Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325
As Governor General, she has inspired many people...especially people in downtrodden situations. You don't like her...well...too bad for you. Oh, and the Governor General is far from a useless position. It is completely necessary traditionally and Constitutionally.
|
I have always found this an interesting debate.
To counter your argument re: necessary traditionally and constitutionally, I would contend that just because something has been a "tradition," does not mean that it should be forever enshrined as necessary. Times change, etc.
But on the note of constitutionally necessary, yes, you're correct that for a parliamentary bill to become law, it must receive Royal Assent (the GG's signature). Additionally, there is a constitutional convention that this will always happen after the bill passes the third reading in both houses - the GG will always sign it, does not get to base providing Royal Assent on their own personal opinions or leanings, and as it is a constitutional convention (which the Supreme Court recognizes), it is quite doubtful our federal court would uphold a GG's decision to withhold assent. The Supreme Court has always ruled that Parliament is supreme, even over the executive (PMO/Cabinet)... any wonder the Harper PMO eventually sat down and came to terms over opposition MPs being able to access unredacted Afghan detainee documents? They knew that if they challenged the Speaker's ruling and it went to the SCoC, it wouldn't be a ruling in their favour (though it would buy time). I digress.
Anyway, as the Royal Assent is a given, or a constitutional convention, there is an argument that the position of GG could be disbanded - just have the bill become enacted law upon the Senate passing the third reading.
The GG is also constitutionally required to grant permission to a PM or majoritarian parliamentary motion to prorogue, suspend or dissolve Parliament; in addition to granting the dissolution following the government's loss of a confidence vote. Again, however, there is now a constitutional convention and an enshrined understanding throughout the commonwealth that the monarchy's representative will not interfere in the realm of political decision making - if it comes in the form of a PM request, it will always be granted, as will dissolution after a lost confidence vote. Quite an interesting course of events that led to this, which took place here in Canada, referred to as the
King-Byng Affair. In short, no unelected British monarch or their representatives are to interfere in the political destiny of a nation, hence, permission of such is always granted now.
The rest of the GG duties are ceremonial, such as representing the British monarchy in Canada (there is an argument that the British monarchy is less and less relevant to Canadians, given our large French, Aboriginal and non-Brit-immigrant population). The GG has the title of Commander of the Canadian Armed Forces, but again this is ceremonial and the GG does not have any decision-making authority (orders and military policy comes from the Minister of Defense with PM approval, or the PM directly).
Thing is, of course, no easy task to open-up the constitution. Not easy at all. It would be a can of worms, actually, with every province demanding other changes to the constitution as a trade-off for providing their support. At this time, with the make-up of provincial governing parties who enjoy a majority, it would most certainly not happen (Conservatives and PCs are the traditional monarchist-supporting party of the mainstream parties). As well, some aspects of our constitution, such as it relates to the position, duties, and office of the GG, requires unanimous consent of the provincial legislatures (rather than the typical 2/3 majority of the provincial legislatures that also must account for at least 50% of population). They could all, however, agree to abide by the results of a national referendum on the matter, similar to the failed Charlottetown Accord (where not every province agreed to abide, and the No vote won anyway).
It really isn't that huge an issue, the role of the British monarchy and the GG in Canada, and is more tied to identity and tradition than policy of course. Identity and tradition change, and IMO, we should be mindful of that with our institutions of governance. Besides, quite a few countries that are a republic and have both a president and a prime minister, the role of the president is also largely symbolic without decision-making abilities. I would imagine that if Canada were to become a republic, we would be fashioned on this model, with the full functions of the executive retained by the PM and Cabinet, where the only waves a symbolic figure head can make is by misspeaking, or by photo-op antics.
Prev
i got a nice sized garden in the back and a driveway in the back and just as much space for a padio speaking of witch i need to awww deal with my weed issue i been neglecting my back yard :S i do have the garden planted at least
Linear Mode
