Mary Simon appointed Governer General

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Mull

I find it almost appalling any Canadians support it.
When you get down to it, you are supporting an institution that stands for birthright- that is to say, it stands for people being born into a level of respect that other humans get.

Thoughts on hereditary chiefs?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Thoughts on hereditary chiefs?

My work procrastination break and I found this tough question posed to me!

The hereditary chiefs do not represent me, and therefore I am not sure why anyone would care what my view is -the Queen on the other hand, represents all Canadians.

I can condemn the concept of a Queen for me and my family without condemning these chiefs. It's like England - perhaps given all the income they make from the Queen, she is right for them and its worth sacrificing ones morals to have that public good from that investment-we sacrifice morals all the time for tax income. Who would I be to say she isn't right for England?

Given I do not belong to a First Nation with hereditary chiefs, nor do I understand their purpose, history, or why they are protected, I think it would be completely inappropriate for me to weigh in beyond saying I don't understand them

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mull

My work procrastination break and I found this tough question posed to me!

The hereditary chiefs do not represent me, and therefore I am not sure why anyone would care what my view is -the Queen on the other hand, represents all Canadians.

I can condemn the concept of a Queen for me and my family without condemning these chiefs. It's like England - perhaps given all the income they make from the Queen, she is right for them and its worth sacrificing ones morals to have that public good from that investment-we sacrifice morals all the time for tax income. Who would I be to say she isn't right for England?

Given I do not belong to a First Nation with hereditary chiefs, nor do I understand their purpose or why they are protected, I think it would be completely inappropriate for me to weigh in beyond saying I don't understand them

This was a surprisingly long winded way of saying you don’t want to give your opinion, comrade.

[81MC]

Heh, it’s valid I suppose. Although I do wonder if the issue is with an institution that supports birthrights, or an institution that doesn’t represent ones sense of self.

I mean, on one hand, we’re just living on indigenous lands. The commonwealth may just pose the same assertion. A hereditary chief represents me much less than the monarchy, as a white, British descendant. I haven’t been able to come to terms with this personally, but its an interesting consideration who has the right to rule and govern peoples of a land.

Eg. hereditary chiefs of Wet’suwet’en, So when the elected councils and hereditary chiefs are in opposition to each other who’s authority would you support?

[CroFlames]

I'm reading a lot of disagreement with the idea of a GG as head of state, but little in terms of alternative ideas.

Do we honestly want to drag people's asses to the polls every 4 years to elect a president who would essentially be doing the same work as the GG, but now it's a political position? Or do we make Stephen Harper King, and his descendants heirs to the Canadian throne? Where do we put the throne? Regina?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Heh, it’s valid I suppose. Although I do wonder if the issue is with an institution that supports birthrights, or an institution that doesn’t represent ones sense of self.

I mean, on one hand, we’re just living on indigenous lands. The commonwealth may just pose the same assertion. A hereditary chief represents me much less than the monarchy, as a white, British descendant. I haven’t been able to come to terms with this personally, but its an interesting consideration who has the right to rule and govern peoples of a land.

Eg. hereditary chiefs of Wet’suwet’en, So when the elected councils and hereditary chiefs are in opposition to each other who’s authority would you support?

I have issues with institution that support birth rights. I am gun shy on First Nation issues however because I used to have much more .... different views... and been since educated on many issues on how I was wrong.

So now, unless I do a good amount of reading, I don't think its appropriate for me to weigh in, since I have been surprised in the past on items I took as factual and unchanging views, which indeed I realized I was wrong.

The idea of birthright in authority disgusts me, which is an item I currently think is factual and unchanging view of mine... but I as I said I thought that before.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I'm reading a lot of disagreement with the idea of a GG as head of state, but little in terms of alternative ideas.

Do we honestly want to drag people's asses to the polls every 4 years to elect a president who would essentially be doing the same work as the GG, but now it's a political position? Or do we make Stephen Harper King, and his descendants heirs to the Canadian throne? Where do we put the throne? Regina?

I gave ideas that seems to be ignored in this thread.
Not sure if my ideas are that stupid or just missed?

Basically two options- a council from the supreme court with ceremony duties (are they needed???) going to the chief justice but any choices of power going to the court or ...

The Canadian Senate! And in this case, I like they aren't elected and appointments can't be removed by the next PM. I still can't believe I am now advocated for keeping our unelected senate, but I think its needed if they were granted this power given the American example with Trump. The ceremony duties (if they indeed needed) could be someone the Senate elects.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Mull

I gave ideas that seems to be ignored in this thread.
Not sure if my ideas are that stupid or just missed?

Basically two options- a council from the supreme court with ceremony duties (are they needed???) going to the chief justice but any choices of power going to the court or ...

The Canadian Senate! And in this case, I like they aren't elected and appointments can't be removed by the next PM. I still can't believe I am now advocated for keeping our unelected senate, but I think its needed if they were granted this power given the American example with Trump. The ceremony duties (if they indeed needed) could be someone the Senate elects.

Valid ideas I think, I'll give you that.

We could have our own little Papal Conclave where we lock 105 senators into the senate chamber until they elect a new GG.

In all seriousness though, I'm not sure if they would be more or less susceptible to political interference compared to the PM simply appointing a GG.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

We could have our own little Papal Conclave where we lock 105 senators into the senate chamber until they elect a new GG.

Or, blue smoke if the government is allowed to prolong parliament, purple means a non-confidence vote is to be held?

Originally Posted by CroFlames

In all seriousness though, I'm not sure if they would be more or less susceptible to political interference compared to the PM simply appointing a GG.

I think it truly does. The American senate was set up to mitigate this with 6 year terms, but being still elected, they are all still terrified of being outed by the party and fall in line.

Our Senate is turning into a partyless body, which helps, not to mention no voters to appease (again I hate I am advocating for non-elected senators for this proposal)

[CaptainCrunch]

I guess Singh wrote her a letter asking her to refuse any requests by the PM to trigger an election. So her first weeks on the job will be a constitutional headache. But at the end of the day the GG is going to rubberstamp the dissolving of parliament.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess Singh wrote her a letter asking her to refuse any requests by the PM to trigger an election. So her first weeks on the job will be a constitutional headache. But at the end of the day the GG is going to rubberstamp the dissolving of parliament.

Sure, but let's not pretend that is some Liberal conspiracy or anything. You can't actually have the GG running around vetoing bills or deciding that she shouldn't dissolve parliament. She's a figurehead, and that's it.

If Singh can come in and present an alternate government coalition, that might be a different story, but otherwise just not wanting an election isn't a reason for the GG to do anything but dissolve parliament.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess Singh wrote her a letter asking her to refuse any requests by the PM to trigger an election. So her first weeks on the job will be a constitutional headache. But at the end of the day the GG is going to rubberstamp the dissolving of parliament.

I get in the idea is if a minority wants to dissolve parliament, other parties have a right to try to form government... but is this not against the precedent of recent actions of past GG's?

I don't know what the law says, historical or including precedents set by previous GG, but it seems like the GG allowing an election is hardly unethical/wrong?

If anything Singh seems out of alignment with recent history?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mull

I get in the idea is if a minority wants to dissolve parliament, other parties have a right to try to form government... but is this not against the precedent of recent actions of past GG's?

I don't know what the law says, historical or including precedents set by previous GG, but it seems like the GG allowing an election is hardly unethical/wrong?

If anything Singh seems out of alignment with recent history?

When Harper went to the GG to prorogue parliment to prevent a coalition government made up of the Libs, NDP and Bloc (Gross should never be allowed to be part of a government). The GG came down on the side of the existing government.



When Justin went to the GG to prorogue parliment on a pretty flimsy requirement but used it to stop investigations, the GG rubberstamped it.



Its likely the same here, if Trudeau goes to her to dissolve parliment because he says the current parliament is "toxic" which as Mulcair says is BS, the Libs managed to pass a budget and other key pandemic bills, but were stopped from passing self interested bills like C-10, and the omnibus bill with the removable of spending oversight etc. By rights, the Liberals could have trouble justifying the toxic label as a reason to end this parliamentary session.


However the government has always had the right to request that parliament dissolve and an election called. I don't see where there's a legal precedent that the GG can latch on to deny this.