R011 Posted January 7 Posted January 7 (edited) 2 hours ago, Murph said: You governor General is not appointed by the KIng? "No" was the short answer because I was in the bus The long answer is that the King of Canada is told by the Canadian PM who he will appoint. The King has no say in it and the UK government is not involved in any way. Edited January 7 by R011
rmgill Posted January 7 Posted January 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, R011 said: "No" was the short answer because I was in the bus The king answer is that the King of Canada is told by the Canadian PM who he will appoint. The King has no say in it and the UK government is not involved in any way. Strange the website of the Goverment of Canada specifically says: Quote "Appointed by The King on the advice of the prime minister, the governor general usually holds office for 5 years. Lieutenant Governors fulfill the responsibilities and functions of The King in the provinces in the same way that the governor general does at the national level." More so: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/governor-general.html Quote How is a Governor General Designate chosen? The Governor General is appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister. An advisory group can be established to assist with the identification of potential candidates in order to submit a shortlist of outstanding Canadians for the Prime Minister’s consideration. Legally it sounds like the practice of letting the PM decide 1st is secondary to the actual legal appointment. ie that the PMs advice may not be binding if there's a difference of opinion. Edited January 7 by rmgill
Ssnake Posted January 8 Posted January 8 Woe to the King that would actually test your legal theory by pushing a candidate of his own. That's the point of the British monarchy, it's regulated by tradition first, law second. Nobody knows the exact boundary of the monarch's powers, but whenever they tested it in the past it practically always resulted in "Nope, can't do that", at which point the precedent has been set. So, they have adopted a regime of detente between monarch on one side, and parliament/administration on the other. "We don't restrict your powers if you don't test them" / "I let you do your thing unless you really push my buttons". Either side must be willing to risk it all by going to the highest court for a decision, and then live with that henceforth. This is why the UK gets by without a written constitution. It's the epitome of careful, slow evolution of a political system in Sowell's definition of the "restrained vision" while every (newly) written constitution falls into the realm of the "unrestricted vision", the belief that you can come up with flawless rules.
R011 Posted January 8 Posted January 8 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Ssnake said: Woe to the King that would actually test your legal theory by pushing a candidate of his own. That's the point of the British monarchy, it's regulated by tradition first, law second. Nobody knows the exact boundary of the monarch's powers, but whenever they tested it in the past it practically always resulted in "Nope, can't do that", at which point the precedent has been set. So, they have adopted a regime of detente between monarch on one side, and parliament/administration on the other. "We don't restrict your powers if you don't test them" / "I let you do your thing unless you really push my buttons". Either side must be willing to risk it all by going to the highest court for a decision, and then live with that henceforth. This is why the UK gets by without a written constitution. It's the epitome of careful, slow evolution of a political system in Sowell's definition of the "restrained vision" while every (newly) written constitution falls into the realm of the "unrestricted vision", the belief that you can come up with flawless rules. The King's powers are limited to what Parliament allows. Parliament can hire or fire Kings as it wishes , as Great Britain did, or declare a republic, as Ireland, India did and others have done. And the UK government has absolutely no power at all here And "on the advice of" is just a polite way of saying "as ordered by". The King simply cannot act contrary to the "advice" of a PM on this or several other things. Edited January 8 by R011
rmgill Posted January 8 Posted January 8 Interesting. So the law means what Parliament wants it to mean?
glenn239 Posted January 8 Posted January 8 (edited) 8 hours ago, rmgill said: Interesting. So the law means what Parliament wants it to mean? If your interested in this, google or ChatGpt the King-Byng Affair of 1926. That was the big one in terms of a Governor General and Prime Minister having a stand off. Another incident was in 1970, called the October Crisis. Here, the PM (another Trudeau) wanted to enact the War Measures Act and needed to consult the Governor General. In this case, assent was given so there was no question whether the Governor General had some sort of power over the PM. However, in theory a crisis could have been triggered had the GG said 'no'. But he didn't. In the Covid era all measures in Canada were implemented without need for any input of the GG. But when Harper and Trudeau prorogued parliament, the GG could have said no, in which case the PM could not have done it. So generally speaking, the GG is a symbolic position, but in cases where the Canadian public is strongly against what the PM wants to do and the GG has some role to play in giving assent, in theory they could act as a check against the power of the PM. On a scale of 1 to 10 about what Canadians are currently worried about, the economy is a 10 and the constitutional role of the GG is a 0. Edited January 8 by glenn239
rmgill Posted January 8 Posted January 8 Much like folk’s interest in how the VP is president of the senate and largely useless until there’s a tie in a senate vote.
DB Posted January 9 Posted January 9 On 1/8/2025 at 12:27 AM, Ssnake said: Woe to the King that would actually test your legal theory by pushing a candidate of his own. That's the point of the British monarchy, it's regulated by tradition first, law second. Nobody knows the exact boundary of the monarch's powers, but whenever they tested it in the past it practically always resulted in "Nope, can't do that", at which point the precedent has been set. So, they have adopted a regime of detente between monarch on one side, and parliament/administration on the other. "We don't restrict your powers if you don't test them" / "I let you do your thing unless you really push my buttons". Either side must be willing to risk it all by going to the highest court for a decision, and then live with that henceforth. This is why the UK gets by without a written constitution. It's the epitome of careful, slow evolution of a political system in Sowell's definition of the "restrained vision" while every (newly) written constitution falls into the realm of the "unrestricted vision", the belief that you can come up with flawless rules. The limits of the Monarchy have been, as you have noted, tested continually with "the people" as represented by Parliament tending to win the debate in recent centuries. In fact, it hasn't been properly tested since King Charles 1st was briefly advised that putting his neck on the line for it wasn't all that it was cracked up to be. However, Royal Assent is required for acts of parliament and there have been many recent (i.e. QE2 era) where the monarch has influenced details of specific laws as part of the consultation process. Much like the US Congress is very good at making laws that apply to everyone but themselves, HMQ apparently managed to get laws amended so they didn't affect her or the Crown Estate.
Ivanhoe Posted January 10 Posted January 10 https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/08/canadian-doctors-suggest-harvesting-organs-from-euthanasia-patients-before-theyre-dead/ Quote Canadian doctors have suggested killing euthanasia victims by taking their organs, according to multiple reports, whistleblowers, and public talks. Medical freedom advocates are documenting emerging ties between “medical assistance in dying” (MAID) and organ harvesting. Quote Sibbald’s biography says he co-directs the “Canadian unit of the International Network of the UNESCO chair in bioethics.” During his speech, he suggested blurring the lines on the “dead donor rule,” a long-standing medical ethics guideline requiring that donors die of another natural cause before doctors harvest their organs. Quote Disabled whistleblower Roger Foley, who says he has been pressured to accept euthanasia four times, told The Federalist Sibbald’s speech appears to suggest doctors might harvest organs from live patients. What could possibly go wrong?
Ivanhoe Posted January 10 Posted January 10 Python and The Simpsons have predicted pretty much everything.
Ivanhoe Posted January 15 Posted January 15 https://www.abcactionnews.com/science-and-tech/animals-and-insects/large-great-white-shark-pinged-off-the-florida-coast-multiple-times-last-week Quote A massive great white shark named Breton pinged off of Daytona Beach, Florida, multiple times over the weekend, according to data from the nonprofit Ocearch. The 13-foot, 1,400-pound beast of a shark left Newfoundland, Canada, in early November, beginning its journey along the East Coast toward the Sunshine State. You bastards.
Ivanhoe Posted January 22 Posted January 22 https://townhall.com/columnists/tomknighton/2025/01/21/guns-dont-kill-people-canada-kills-people-n2650897 Quote Meanwhile, how many Americans were killed with a gun in 2023, which mostly lines up with this time period? 13,529. The United States has more than eight times the population of Canada, and even massive death and destruction brought about by our gun policy pales in comparison to the number of people the Canadian government managed to kill during that period. Even if you just counted the euthanizations, the death toll is higher not just on a per capita basis but in raw total numbers as well. Yet, that number is doubled when you count the deaths that were the result of inaction on the part of the Canadian healthcare system. Yikes.
R011 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 12 hours ago, Ivanhoe said: https://townhall.com/columnists/tomknighton/2025/01/21/guns-dont-kill-people-canada-kills-people-n2650897 Yikes. Well, it starts with a tu quoque which is usually not a sign of impartiality. It's from a conservative activist think tank with an antipathy for socialized medicine. It's combining two different issues. It's also not giving a comparison between systems. For instance, how many Americans die because they don't have insurance, their treatment is denied by their provider, or they're cut off because they've become unprofitable for the insurer? Should we count suicides following medical bankruptcy? As for American gun deaths, yeah, there are too many. Adopting Canadian gun laws probably would make little or no difference.
rmgill Posted January 23 Posted January 23 Socialized medicine is generally a monopoly. When it fails or is interminably slow, its a failure of the system that is supposed to be a guarantee that you had no choice but to pay for. Combine that with additions like MAID its a hell of a ‘guarantee’.
glenn239 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 8 hours ago, rmgill said: Combine that with additions like MAID its a hell of a ‘guarantee’. The only person I've personally heard of that took MAID was the next door neighbor of a friend of mine, terminally ill with a brutal cancer.
bojan Posted January 23 Posted January 23 8 hours ago, rmgill said: Socialized medicine is generally a monopoly. ... Except in Europe it is not.
Ssnake Posted January 23 Posted January 23 Participation is largely mandatory (which IMO makes sense), and at least in Germany you have a somewhat limited choice (there are multiple insurance companies working within the same (relatively tight) regulatory framework; then there's another set of insurance companies for a different group of population (when you either exceed certain income thresholds, or if you're a civil servant (including soldiers)). On top of it all, everybody can have private extra insurance for things that the public system doesn't cover (if they can afford paying the premiums, naturally).
glenn239 Posted January 29 Posted January 29 So, we're coming up on Trump's deadline for the imposition of tariffs on Canada. For those not up to snuff, the plan is for the US to impose a 25% blanket duty on all goods from Canada entering the USA on February 1st. This is in violation of the existing trade treaty, the USMCA. This was supposed to run until 2026 before any proposals for changes would be made. So the question are why is he doing it, what does he expect to get out of it, and what should Canada do about it?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now