[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

One way of stating the essence of small-c conservatism is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". 😄

I rather suspect that a small-c conservative would look at the GG and say that the office plays its part in an overall machinery of government that tries to protect political continuity without the dramatic upheavals that come from investing all legitimacy and political power in the hands of democratically elected leaders and parties. While the role of the GG may be small, it is important - to remind everyone that the Prime Minister is not the ruler, merely first among ministers, and so to avoid delusions of grandeur and disregard for courtesies and conventions necessary for good governance, such as displayed during the recent Trump Presidency to our south.

Sure, mistakes can be made in appointing the wrong person - that is true of literally any position or office. Other systems do the same job through an elected figure, rather than an appointed one. That probably would not make much difference.

The role of the GG is a bit more than just symbolic though.  It comes up rarely, but it is there.  The GG is the ultimate refuge of an out of control government.

If the government of the day signs a completely outrageous and unpopular bill the GG can refuse to give it royal assent.  This would immediately precipitate a constitutional crisis so a GG is going to very rarely use such power (I think they never have), but sometimes a constitutional crisis might be the lesser of two evils.  As well the GG has to rule on questions of who gets to form government and when to call elections.

And even the symbolic stuff is still a job.  Those rubber chickens don't eat themselves, speeches to speak themselves, that sort of thing.  That was part of the problem with Payette - she wasn't doing the actual work of being Governor-General.

[Malthus]

Oh, I agree that the GG plays a role. Though that role would not be very meaningful if it was not also symbolic - symbols are important. It is important to have a head of state who is, in theory, beyond party, so that you lessen the risk that the nation becomes divided by winner take all factionalism.

While it is true the GG plays a potential role in preventing out of control governments, their real value is in merely existing in the first place.

Also, I agree someone has to do the speechifying and awards ceremonies, and if the GG didn't do it, someone else would have to, presumably an actual minister who no doubt (a) has better things to do, and (b) would use such opportunities to plug themselves and their party.

[crazy canuck]

I think Johnston showed how beneficial the GG role can be. 

Also without a GG we would need to become a Republic. 

[viper37]

Paull Wells on the GG debacle.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-problem-with-modernizing-and-the-governor-general/

What a remarkable piece on the virtues of small-c conservative ideology!

I will jumped 10' in the air whenever I see a small-c conservative proposing the abolition of GG and cutting ties to monarchy.  Sadly, there's no way I'll be held to that bet while I'm alive.

It's another debacle in a long story of debacles.  I can't wrap my heads around small-c conservative being opposed to wellfare while at the same time cheering for what is essentially a wellfare title and position. C'mon.  Signing papers that you don't have to read.  Just about anyone out of high school could do that.  FFS, the Prime Minister could do it.

I think that first you would need to find a small-c conservative politician. 

I suspect our understanding of small-c conservative is different though, given that you think it means opposing a policy that has been around for longer than any of the politicians you are referring to have been alive.

from my pov, all Canadian politicians, except the Bloc, are small-c conservative for agreeing with a tradition for the sake of traditions.

[Oexmelin]

[viper37]

One way of stating the essence of small-c conservatism is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". 😄

I rather suspect that a small-c conservative would look at the GG and say that the office plays its part in an overall machinery of government that tries to protect political continuity without the dramatic upheavals that come from investing all legitimacy and political power in the hands of democratically elected leaders and parties. While the role of the GG may be small, it is important - to remind everyone that the Prime Minister is not the ruler, merely first among ministers, and so to avoid delusions of grandeur and disregard for courtesies and conventions necessary for good governance, such as displayed during the recent Trump Presidency to our south.

that's the theory.

In practice though... the GG is named by the Prime Minister in counsel, not the queen, who possibly never met or spoke to Payette herself.  Just here, with that, it's hard to argue the PM isn't the boss... But let's look further.

The GG is obligated to sign the laws, and other documents presented to the office by the government, that is, the ruling party, the one who has obtained majority in the Commons, or the tacit approval of other parties, in case of a minority govt, for the sake of electoral concerns rather than genuine love of the bills voted, when the govt risks falling (such as budget bills, and a few others).

The GG can not refuse to sign into law any kind of bill voted in the Commons in 1st reading, sent to the Senate for a 2nd reading and coming back to the Commons for its final approval on the 3rd reading.  Even if she thinks it's highly inconstitutional. Even if she thinks it's dangerous for Canadians.  He/she is powerless, that's up to the court.  Her job was to rubberstamp whatever the govt was throwing at her.

Now, you say, "but what if there was a constitutional crisis!?".  Well, we have had the parliament prorogued for political reasons more than once.  In Michaelle Jean's own words: she was legally obligated to approve of the PM's prorogation.

So, what do we have:

• a non elected official who can not refuse to sign a bill into law
  
• a non elected official nominated by the Prime Minister, from his own list, disregarding any committeed set up to pick nominees at his own whim
  
• a non elected official who can be asked/pressured to resign at any time by the Prime Minister
  
• a non elected official who has to agree to disband parliament at any time the Prime Minister makes such demand
  
• a non elected official whose official duty is to great foreign dignitaries at the airport, something the US President does not, something the French President does not, something the German President may or may not be doing itself, but we know for sure the GG never goes to the airport itself to great foreign dignitaries.  There are specific protocols for that that do not involve the GG itself.
  
• a non elected official whose official duty is to open the ballroom dance, then let the Prime Minister and its wife/husband take the floor.  When was the last time in Canada such a thing was considered of the utmost importance?  When was the last time you saw a front-page news article about the latest ballroom dance in Ottawa, who attended, who danced in what order?  Josephus, in your carreer, when was the last time you reported on such a thing?  Who here, can honestly say they would be shattered to learn the last time such an even occured it was Justin Trudeau and not the GG who tool the floor first?  BB, don't answer that, please.  I want us to remain friends
  

In all honesty, we keep such a position for the sake of traditions.  It's been done this way since 1763, it stayed that way in 1774, it stayed that way in 1840, it stayed that way in 1865, so let's keep it for 2021.

And I would argue that it is in fact broken.  We've seen Lieutenant Governor and General Governor grossly misallocate public funds to maintain their exagerated lifestyle.  We've seen GG and LG neglicting their duties, as small as they were.  We've seen LG and GG be powerless in front of a Premier/Prime Minister who wanted to do whatever he felt like he wanted to do with parliament.

There can be absolutely no doubt the position is important. Because we make it so.  Because we have chosen to delegate final authority to a non elected official, the way the British do it, to commerate our importance as a British colony, we have decided that the Queen's representative should remain in power, even if the Queen knows fuck all about whatever dimwit was picked by the Prime Minister to fullfill his agenda.

Honestly, how many Canadians would even know their GG's name, outside of a scandal?

It's time for Constitutional changes in this country, it's time to truly be an independant nation without the archaic symbols of dominance over the colonial dimwits unable to decide what's best for themselves without the guidance of a benevolant monarch chosen by God.

[viper37]

The role of the GG is a bit more than just symbolic though.  It comes up rarely, but it is there.  The GG is the ultimate refuge of an out of control government.

No, that is the Supreme Court's job.  Just like in the US, actually.

If the government of the day signs a completely outrageous and unpopular bill the GG can refuse to give it royal assent.

No, it can not.  The GG has to sign the bill.  It would be up to the court to decide for the rest, based on legal principles.

This would immediately precipitate a constitutional crisis so a GG is going to very rarely use such power (I think they never have),

Not since they are Canadians picked by the Prime Minister (in counsel).

And in any case, the government would simply ask the GG to resign and replace him/her with someone more malleable.  But it never comes to this, because they are picked precisely because they will obey the PM when needed.

Had the US had a Governor General like Canada, Trump would still be the President

but sometimes a constitutional crisis might be the lesser of two evils.  As well the GG has to rule on questions of who gets to form government and when to call elections.

Not really.

The GG's role is limited to ask the potential government if it has the trust of the Parliament.  At which point, the leader of that party either says Yes and he officially becomes PM, or he says no and the GG asks the next leader Yes/No.  The GG does not decide anything, the parliament does.  The asshole from the Bloc could well declare he has the trust of the chamber to rule and the GG could very well declare him PM, the moment he steps into parliament, if all the other parties vote against his throne speech, he's out of the picture as PM.

The GG is just a formality for the sake of formality.

And even the symbolic stuff is still a job.  Those rubber chickens don't eat themselves, speeches to speak themselves, that sort of thing.  That was part of the problem with Payette - she wasn't doing the actual work of being Governor-General.

Because it was decided for us colonial dimwits long ago that it was the duty of the GG to enact bills into laws and we kept it ever since, even if it's a powerless role now.

We could easily require it to be the job of the Prime Minister to rubber stamp the laws he put through the commons.  We would save time and money, and the result would be the same.

[viper37]

Also without a GG we would need to become a Republic. 

and that would the worst of all evils for Canadians, I guess.

[Grey Fox]

Nah, let's not have a Republic. Let's just name ourselves a Royal House. The Gretzkys perhaps?

[crazy canuck]

Also without a GG we would need to become a Republic. 

and that would the worst of all evils for Canadians, I guess.

And end up like the US, yep.

Also, it is not the role of the Supreme Court to prevent passage of a bill or to involve itself in any way in the legislative process.  That would be a huge overstepping of its jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of statutes which have been proclaimed into law - guess who does the proclaiming 

[viper37]

they had a policy of separating children from their parents, just like Trump.  And they forbid attachments, just like the Vatican.

Who knows, maybe they were a ring of child-eating pedophiles after all?

[viper37]

Nah, let's not have a Republic. Let's just name ourselves a Royal House. The Gretzkys perhaps?

Canadians might be behind that idea

[viper37]

Also without a GG we would need to become a Republic. 

and that would the worst of all evils for Canadians, I guess.

And end up like the US, yep.

Just because it didn't work 4 years in 244 does not mean it is fundamentally flawed.

Also, it is not the role of the Supreme Court to prevent passage of a bill or to involve itself in any way in the legislative process.  That would be a huge overstepping of its jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of statutes which have been proclaimed into law - guess who does the proclaiming 

I meant once it is a law.  The Supreme court will decide if it was a sound law, in regards to the Constitution and other laws enacted by the parliament.  The GG does not have the moral authority, nor the legal one, to decide if a bill if constitutionnaly wrong, or unpopular, or eggregious.

A bill, after 3 readings, becomes law, wether the GG wants it or not.  Even if I disagree with the Libs, I would be outraged if a GG decided not to sign a bill into law because it was unpopular in Canada

[crazy canuck]

Just because it didn't work 4 years in 244 does not mean it is fundamentally flawed.

If the last four years were the only times the US government has been dysfunctional, you would have a point.

In any even I much prefer not having someone with the power their president has.  For all the reasons we have discussed in the past.  I much prefer our Parliamentary system where a party actually has an incentive to take down a weak leader (and especially when they are governing).

[Valmy]

If you want a President we have four used ones we could send you