just wondering about the governance of Canada ?

[SirJosephPorter]

Technically Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy and a Parliamentary Democracy.

The Queen of England is also the Queen of Canada (our head of state also known as "The Crown") Canada's legitimacy as a state is based on treaties and laws signed by the Crown. The Governor General (GG) is the Queen's representative in Canada. Below the GG is the Prime Minister (PM). The Queen and the GG's powers are mostly symbolic. However bills become laws after they are approved by Parliament (headed by the PM) and signed by the GG.

By tradition, the GG is appointed by the PM. In theory the GG could refuse to sign a bill into law, but the PM could replace her with a new appointment, so the PM with the support of Parliament is the real authority.

The two are not mutually exclusive. A country can be a constitutional monarchy as well as a Parliamentary Democracy. Canada and Britain (and indeed, many countries in Europe) are both.

The only difference between the two is that in a constitutional monarchy there is a monarch to give Royal assent to any bill, while in a country which is not constitutional monarchy there may have someone else (as they have the president in India, over there, any legislation passed by the Parliament must be signed into law by the president).

It is really a distinction without a difference.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Stephan Harper of the Conservative Party of Canada became PM after the last election because at the time everyone hated the liberals and voted them out of office. Unfortunately, Harper is a George Bush clone puppet. The same people who pulled Bushes strings also pull Harper strings.

It wasn’t so much the question of hating Liberals, as the fact that people just got bored with seeing the same faces in Ottawa year after year. After a party has been in power for a long time, people look for every excuse to vote it out of power and vote the other party in.

Thus in Australia they turfed out the Liberal Party (which is the party of the right over there) after prolonged rule, in USA they threw out the Republicans, in Britain, they are going to throw out Labour Party after a long rule.

The sponsorship scandal was an excuse. If it had not been sponsorship scandal; it would have been something else. It is a universal phenomenon. The problem is that in their zeal to vote out the party in power, people many times don’t think of who they are putting in. That is why Americans put in Bush for eight years and ruined their own country.

That is also why they put in a weak leader, a rabid right winger, an autocrat, a dictator here in Canada. Even after struggling for four years, Harper is still nowhere near getting a majority (which he should by rights, after three liberal majorities).

 

[FiveParadox]

If Her Majesty the Queen of Canada opposed a piece of legislation but wanted to respect the democratic will of the House of Commons, then the bill would likely be assented to by the Governor General of Canada; if both opposed it, it could be signed by the Secretary to the Governor General, the Chief Justice of Canada, or any Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court in their capacities as deputies of the Governor General.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If Her Majesty the Queen of Canada opposed a piece of legislation but wanted to respect the democratic will of the House of Commons, then the bill would likely be assented to by the Governor General of Canada; if both opposed it, it could be signed by the Secretary to the Governor General, the Chief Justice of Canada, or any Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court in their capacities as deputies of the Governor General.

That would be my understanding (or something similar). But I don't think there is any way a bill would be held up due to lack of Royal assent, that would be totally undemocratic.

 

[cdarro]

Whether or not the Queen opposed a piece of legislation is irrelevant in any case, as all powers, authorities and functions of the Queen in right of Canada were delegated to the Governor General by the Letters Patent (1947) establishing that office, and Royal powers once delegated cannot be reclaimed. Should the Governor General ever refuse Royal Assent, the cabinet in its role as the "active" committee of the Privy Council would advise the Queen to appoint another G/G - someone more compliant, likely. And if the Queen refused to apppoint another G/G, Parliament could then (according to constitutional expert Eugene Forsey) decline to recognize her as Canada's sovereign.

BTW, although the Constituion Act (1867) authorizes the G/G to appoint any person or persons as his deputy or deputies in Canada, the Letters Patent spell out the procedure in the absence or inability of the G/G - first the Chief Justice of the SCC, then one or other of the Puisne (associate) justices, would assume the role of "Administrator". No mention of the secretary of the G/G, though in an earlier version of the Letters Patent from 1931, provision was made for the appointment of a "Lieutenant Governor of and over Canada".

 

[YukonJack]

selin, I suppose you want VALID information. So, WHY aren't you use GOOGLE??

 

[lone wolf]

selin, I suppose you want VALID information. So, WHY aren't you use GOOGLE??

Google tells us how it's supposed to work. They of us who have to live it can say how it really does.

 

[FiveParadox]

No mention of the secretary of the G/G, [...]

You’re correct, there is no mention of the Governor General’s Secretary being automatically authorised to approve legislation, but it just so happens that Ms. Sheila-Marie Cooke, Secretary to the Governor General, is an appointed deputy of the Governor General. This isn’t the case with all of our Secretaries, and I had meant to refer to the current Secretary in particular, and not to the institution in perpetuity; I apologise for the confusion.