The Governor General
- Thread starter Kaiser Mattanthas
- Start date
Re: RE: The Governor General
Yes, that is what I said, we are not a republic by the very presence of our monarchy. Yes, we that belong to the Commonwealth of Nations are unique, by the very presence of our monarchy.
We swear allegiance because as a member of the Commonwealth she is our leader - so to speak. I think it is more a matter that we are independent that she doesn't interfere, than public outcry. If she could interfere don't you think that she would have had the presence of mind to do something about the mess we are currently in?
Not taking offence as you didn't offer any. But, I guess relations between you and us or us and you is pretty tender nowadays --- eh
And, I do hate that word eh - along with like as in like eh man
Yes, that is what I said, we are not a republic by the very presence of our monarchy. Yes, we that belong to the Commonwealth of Nations are unique, by the very presence of our monarchy.
We swear allegiance because as a member of the Commonwealth she is our leader - so to speak. I think it is more a matter that we are independent that she doesn't interfere, than public outcry. If she could interfere don't you think that she would have had the presence of mind to do something about the mess we are currently in?
Not taking offence as you didn't offer any. But, I guess relations between you and us or us and you is pretty tender nowadays --- eh
And, I do hate that word eh - along with like as in like eh man
Re: RE: The Governor General
I suppose its all a matter of perception. I think Airintake gave the answer I suppose Ive been looking for. As for our relations, you can reference another post of mine on that issue, and thanks for your answer.
whicker said:
Yes, that is what I said, we are not a republic by the very presence of our monarchy. Yes, we that belong to the Commonwealth of Nations are unique, by the very presence of our monarchy.
We swear allegiance because as a member of the Commonwealth she is our leader - so to speak. I think it is more a matter that we are independent that she doesn't interfere, than public outcry. If she could interfere don't you think that she would have had the presence of mind to do something about the mess we are currently in?
Not taking offence as you didn't offer any. But, I guess relations between you and us or us and you is pretty tender nowadays --- eh
I suppose its all a matter of perception. I think Airintake gave the answer I suppose Ive been looking for. As for our relations, you can reference another post of mine on that issue, and thanks for your answer.
There are constitutional and legal subtleties here that need to be understood before we rush off and abolish the G-G's position. For starters, read this carefully.
It ought to be clear from the first page of that link that the G-G does have a legitimate role under certain circumstances, and not merely those involving natives. They seldom arise, but when they do the G-G's presence can be crucial, as in the King/Byng affair. There's no doubt that in a legal and constitutional sense Viscount Byng did the right thing there, and generations of scholars, including the redoubtable Eugene Forsey who wrote the stuff at that link, have agreed.
The Queen is formally the Head of State, the Prime Minister is head of our Executive Branch. The U.S. President has both roles; that adds a fairly onerous list of ceremonial duties to his executive ones, which he could certainly do without. That in itself I think justifies two positions. The French have separated them, they have a President and a Prime Minister. There's no reason we coudn't do the same, just rename the office of G-G to President and leave everything else as it is. It could also be argued that in a system like ours in which a government can in principle fall at any time, it's necessary to provide continuity between governments, which is the essential role of the G-G and what the King/Byng affair most clearly demonstrates.
For instance, if Paul Martin's government falls, the G-G would be within her powers to ask Stephen Harper to try to form a government, on the assumption that he could work out some kind of coalition among enough MPs to meet the House and survive non-confidence motions. Not likely, but the point is that she could do that.
And I think somebody has to be able to do that, because of the constitutional and legal definitions of how responsible government works in the country. Abolishing the G-G's position has far-reaching implications that would require many other profound modifications to our current system, with completely unpredictable results. So the question has to be asked, what problem would it solve? If there isn't one that's far more serious than the cascade of changes it would produce, why bother?
It ought to be clear from the first page of that link that the G-G does have a legitimate role under certain circumstances, and not merely those involving natives. They seldom arise, but when they do the G-G's presence can be crucial, as in the King/Byng affair. There's no doubt that in a legal and constitutional sense Viscount Byng did the right thing there, and generations of scholars, including the redoubtable Eugene Forsey who wrote the stuff at that link, have agreed.
The Queen is formally the Head of State, the Prime Minister is head of our Executive Branch. The U.S. President has both roles; that adds a fairly onerous list of ceremonial duties to his executive ones, which he could certainly do without. That in itself I think justifies two positions. The French have separated them, they have a President and a Prime Minister. There's no reason we coudn't do the same, just rename the office of G-G to President and leave everything else as it is. It could also be argued that in a system like ours in which a government can in principle fall at any time, it's necessary to provide continuity between governments, which is the essential role of the G-G and what the King/Byng affair most clearly demonstrates.
For instance, if Paul Martin's government falls, the G-G would be within her powers to ask Stephen Harper to try to form a government, on the assumption that he could work out some kind of coalition among enough MPs to meet the House and survive non-confidence motions. Not likely, but the point is that she could do that.
And I think somebody has to be able to do that, because of the constitutional and legal definitions of how responsible government works in the country. Abolishing the G-G's position has far-reaching implications that would require many other profound modifications to our current system, with completely unpredictable results. So the question has to be asked, what problem would it solve? If there isn't one that's far more serious than the cascade of changes it would produce, why bother?
With the exception of the Queen as head of state in Australia, there government is set up more similar to America's not Canada or Britain.
Re: RE: The Governor General
Not really. It's a system of responsible government on the British model, with the executive and legislative branches effectively joined in Parliament. Australians I believe elect their senators, but they certainly don't have the separation of executive, legislative, and judicial authority, or the system of checks and balances among them, of the American model.
And for those who've never taken a course in Canadian government, I'd better add this: "Responsible government" in this context has a very specific meaning, it doesn't mean the government's responsible for doing certain things. It means the government, by which is really meant the executive, is responsible to the House and can continue as the government only so long as it maintains the confidence of the House. That is to say, it has the support of a majority of members in the House.
no1important said:
Not really. It's a system of responsible government on the British model, with the executive and legislative branches effectively joined in Parliament. Australians I believe elect their senators, but they certainly don't have the separation of executive, legislative, and judicial authority, or the system of checks and balances among them, of the American model.
And for those who've never taken a course in Canadian government, I'd better add this: "Responsible government" in this context has a very specific meaning, it doesn't mean the government's responsible for doing certain things. It means the government, by which is really meant the executive, is responsible to the House and can continue as the government only so long as it maintains the confidence of the House. That is to say, it has the support of a majority of members in the House.
Interesting.
Until my exams are complete (next week), I think that this is all I'll write for now. This is not to say that I'm not reading the responses. However, I'm certain people will understand the pressures of finals...
These are my initial thoughts. As I say, I'll respond in more detail later.
ITN, you are correct - the Gov.-Gen. has a LARGE amount of power. In fact, the QUEEN HERSELF has the power to turn Canada (and this is written into the Constitution Act 1867 and 1982) to return Canada to its original "colonial" state. The Gov.-Gen has the power to completely uproot the government.
IMO, this is a good thing - without a check like the GG, the country would end up destroying itself. I think that Clarkeson will have to make a ruling pretty quick regarding the possible Conservative-Bloc coalition gov't. The check that the GG offers is far more valuable than we as citizens give it credit for.
Besides - it would cost the taxpayers about 3.5 times as much to REMOVE the GG on an ANNUAL basis than it would be to keep the office...and keep the country from falling into a revolution (ie American Style Revolution).
Mr. Blair has the right of the situation, I think, in his last post.
I will be back and will write more on this in a little while.
Thanks for the interest folks! It's flattering and exciting!!!!
Kaiser
Until my exams are complete (next week), I think that this is all I'll write for now. This is not to say that I'm not reading the responses. However, I'm certain people will understand the pressures of finals...
These are my initial thoughts. As I say, I'll respond in more detail later.
ITN, you are correct - the Gov.-Gen. has a LARGE amount of power. In fact, the QUEEN HERSELF has the power to turn Canada (and this is written into the Constitution Act 1867 and 1982) to return Canada to its original "colonial" state. The Gov.-Gen has the power to completely uproot the government.
IMO, this is a good thing - without a check like the GG, the country would end up destroying itself. I think that Clarkeson will have to make a ruling pretty quick regarding the possible Conservative-Bloc coalition gov't. The check that the GG offers is far more valuable than we as citizens give it credit for.
Besides - it would cost the taxpayers about 3.5 times as much to REMOVE the GG on an ANNUAL basis than it would be to keep the office...and keep the country from falling into a revolution (ie American Style Revolution).
Mr. Blair has the right of the situation, I think, in his last post.
I will be back and will write more on this in a little while.
Thanks for the interest folks! It's flattering and exciting!!!!
Kaiser
Can someone explain this to me? I'm not familiar as to why it would cost more to remove the GG, and on an annual basis?
You have to replace the GG with something. There's a cost to that, especially since that something is likely to be elected.
Wouldn't that something Rev more than likely be elected from members of parliament? For example many countries around the world have Prime Ministers etc.... and a head of state, like a President, that President however is usually elected for a 5 year term through parliament. Wouldn't it be the same cost comparing it to the GG?
We have one party in this country that is very much enamoured by US way of doing things, I think not. They will push very hard for somebody elected by the people.
One of the problems we face with any sort of reforms to our government and its programs is that many only look to Washington for examples. Since many of us see your system (and Britain's too) as being, along with ours, the three worst in the western/northern world, it presents us with a whole other challenge.
One of the problems we face with any sort of reforms to our government and its programs is that many only look to Washington for examples. Since many of us see your system (and Britain's too) as being, along with ours, the three worst in the western/northern world, it presents us with a whole other challenge.
In the case of Canada and Britain it's mostly the way the popular vote has little or no relation to the seats won by a single party. The result is the kind of non-representation we so commonly see for certain regions and points of view. It is also one of the causes of the corruption we see everytime a government is in power for any length of time. The scandal we are in the midst of right now sounds just like one of the scandals that the Mulroney government was involved back when I was a kind.
The same kind of charges show up in Britain time and again, although they at least have a tradition of resignations.
In the case of the US (and I'm a big fan of the founding fathers and their constitution) it is the way the system has become distorted over time. It has very much become a case of "whoever has the gold makes the rules" and "it ain't illegal if you don't get caught."
In all three cases the real problem is that the systems have become antiquated as technology, population, and plain old reality have changed. We (the citizens of all three countries) are pretty much showing up at the 2005 Indy 500 in a home-built roadster that still requires an on-board mechanic. Meanwhile they (the ruling elites) are like Roger Penske...they show up with more money than god and a team of experts on bending the rules.
The same kind of charges show up in Britain time and again, although they at least have a tradition of resignations.
In the case of the US (and I'm a big fan of the founding fathers and their constitution) it is the way the system has become distorted over time. It has very much become a case of "whoever has the gold makes the rules" and "it ain't illegal if you don't get caught."
In all three cases the real problem is that the systems have become antiquated as technology, population, and plain old reality have changed. We (the citizens of all three countries) are pretty much showing up at the 2005 Indy 500 in a home-built roadster that still requires an on-board mechanic. Meanwhile they (the ruling elites) are like Roger Penske...they show up with more money than god and a team of experts on bending the rules.
I think all 3 have done fairly well, and lets not forget that it changes, slowly but surely, through mistakes, hardships and oppression. That is the essence of democracy isn't it? A journey?
Here's an idea :idea: , we hookup everybody with an online system and everybody gets to vote on major issues, hell why not all issues and then truly have heads of state represent the people instead of abusing powers. Somehow I don't think they will go for it, not im my liftetime anyway.
Here's an idea :idea: , we hookup everybody with an online system and everybody gets to vote on major issues, hell why not all issues and then truly have heads of state represent the people instead of abusing powers. Somehow I don't think they will go for it, not im my liftetime anyway.
I think not said:
I'm not so much in favour of "direct democracy" & referendums. It is cumbersome, and can easily result in a 'tyranny of the majority'. Besides, most people do not fret over politics and issues of the day. Most people are for the most part very ignorant and apathetic about where their taxdollars go.