GT: Federal Election

[FlamesAddiction]

Meet our new badass Minister of Defense:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ster-1.3304931

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You need a final arbitrator on certain issues. Like the President's veto power.
It would be weird in the US if the House of Representatives voted for the President.

There is the US system or the France system. Canada would have to go one of those two ways. Can't have just a Prime Minister. There would be no balance.

How is it any weirder than the PM appointing the President, which is essentially what is happening now? You think the Queen gives a crap who we choose as GG? How is keeping her in the process a benefit at all?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MattyC

How is it any weirder than the PM appointing the President, which is essentially what is happening now? You think the Queen gives a crap who we choose as GG? How is keeping her in the process a benefit at all?

Or like the queen is even qualified or knows for a second what it is like to be an average Canadian. Might as well ask a Kardashian to approve our decisions. I find it embarrassing and slightly offensive that we still have anything to do with the British monarchs.

[Fuzz]

I guess it's a final check on power. I believe the Queen can remove the GG, so if the PM appoints a GG who basically offers up a dictatorship to the PM, the Queen could step in if petitioned by the other parties. It would all be highly unlikely, but I suppose it is a reasonable last check on power.

[GirlySports]

It's fine either way, just saying that the GG is party neutral and can decide on things like coalitions and proroguing government. If this election had been like predicted, a splintered minority with seats being something like 120, 110, 100 then the GG would have played a larger role.

If we go the president route then the president is aligned to a party and with multiple parties and if there is proportional representation it could get murky.

Can't have just a PM.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I guess it's a final check on power. I believe the Queen can remove the GG, so if the PM appoints a GG who basically offers up a dictatorship to the PM, the Queen could step in if petitioned by the other parties. It would all be highly unlikely, but I suppose it is a reasonable last check on power.

Okay, there are things we could input to battle that as well. Basically make it a non-confidence vote, but for the GG and maybe just need a 60-70% majority vote from the opposition houses to depose the GG.

In short, there's really no need to involve a Monarch that is barely involved in their own politics to have any sort of power to do these things. In the situation you describe, if the opposition petitioned the Queen, would she ever say no? It's a check, but a useless check because she doesn't have anything to do with what's going on here. Shes just going to approve anything we want to do, why wouldn't she? Are we really expecting a freaking Monarch to have some foot in reality about avoiding a dictatorship? Honestly. That's where they come from. Our last check on a dictatorship is a (former) dictator position? Makes no sense at all.

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Can't have just a PM.

I'm not saying just have a PM. Keep everything exactly the same. Just don't see why we need to ask the Queen of England permission to do anything.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Meet our new badass Minister of Defense:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ster-1.3304931

Already Trudeau is proving to be a more honest leader than Harper. Instead of nepotism determining most of the cabinet posts, we're seeing actual qualified people getting the top spots. Quite a refreshing change

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Another thoughtful article on the subject:

http://thewalrus.ca/meritocracy-is-a-lie/

The whole meritocracy argument falls apart when you actually look at each of the female cabinet members and see that they are all very qualified for the roles they're getting

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle27095965/

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Already Trudeau is proving to be a more honest leader than Harper. Instead of nepotism determining most of the cabinet posts, we're seeing actual qualified people getting the top spots. Quite a refreshing change

which Harper Ministers were unqualified?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

which Harper Ministers were unqualified?

Without dwelling on it too much, Gary Goodyear immediately leaps to mind.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

which Harper Ministers were unqualified?

Right from the article that Bunk posted

We can go a step further and look at some cabinet appointments that seemed to be made in spite of a yawning lack of merit, such as two climate change deniers (Peter Kent and Leona Aglukkaq) as environment minister, men in charge of women’s issues (Lloyd Axworthy), non-veterans withholding benefits while tasked with Veterans Affairs (Julian Fantino), and the legion of non-Aboriginal people screwing up the Department of Indian Affairs.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Without dwelling on it too much, Gary Goodyear immediately leaps to mind.

Good Ol' Skippy also comes to mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Poilievre

In October 2010, Poilievre allegedly got impatient waiting at a Parliament Hill checkpoint and pressed a button to open the security gate and drove his car through without being identified and without having his vehicle inspected. He later apologized.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

which Harper Ministers were unqualified?

One obvious example: Gary Goodyear, Minister of State for Science & Technology (2008-2013) was a creationist and a chiropractor.

[Resolute 14]

Well, if the Toronto Star is going to criticize a non-veteran being Minister of Veterans Affairs, then I suppose that makes Kent Hehr an unqualified minister.

[Resolute 14]

On a less serious note, the satirical account @manwhohasitall has been crushing it this morning, with obvious references to Trudeau:

manwhohasitall ‏@manwhohasitall 2h2 hours ago
TODAY'S QUESTION: Is it time we focused on male politicians' POLITICS instead of their hair, clothes and parental status?

manwhohasitall ‏@manwhohasitall 3h3 hours ago
Did you know that fathers are ACTUALLY some of the most talented, productive and popular politicians in our country?

[CliffFletcher]

The monarchy is an anachronism, but does anyone really want to open the constitution to change it? As someone old enough to remember Meech Lake, I'm content enough to stick with the status quo.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'm not saying just have a PM. Keep everything exactly the same. Just don't see why we need to ask the Queen of England permission to do anything.

hmmm but Monarchs have power. Having a GG or president appointed by the house or elected by the people would make it a republic.

Legally there is a big difference between a republic and a democracy. Including states and provincial rights. The lawyers here will have to help me out with the legalese.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, if the Toronto Star is going to criticize a non-veteran being Minister of Veterans Affairs, then I suppose that makes Kent Hehr an unqualified minister.

He has a distinct qualification over his predecessor in that his post handles a great deal of disability assistance issues

[Swift]

And he knows what it's like to take a bullet.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

He has a distinct qualification over his predecessor in that his post handles a great deal of disability assistance issues

Did that really need pointing out?

I think Resolute was just going for defensive cheapshot after the list of unqualified Ministers appointed by Harper was posted above.