Mary Simon appointed Governer General

[peter12]

I’m a big fan of Simon as GG - first because she is competent and second because we should recognize Indigenous people as one of the three Founding Peoples more officially.

Quebec nationalists can go pound sand. Simon will learn to read French (all that’s necessary).

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The monarchy is one of things that seems stupid - why is our head of state some queen in a different country - but the elimination of it is very difficult to get right and the benefits to doing it are very small.

I’m not sure if you made this argument on purpose but a type of political conservatism is the underlying rationale to keep the GG.

It works pretty well for what we need and the transition would be too difficult/dangerous/expensive for what we get - other than to appease some Internet virgin Canadian republicans.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by peter12

because we should recognize Indigenous people as one of the three Founding Peoples more officially.

Is this phrase widespread? I haven't heard a phrase so nicely bring FN into the fold of building this nation. I wonder if this idea would be accepted by FN groups, as it may be seen as diminishing their own nationhood?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Mull

Is this phrase widespread? I haven't heard a phrase so nicely bring FN into the fold of building this nation. I wonder if this idea would be accepted by FN groups, as it may be seen as diminishing their own nationhood?

It’s fairly common.

The treaties guarantee their nationhood, but that also further confirms their status as Founding Peoples.

No treaties, no Canada.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Mull

Why do we need a president or crown?

Most constitutional democracies have a separate head of government and head of state. The former is partisan, engages in political wrangling, and pushes legislation. The latter is non-partisan, carries out ceremonial roles, and defends the constitution. These aren’t archaic distinctions, either. Newer states like Germany (1949), the Czech Republic (1993), and Poland (1997) established the separate roles in their constitutions.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Virtually all of the most stable democracies in the world are constitutional monarchies. Canada, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, the UK.

Some of the very least stable democracies in the world are also constitutional monarchies (Thailand, Lesotho, Samoa). So I don't think you can really draw a conclusion from your point.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Some of the very least stable democracies in the world are also constitutional monarchies (Thailand, Lesotho, Samoa). So I don't think you can really draw a conclusion from your point.

Is this post parody? Come on.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by peter12

Is this post parody? Come on.

I wouldn't bother changing, but the argument that constitutional democracies are stable doesn't hold water.

Unless he meant to say the stable constitutional democracies are stable, in which case I would agree with that tautology.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by peter12

As to the appointment of the GG - Harper did it right and Trudeau did it wrong (the first time).

The best GG is someone kind of scholarly, but not overly so, who enjoys the almost endless ceremonial aspect of the job but is canny enough to get why the institution exists and why it must be used properly.

Paquette really did think she was some kind of god-king - inserting her own takes on policy into speeches, going off script on diplomatic missions etc…

gif time

Spoiler!

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Trudeau Sr did away with that in 1982?The GG actually gives the ascent to bills, and not the Crown in London.

Ok, even better then.if it's an entirely symbolic position with no real power, what's the point?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by peter12

toss UCB.

salad?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Ok, even better then.if it's an entirely symbolic position with no real power, what's the point?

I think the point is that you need a head of state. Whether its a GG, a President or a King.

The good part with ours is that it's neither a President nor a King which are the worst options.

If you are of the thought that the head of state should also be the head of government, then you get the United States of Chaotic Democracy.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I think the point is that you need a head of state. Whether its a GG, a President or a King.

The good part with ours is that it's neither a President nor a King which are the worst options.

If you are of the thought that the head of state should also be the head of government, then you get the United States of Chaotic Democracy.

Isn't it a Queen?

If she is the Queen's representative...........

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I think the point is that you need a head of state. Whether its a GG, a President or a King.

The good part with ours is that it's neither a President nor a King which are the worst options.

If you are of the thought that the head of state should also be the head of government, then you get the United States of Chaotic Democracy.

Has there been a time when this role has actively blocked any legislation passed it's way? If it's just a rubber stamp position then what is the difference between what america does and what we do, except with one added layer of beaurocracy?

I dont really know much about this stuff, I'm glad to be wrong lol

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Isn't it a Queen?

If she is the Queen's representative...........

Originally Posted by stone hands

Has there been a time when this role has actively blocked any legislation passed it's way? If it's just a rubber stamp position then what is the difference between what america does and what we do, except with one added layer of beaurocracy?

I dont really know much about this stuff, I'm glad to be wrong lol

Like Peter and others have mentioned our democracy operates with rules AND norms. The norms part being as important as the rules.

I have no love for the monarchy, but the GG is independent of London and that is good enough for me. If she is the symbolic representative of the monarch, so be it. It's a nod to Canada's history as a British territory basically up until 1931.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Has there been a time when this role has actively blocked any legislation passed it's way? If it's just a rubber stamp position then what is the difference between what america does and what we do, except with one added layer of beaurocracy?

I dont really know much about this stuff, I'm glad to be wrong lol

Read about the King- Byng affair when the sitting GG refused a request from the PM to dissolve Parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King–Byng_affair

[peter12]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I wouldn't bother changing, but the argument that constitutional democracies are stable doesn't hold water.

Unless he meant to say the stable constitutional democracies are stable, in which case I would agree with that tautology.

What's that concept... Lindy? Stable democracies are stable because they are stable. It's a tautology for a reason.

You pulled up some "constitutional monarchies" that are constitutional in bare name only.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by peter12

What's that concept... Lindy? Stable democracies are stable because they are stable. It's a tautology for a reason.

You pulled up some "constitutional monarchies" that are constitutional in bare name only.

Thailand has been a democracy for a long time and had a constitution for a long time, after evolving from a full monarchy (same process as the UK). It did not evolve to a stable form.

Obviously stable democracies (including Canada) are stable and there isn't much of a reason to mess around with things. But Cliff's assertion was that the stability is a function of being a constitutional monarchy. I don't think that's true. There are unstable versions of the same form.

If you decide they don't count as constitutional monarchies because they're unstable then you're redefining the words. Those countries are all monarchies, and they all have constitutions that specify elections.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Thailand has been a democracy for a long time and had a constitution for a long time, after evolving from a full monarchy (same process as the UK). It did not evolve to a stable form.

Obviously stable democracies (including Canada) are stable and there isn't much of a reason to mess around with things. But Cliff's assertion was that the stability is a function of being a constitutional monarchy. I don't think that's true. There are unstable versions of the same form.

If you decide they don't count as constitutional monarchies because they're unstable then you're redefining the words. Those countries are all monarchies, and they all have constitutions that specify elections.

Thailand hasn't been a democracy for even 100 years. I's constitution has been written and rewritten many times - most recently in 2017. It is hardly in the same category as the regimes listed by Cliff.

We can drill down deeper, but many of us "pro" monarchy types have mentioned culture as an important component to a successful democratic regime.

[MegaErtz]

People here have short memories. The Governor General allowed Stephen Harper to prorogue parliament in late 2008 when he didn't have the confidence of the House and the Liberals and NDP announced that they had reached a coalition agreement that would have had the confidence of the House. I'm not sure how you can square a Governor General being non-partisan when they were directly responsible for overturning the results of a free and fair election less than thirteen years ago.