Opinions on the Position of Governor-General

[displacedyankeedem]

I was wondering what native Canadians thought of the post of Governor General and the role it plays in the Canadian political system. Do you think it's an anachronism? Should the post be abolished or kept? Should the post remain, albeit under a different title (such as President)?

[Maple]

1. Yes, on the Governor-General

It's worked very well for us.

I think the next one will be an astronaut from what I've heard

ABSOLUTELY no presidents!

On edit: the governor-general picks the Prime Minister in a tie vote. There is a whole procedure for this, and precedents.

It's a rare event, but if it occurs, we have a ready-made legal process.

[yvr girl]

2. I have no problem with the position of GG

I wish the current one didn't spend quite so much money.

The GG is a non-political position. A president would seem more political. The GG is part VP, attends funerals etc. and part royal stand-in. Preside over Remembrance Day ceremonies, Canada Day Celebration etc.

[gula]

3. I have been asking myself that question for quite some time now

As a Canadian by choice I often think it is just an expensive ribbon cutter and could easily be abolished, at the very least the provincial ones.

Would the position really have to be replaced by another one? Couldn't whatever the GG does be done by the PM or someone else from the government?

And no, I do not want a president either.

[habsdude]

4. No it couldn't.

The Prime Minister has already too much power in the country (more than the US president has in his) so adding the duties of a head of state wouldn't work. So we'd need a President - perhaps one with little very power like in Germany or Israel, for example.

The provincial Lieutenant-Governors are essential if establishing provincial equality with the federal government. The Provinces are NOT subordinate to the Federal government in the same way that municipal governments. So if we rid ourselves of the post we either give more power to the Federal government or to the Provincial government. If that power goes to the Federal government, we end up like the Territories and we become more of a Unitary Centralized State. Not that there is anything wrong with centralized states, such as France, but we do have Provinces for historical reasons and for cultural reasons and we cannot just do away with them.

The Queen/GG/LGs are a check on government and must be in place. The potential for a very close election this year proved why we still need the GG. Because in our tradition, we don't elect governments, we elect parliaments. If one party cannot get control of the house, elections will only happen if the GG believes that no other party can effectively govern.

The Queen is a part of our Constitution and so is the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors (whereas the Prime Minister and Premiers are not) and would require amendments to the Constitution which are difficult to make and devide the country, cost money and distract us from the real problems facing our society.

The GGs and the LGs are apolitical in nature and should remain that way, they should be representatives of the People through the Sovereign rather than a representative of the government, which is what would happen if a Government MP took on the role of signing laws into effect.

[gula]

5. Interesting

As an immigrant from a non-monarchic country I always wonder why the Queen is still our head of state. I guess I just have never seen the GG as doing anything useful. I will now go to the GG'S official site and do my duty as a citizen and try to learn something about this, as a whole, rather wonderful country.


And welcome to DU :toast:

[habsdude]

6. not impossible really, just difficult

Well its not to say that the abolition of monarchy is impossible (and with it the GG and LGs) but just that it isn't really simple. And, I cannot see one abolished without the other. In the case of GG and LG they would have to be replaced by President and Provincial President/Governor. This would be the best way to eliminate the Crown without completely altering the political system in this country. But that too is possible, just really difficult since rather than an Constitutional amendment, it would pretty much require a rewrite of the practically the entire constitution.

And thanks for the welcome.

[iverglas]

7. the main function of the GG

The GG signs off on legislation, to put her role as basically as possible. She does this as the Queen's representative, and in practice, this is her primary and really her only role in government.

Legislation is passed by the House of Commons and Senate, but is not in force until it is "assented to" by Her Majesty, or in our case by the GG acting on her behalf.

For instance, the Employment Insurance Act starts out (as do all federal statutes):
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/e-5.6/part50270.html

Assented to 20th June, 1996

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: ...

Her second role is to enforce the Constitution and constitutional convention in relation to the existence or continuance of a government or a Parliament, itself, in the event that a government or a Parliament ever attempts to gain or remain in power contrary to the Constitution or constitutional convention.

If the government were defeated on its budget, for instance, and refused to resign, the GG could step in, relying on Canadian constitutional convention, and dissolve Parliament and call an election.

There is no intent, and certainly no likelihood, that the GG would ever step in and dissolve a Parliament -- or do anything else, like refuse to assent to legislation -- unless Parliament itself were the one acting contrary to the basic constitutional values of the country.

In the case of legislation, the courts perform that role: they can strike down legislation that is contrary to the constitution, which is the formal expression of the society's values. But in the case of a Parliament (i.e., one would think, the governing party) refusing to seek an election, either because its time was up or because the governing party had lost a confidence vote, the courts have no jurisdiction. Rather than have a vacuum in which force might be the deciding factor, we have a head of state to do the job.


This is why the nonsense that is all too regularly heard from the cheap seats, about "subjects" and suchlike, is just, well, nonsense.

The role of the monarch (in our case, viceroy) in a constitutional monarchy is to uphold the constitution, and that's all.

Well, apart from handing out awards and hosting dinners and going to weddings and funerals -- all as the official representative of *us*, i.e. all of us, which the PM, as a politician, isn't.

[Canadian_moderate]

8. I'm not big on monarchies...

So I could do without the pomp and circumstance of the GG. The current GG (Adrienne Clarkson) seems to think she's the right honourable queen of Canada. To be honest, she makes me sick.

I'm am a proud Canadian, but I would prefer it if Canada became a republic (not necessarily modeled after the USA system). There are better and more representative republican models where the %age of the vote is reflected by the number of representatives. We could also scrap the Senate, or at least make it elected.

I honestly do not think the governing parties are interested in true change. Hopefully this current minority gov't situation will force some changes.

[iverglas]

9. both those things

There are better and more representative republican models where the %age of the vote is reflected by the number of representatives. We could also scrap the Senate, or at least make it elected.

... really have nothing to do with "republican models".

Australia is a constitutional monarchy, and has a form of proportional representation. Canada's first-past-the-post system is becoming an anachronism in the modern world of liberal democracies. Our proximity to the US, which becomes a standard for "normal" simply because of our constant and overwhelming exposure to it as compared to our exposure to the rest of the world, is one reason why it's hard to get any movement on proportional representation here.

The Senate is in some respects a vestige of a less-democratic past, as it is in the US (a republic with a Senate, of course) and as the House of Lords is in the UK, etc. However, it is also a counterbalance to the rep-by-pop aspect of the House of Commons, in a federal state, as it is in the US: it ensures that the collective interests of regions and provinces/states, which may differ, are represented, and that the interests of less-populous provinces aren't trampled by the majorities in the House composed of the provinces with large numbers of MPs. The Senate was, in a sense, one of the original expressions of the Canadian protection of minority rights.

If the Senate were to cease to perform that function (which, granted, it seldom does anyhow), there would need to be some formula in the House itself for ensuring that regional interests weren't submerged by majority rule.

Of course, the Senate could be elected. I suppose there's no reason not to do so -- except that then it might get uppity, and who needs an uppity Senate? Best, to my mind, that it should be like the queen/GG: seen but not heard. It's not as if it does much to complain of; when was the last time you heard of the Senate rejecting legislation sent to it by the House?

If it thought it had a legitimate mandate to do that -- if it were elected -- things could get messy. And not necessarily good-messy, or messy only when the basic function of the Senate, protecting regional interests, was what it was getting up to. We elect our MPs to govern, and the fact that they now do that without much interference, and with just the little threat of trouble if the majority tries to trample on the minority, seems to me to be really very democratic.

I think that political culture is the predominant factor in whether the present Senate is a good or a bad thing -- the form is really far less significant than the substance. And the corruption of both the main parties when in power is the predominant feature of that culture as it relates to the Senate. Using Senate appointments as patronage rewards should be simply unacceptable.

Supreme Court appointments are not used that way, because the public would not stand for it. Our political culture has taken the Constitution and Charter of Rights on board with a vengeance -- the courts are our most trusted guardians of our rights and freedoms, above politicians, according to surveys -- and the public simply would not tolerate having that function usurped by trough-feeders.

We should not stand for using the Senate that way. But the Senate just isn't something that most people give much thought to, because, really, what does it do? The problems only hit the headlines when something happens like Mulroney's spare Senate Tories trying to block the Liberals' attempt to kill a corrupt airport deal with Mulroney's pals, a rarefied little skirmish among capitalists that had nothing much to do with the real world.

... But not standing for using the Senate improperly would mean not standing for Liberal and Conservative corruption, and instead we elect them over and over ...

I could do without the pomp and circumstance of the GG.

Pomp and circumstance are almost universally attendant on the office of head of state. You know how when GWB gives the State of the Union address and they all, even his worst enemies on the Democratic side of the Congress, applaud him? That's because he's speaking as head of state, not as head of government, and he is owed respect, in that capacity, as the symbolic leader of the country, not as the temporary leader of the country's government.

(And that situation -- a head of state and head of government rolled into one -- is absolutely the worst thing we could have at this juncture, if you ask me.)

The head of state embodies "us". Now granted, it might be a little better if s/he acted a little more like us. I don't pay a lot of attention to Clarkson, other than to grit my teeth every time someone calls her "Madame Clarkson" in English. ("Madame" is *not* some sort of lofty title in English. It isn't even English. It's just French for "Mrs.", or, these days, "Ms.", and it is indeed just bloody pretentious.) She might be a little extravagant, but in the grand scheme of things, she's not a humongous burden or annoyance to me.

There is no perfect system. Scrapping ours and adopting another would mean swapping one set of problems for another set. The devil you know, and all that. Canada's history really is one of making it work, rather than throwing it out. That doesn't rule out changing it, but it generally means changing it only if it can't be made to work.