never be like their blood relatives. You know Jack squat about Monarchy, or dynastic succession. The British monarchy is responsible for wrecking half the goddamn planet and in very good measure responsible for your poor education.:smile:
There was nothing phony about the Belgian monarch, YJ. His objections to the bill were quite genuine. As a Catholic he simply could not bring himself to sign a legislation legalizing abortion. I can understand that.
However, he did not exhibit the stubborn, uncompromising, hostile attitude of religious right, or some extreme Catholics in USA. He was willing to compromise, he was willing to let the law get Royal assent.
As long as the law was not stalled, I don’t see any reason not to accommodate the monarch’s religious beliefs.