The Canadian "Prime Minister" does not exist

reply to post by jhnsmth


My sentiments exactly.

Because the left is split, the tendency of a Conservative minority government seems unlikely to change.

Unless, of course, that the majority of Canadians analyses the situation in the same way we do, and chooses to give the NPD a go... at the very least, it can't be any worse than what we've had from the others.

The additional problem in Quebec is, apart from the separation issue of course, the Bloc and the NPD have very similar ideas, making the split much less obvious to avoid.

Cheers,

the Billmeister

Originally posted by alldaylong
She did this with the then Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975.

Very wrong actually. The GG, John Kerr, removed Whitlam as he was incompetent. The Queen had no say in the matter.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by alldaylong
She did this with the then Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975.

Very wrong actually. The GG, John Kerr, removed Whitlam as he was incompetent. The Queen had no say in the matter.

If the situation in Australia is the same as it is in Canada, and I suspect it is, the Governor General is nothing more then the spokesperson for the Queen, so, yes, in fact, it was the Queen's decision, being carried out through her agent in the Commonwealth, the Governor General.

the Billmeister

EDIT:

The Constitution provides that a "Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth . . ."

source
That said, the WikiPedia page does seem to indicate that the Australian Governor General has more independent powers than that of Canada... in which case, I humbly stand corrected.

Originally posted by Billmeister
If the situation in Australia is the same as it is in Canada, and I suspect it is, the Governor General is nothing more then the spokesperson for the Queen, so, yes, in fact, it was the Queen's decision, being carried out through her agent in the Commonwealth, the Governor General.

I would guess that the GG communicated a political decision to the Queen, who basically rubber-stamped it if there was no abiding craziness with the notion.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I would guess that the GG communicated a political decision to the Queen, who basically rubber-stamped it if there was no abiding craziness with the notion.

You guess wrong, the GG alone made the decision to sack the incompetent Whitlam, the Queen would have been informed after the event.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I would guess that the GG communicated a political decision to the Queen, who basically rubber-stamped it if there was no abiding craziness with the notion.

You guess wrong, the GG alone made the decision to sack the incompetent Whitlam, the Queen would have been informed after the event.

I tend to interpret the role of Governor General in the same way as JohnnyCanuck, in that they are an agent of the Queen, answerable to her, not the other way around.

As established by the Constitution, the Parliament of Australia is composed of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate, together with the Queen of Australia. The Queen is represented through the Governor-General, who has executive powers granted in the Constitution,[1] as well as rarely exercised reserve powers.

1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis

So, if you have any sources that make your interpretation somewhat clearer for me, that would be fabulous.

Thanks, in advance,

the Billmeister

Originally posted by Billmeister
So, if you have any sources that make your interpretation somewhat clearer for me, that would be fabulous.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Although the Governor-General and the Queen occasionally observe certain formalities, in practice the Governor-General carries out her constitutional responsibilities without reference to the Queen. In 1975, the Queen, through her Private Secretary, wrote that she "has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution""....

"Sir Robert Garran noted as early as 1901 that the governor-general was distinguished from other Empire governors-general by the fact that "the principal and most important of his powers and functions, legislative as well as executive, are expressly conferred on him by the terms of the Constitution itself... [T]hey are legislative and executive powers and functions conferred on the Governor-General, not by Royal authority, but by statutory authority,"

I have always voted strategically, hoping my choice would result in success for the lesser of two evils.

This time around I'm voting with my conscience. I'm voting GREEN.

i dont understand how we can let one women run everything like the queen seems to do..
like am i the only person who sees something wrong with this?

reply to post by dereks


Thanks for that.

As I noted in an earlier post, it appears that the Australian Governor General has more independence than that of Canada.

It stills makes for an interesting situation, the Prime Minister names the Governor General, so presumably, he is deemed to be trustworthy and loyal, yet this same person who is not elected in any way, has the power to "overthrow" the person who appointed him.

Again, thanks for the precision.

the Billmeister

reply to post by dereks


I had time to read the entire page this morning... I probably should have prior to my initial response.

Although, as you quoted, the Australian Constitution does appear to separate the role of the Governor General from the influence of the Queen more so than other members of the Commonwealth, the official role does have a certain ambiguity to it.

Firstly, the quote posted :

Although the Governor-General and the Queen occasionally observe certain formalities...

is followed by citation needed, which does not mean it is untrue, however, it is not backed up by any official source.

Further along is where a greater ambiguity appears, with the description:

At the start of Chapter 2 on executive government, the Constitution says "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative".

In any case, although it seems quite outdated and somewhat archaic, the Queen does hold a great amount of constitutional power over a vast portion of the globe. I know that there is an important movement in Australia to remove the Monarch's role in government altogether and I tend to agree with it.

As I stated in an earlier post, I am convinced that, following the death of the current Queen, there will be a lot of questions raised as to the relevance of continuing such an antiquated, anti-democratic system.

the Billmeister

reply to post by Billmeister


As an outsider looking in.. I guess this is the natural progression and things will certainly change when Queenie passes.. since I can not see a nice way of changing your relationship with Britain.. I know it'll be a shame to lose your friendship. still I wish you all the best of luck

I have to wonder...

Since the Monarch of England is techniquely NOT the head of Canada. The Monarch of Canada is, which is currently two seperate seats held by one person hence most of the confusion.

Could the Queen of Both (theoretically) give the Crown of England to one grandson and the Crown of Canada to the other?

If so, I call dibs on Harry!

reply to post by peck420


Very good observation...

Considering the quality of our beer, and his love of a good time, I'm sure Harry's already called dibs on Canada!

Cheers,

the Billmeister