Save Democracy! Save Canada!

[lookingforitallthetime]

Sure you did. So it wasn't on this thread, it was on the others that were on this topic. You were on about Canada having a written constitution, the coalition being unelected, etc.

Oh, and I lost the debate?

Really?

 

[fuji]

Oh, and I lost the debate?

Apparently.

 

[The Cunning Linguist]

In 1926 the GG refused Mackenzie King's request to dissolve Parliament and turned over the government to the opposition. The rules have not changed since.

Note that in 2004 Harper wrote to the GG and said that in his opinion the GG had a constitutional obligation to consult with the opposition rather than calling an election on request from the PM.

So Stephen Harper disagrees with you and there is a historical precedent to the contrary...

I believe the GG in 1926 was actually a British subject, and was only here serving as GG. He was appointed by the monarchy as their representative. Our current GG is a Canadian citizen, and appointed by the Prime Minister's office, and that choice is rubber stamped by our current Queen.

I read that today about Steven Harper as well, when he was in opposition. I'm pretty sure he wasn't going to use the Bloc to prop up his coalition.

 

[LancsLad]

I believe the GG in 1926 was actually a British subject, and was only here serving as GG. He was appointed by the monarchy as their representative. Our current GG is a Canadian citizen, and appointed by the Prime Minister's office, and that choice is rubber stamped by our current Queen.

I read that today about Steven Harper as well, when he was in opposition. I'm pretty sure he wasn't going to use the Bloc to prop up his coalition.

Canadian citizens are BRITISH subjects.






.

 

[fuji]

I believe the GG in 1926 was actually a British subject, and was only here serving as GG.

True, but hardly relevant--his citizenship has little bearing on the nature of the job, which hasn't changed in any meaningful way. Furthermore in every other area British precedents apply in Canadian courts--our legal system and our system of government is a continuation from the British system, not as in the case of the United States a radical break from it.

He was appointed by the monarchy as their representative. Our current GG is a Canadian citizen, and appointed by the Prime Minister's office, and that choice is rubber stamped by our current Queen.

Not true. The current Governor General was appointed by the monarch as her representative. The Queen has full preprogative to appoint anyone she wishes to, and furthermore when she is physically present in Canada she assumes all the powers of the Governor General herself.

It is a tradition that she will appoint someone recommended by the Prime Minister, but there is no legal restriction on her power to do otherwise.

But more to the point:

Since the Queen herself exercises all of the powers of the GG (and more) it is pretty hard to argue that there has been any fundamental change here. It is the Queen who has the authority to dismiss the Prime Minister, prorogue Parliament, appoint a Prime Minister, etc., and she still has all of those powers in her person to this day. The extent to which the GG can do these things derives from the power the GG wields on behalf of the Queen--powers that she really can, and sometimes does, wield herself directly.

The point? Note that the Queen is not appointed by the PM.

Steven Harper as well, when he was in opposition. I'm pretty sure he wasn't going to use the Bloc to prop up his coalition.

You are wrong. He went so far as to co-sign a letter with Gilles Duceppe saying that he was going to.

 

[The Cunning Linguist]

fuji...WHO are you?

A politician? A constitutional lawyer? A history teacher?The GG's househusband?

Or do you just Google everything and cut and paste?