Support NeoGAF

[Pancake Mix]

Well, this is why we should have a president instead of an appointed figurehead who would have been accused of being partisan since she was a Liberal appointee.

Ugh, not a president. Canada shouldn't be a republic.

Should just be a rule written into the constitution to prevent that and similar situations that were literally just to prevent coalitions and confidence and supply agreements from happening.

Also...voters should have punished Harper at the polls, not rewarded him.

 

[orochi91]

So...this is happening: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ism-and-homophobia-in-35-million-lawsuit.html

Dayyuuuuuuuuum

That's some deep-seated bigotry.

I don't know how this level of discrimination within the agency could even be addressed.

 

[mdubs]

There's nothing she could've done in that situation, as GGs have to take advice from the Privy Council. The entire thing about consulting constitutional lawyers was just for show.

Citation needed

 

[SRG01]

Citation needed

Sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King–Byng_Affair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_Canada

For a more specific one, which I personally never bought: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...eal-to-queen-over-prorogation/article1733882/

The question became moot when Ms. Jean acceded to Mr. Harper's request for prorogation, based on constitutional convention and in the wake of broad public opposition to a coalition government.

But not before making him and the nation wait two hours before revealing her decision. "The idea wasn't to create artificial suspense," the Governor-General said this week in an interview with The Canadian Press. "The idea was to send a message - and for people to understand that this warranted reflection."

Only problem was that provincial and federal governments still prorogued at will after this affair. It was a hollow message.

 

[firehawk12]

So...this is happening: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...n-lawsuit.html

Given the lawsuits against the RCMP and the Military, I'm honestly not surprised.

Ugh, not a president. Canada shouldn't be a republic.

Should just be a rule written into the constitution to prevent that and similar situations that were literally just to prevent coalitions and confidence and supply agreements from happening.

Also...voters should have punished Harper at the polls, not rewarded him.

There are no rules, only conventions, which is why I think Westminster governments while academically interesting for policy nerds who like to get excited over strange procedural quirks, they are also inherently broken.

Like if you read about Westminster traditions, you discover that the idea of a "Prime Minister" was meant as an insult against the man who effectively usurped power (Robert Walpole). It wasn't initially considered an official position that someone aimed for in order to lead a country. It's why in the UK, the PM is also the "First Lord of the Treasury", since the idea is that the person who controls the money also controls the country.

It's all very interesting, but now we have a dumb situation in BC where we have no idea if there will be a government or another election, all because no one decided to create any actual rules for what happens in the event of a tie.

 

[mdubs]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-legal-analysis-aaron-wherry-1.4199409

I think this is compelling commentary on the Khadr matter, and the fact that there isn't a particular right answer to the question of whether the $10.5 million was appropriate or not. I think Eugene Meehan's probably comes the closest to how I feel - I understand him as saying that Khadr would not have gotten that much in court (where he notes that the wrongful conviction cases are likely an upper ceiling on the damages awarded for a Charter violation - something that people arguing he would have gotten $20 million are seemingly ignoring) but that the government likely wanted to put this an end to avoid embarrassment and legal costs, which seems reasonable in my books.

I think that Dean Sossin's analysis sidesteps the issue of what he thinks the realistic damages awarded would have been. I think we all agree that Khadr obviously would have had a reasonable chance of success at getting damages - the question of much is more compelling and I wish he had answered this since I think his opinion would have been very well thought out.

Sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King–Byng_Affair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_Canada

For a more specific one, which I personally never bought: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...eal-to-queen-over-prorogation/article1733882/



Only problem was that provincial and federal governments still prorogued at will after this affair. It was a hollow message.

I don't see anything in those that is really supporting that the statement that she had no choice and was beholden to the Privy Council or anyone else aside from perhaps being constrained by some sort of constitutional convention. Peter Russell certainly seems to suggest that there was a real choice (I don't particularly care one way or another about the prorogation, but I do think that the governor general has a real choice in these matters).

 

[firehawk12]

I don't see anything in those that is really supporting that the statement that she had no choice and was beholden to the Privy Council or anyone else aside from perhaps being constrained by some sort of constitutional convention. Peter Russell certainly seems to suggest that there was a real choice (I don't particularly care one way or another about the prorogation, but I do think that the governor general has a real choice in these matters).

I think the question is whether or not an appointed figurehead should have the power to decide the future of the country against the will of the electorate.

The GG is like the Canadian equivalent of the American Electoral College. lol

 

[mdubs]

I think the question is whether or not an appointed figurehead should have the power to decide the future of the country against the will of the electorate.

That's a different issue though - I was discussing whether the GG in fact has a choice, not whether the fact that they may have a choice is a good thing or not. A very different issue.

 

[firehawk12]

That's a different issue though - I was discussing whether the GG in fact has a choice, not whether the fact that they may have a choice is a good thing or not. A very different issue.

I think they're the same question. Or, I guess more specifically, yes, the GG has a choice. At which point the question is whether or not the GG is allowed to make the choice of their own accord because of the ceremonial nature of the position.

Maybe it would have been better if Clarkson allowed the opposition to form government, forcing Harper to go through the courts to show that the GG didn't have the power to deny him prorogation to definitively answer the question.

But here we are. lol

 

[mdubs]

I think they're the same question. Or, I guess more specifically, yes, the GG has a choice. At which point the question is whether or not the GG is allowed to make the choice of their own accord because of the ceremonial nature of the position.

Maybe it would have been better if Clarkson allowed the opposition to form government, forcing Harper to go through the courts to show that the GG didn't have the power to deny him prorogation to definitively answer the question.

But here we are. lol

They are not. Those are two (or perhaps three, when I look at it) discrete questions.

1. Does the GG have a choice in the abstract?

2. Does the governor general have a choice in practice (ie. with public opinion and such)

3. Should the governor general have a choice?

and the final one you bring up

4. What should the governor general have done in this case?

The answer the first two are separated from the second two, and the answer to those first two (which is what I am discussing) are yes based on the statements of Russell and other constitutional scholars.

 

[mlclmtckr]

There are no rules, only conventions, which is why I think Westminster governments while academically interesting for policy nerds who like to get excited over strange procedural quirks, they are also inherently broken.

I mean if you look at the standards of living and metrics of freedom in Westminster democracies or similar constitutional monarchies I think you'll see that's not the case.

I mean there is a completely busted failure of a governmental experiment happening directly to the south of us and another shitshow of a bicameral legislature with separate executive occurring directly to the south of that. Compared to other democracies I think the current system looks pretty good.

 

[firehawk12]

I mean if you look at the standards of living and metrics of freedom in Westminster democracies or similar constitutional monarchies I think you'll see that's not the case.

I mean there is a completely busted failure of a governmental experiment happening directly to the south of us and another shitshow of a bicameral legislature with separate executive occurring directly to the south of that. Compared to other democracies I think the current system looks pretty good.

The lack of an executive is responsible for Australia's insane instability in the last 5 years, where party members basically kept backstabbing each other to the point where both parties had to change rules to prevent yet another "coup".

(Although I think Australia is also better because of its elected senate, but then again, I suppose Australia is more of a hybrid than a true Westminster democracy where the upper house is just a peerage).

They are not. Those are two (or perhaps three, when I look at it) discrete questions.

1. Does the GG have a choice in the abstract?

2. Does the governor general have a choice in practice (ie. with public opinion and such)

3. Should the governor general have a choice?

and the final one you bring up

4. What should the governor general have done in this case?

The answer the first two are separated from the second two, and the answer to those first two (which is what I am discussing) are yes based on the statements of Russell and other constitutional scholars.

I think the question of 1 and 2 are moot because there's nothing to stop a GG from making a choice outside of tradition.
With Byng, he had to ask advice from "daddy UK" and was basically bound by "convention" and "tradition", but he could have agreed to King's demand to dissolve parliament if he wanted to. Like, I don't think the UK would have sent troops to Canada to restore democracy if the GG decided to support King in dissolving parliament.

Interestingly, Australia also has an amazing example of the GG using their powers in the double dissolution crisis in the 70s. This made the King-Byng affair seem tame by comparison.

 

[Sean C]

It's all very interesting, but now we have a dumb situation in BC where we have no idea if there will be a government or another election, all because no one decided to create any actual rules for what happens in the event of a tie.

There are rules, i.e., the Lieutenant Governor makes the call, depending on what she thinks the prospects for a functioning government are. If the legislature can't function, we try again until we get one. It's a system built to avoid locking in a dysfunctional government long-term (which is what the American system does these days).

 

[firehawk12]

There are rules, i.e., the Lieutenant Governor makes the call, depending on what she thinks the prospects for a functioning government are. If the legislature can't function, we try again until we get one. It's a system built to avoid locking in a dysfunctional government long-term (which is what the American system does these days).

I was thinking more of the Speaker acting like the VP of the United States and breaking all ties in favour of the government.

I mean this is all academic anyway, but there is a part of me that thinks the position of GG/Lt. GG is even more broken than the current Senate, particularly when they have the power to decide the future of government without any public consultation.

Like I'm fine with Jean and Clarkson as figurehead leaders, since it says something to pick visible minorities to represent the country as a whole. And maybe they should have picked an Aboriginal Canadian to fill the role this time, if the idea of "Canada 150" is reconciliation. But I'd rather they didn't have any actual responsibilities either. Heck, I'd almost rather they dragged the Queen into whatever mess we find ourselves in (like Mulroney did with his Senate expansion) than leave it to the appointee who happened to be in the seat at the time.

 

[Cake Boss]

Oh wow CSIS is a piece of shit organization? who would have thought.

Wouldn't be surprised if this brings up other lawsuits, I am looking at you CBSA.

 

[SRG01]

I was thinking more of the Speaker acting like the VP of the United States and breaking all ties in favour of the government.

I mean this is all academic anyway, but there is a part of me that thinks the position of GG/Lt. GG is even more broken than the current Senate, particularly when they have the power to decide the future of government without any public consultation.

Like I'm fine with Jean and Clarkson as figurehead leaders, since it says something to pick visible minorities to represent the country as a whole. And maybe they should have picked an Aboriginal Canadian to fill the role this time, if the idea of "Canada 150" is reconciliation. But I'd rather they didn't have any actual responsibilities either. Heck, I'd almost rather they dragged the Queen into whatever mess we find ourselves in (like Mulroney did with his Senate expansion) than leave it to the appointee who happened to be in the seat at the time.

As much as I like constitutional monarchies, the biggest problem with our government is as you said: that we literally have a single, unelected, appointed position that can determine the outcome of a sitting government.

It's unfortunate that the position isn't officially ceremonial.

 

[maharg]

The alternatives are parliament completely governs itself (in which case plurality rules completely) or it becomes a position with actual power and we have to worry about balancing that power.

I think it's a feature that it's in a nebulous and tenuous grey area. It makes it so the consequences of unconventional action are severe and significant if not blatantly obviously correct.

 

[firehawk12]

The alternatives are parliament completely governs itself (in which case plurality rules completely) or it becomes a position with actual power and we have to worry about balancing that power.

I think it's a feature that it's in a nebulous and tenuous grey area. It makes it so the consequences of unconventional action are severe and significant if not blatantly obviously correct.

Which I guess circles back to Clarson being able to theoretically make any choice she wanted, but chose the most conservative option of following the advice of her Prime Minister and allowing for prorogation.

As much as I like constitutional monarchies, the biggest problem with our government is as you said: that we literally have a single, unelected, appointed position that can determine the outcome of a sitting government.

It's unfortunate that the position isn't officially ceremonial.

It's too bad that we can't go back and fix these problems without essentially breaking down the country and starting over. Maybe that allows for a more fluid democracy that can respond to circumstances that are impossible to predict, but it also creates situations where the GG is asked to do something that will inevitably be seen as controversial.

Interestingly, even New Zealand has had a constitutional crisis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_Zealand_constitutional_crisis
And here it's a case of no one knowing what should happen in between the loss of a sitting government and the election of a new government.

You know, I wonder if every single Westminster democracy has had its own shit show... lol

 

[mo60]

Next saturday and the weeks after the Alberta provincal conservative unity vote is definitely going to fun and possibly be even chaotic depending on the results of that vote
http://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...looming-in-opposition-to-united-conservatives

It will be interesting to see what happens if both pc and wildrose members vote against unity at this point next saturday.

 

[matthewwhatever]

It's too bad that we can't go back and fix these problems without essentially breaking down the country and starting over. Maybe that allows for a more fluid democracy that can respond to circumstances that are impossible to predict, but it also creates situations where the GG is asked to do something that will inevitably be seen as controversial.

Interestingly, even New Zealand has had a constitutional crisis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_Zealand_constitutional_crisis
And here it's a case of no one knowing what should happen in between the loss of a sitting government and the election of a new government.

You know, I wonder if every single Westminster democracy has had its own shit show... lol

Every form of government will have its own inherent crises and issues. Belgium has a different type of parliamentary system, and they recently had no sitting government for almost two years. Even in a U.S.-style republic, which -- and correct me if I'm wrong here -- you seem to hold as inherently superior to Westminster systems, is based on parties following certain norms and conventions; the last eight or nine years should be proof of what happens when one party decides it's going to just ignore all those in favour of self-interest.

Dysfunction to some degree is inevitable in any system, since it's impossible to prescribe rules for every situation imaginable.

 

[sikkinixx]

maybe GGs should be chosen based on the merit of their expertise in constitutional law rather than just being a "good Canadian" since their job can have serious ramifications for the country.

The same with Senators. its not like with MPs where you need to pick candidates that appeal to dipshit voters like us no matter their qualifications to do the job effectively.

 

[killer rin]

maybe GGs should be chosen based on the merit of their expertise in constitutional law rather than just being a "good Canadian" since their job can have serious ramifications for the country.

The same with Senators. its not like with MPs where you need to pick candidates that appeal to dipshit voters like us no matter their qualifications to do the job effectively.

It really isn't needed though. In the rare cases where it actually matters... eg in BC this year, Harper a couple years ago and several decades before that we can easily consult with constitutional experts. Hell, they will make their own opinion known before hand whether the GG wants it or not.

The only thing we need to be worried about is if they try to do something insane, if they try to outright dismiss things without reason or if they go vastly out of line with the popular demand. At that point we can open the constitution and codify the problem or force the Monarch to fire so we can replace them. It's a ceremonial position so it's not like they would say no

 

[Sean C]

My favourite instance of a viceroy not following convention was in my home province, when they tried to repeal Prohibition in 1944 and LG Bradford LePage refused to grant Royal Assent, as he was a staunch teetotaler. After repeated remonstrations from Premier Jones that he had to sign it, he still didn't. At that point, Jones just went "eh, his term is up next year anyway, it can wait" and let the matter drop. Though, in fact, Jones wouldn't get around to passing another repeal law until 1948.

 

[SRG01]

My favourite instance of a viceroy not following convention was in my home province, when they tried to repeal Prohibition in 1944 and LG Bradford LePage refused to grant Royal Assent, as he was a staunch teetotaler. After repeated remonstrations from Premier Jones that he had to sign it, he still didn't. At that point, Jones just went "eh, his term is up next year anyway, it can wait" and let the matter drop. Though, in fact, Jones wouldn't get around to passing another repeal law until 1948.

Ugh, that's ridiculous.

Makes me wonder why GG/LGs aren't actually from the royal family if 'royal' assent is required. Give us a cousin thrice removed or something, haha!

 

[mdubs]

maybe GGs should be chosen based on the merit of their expertise in constitutional law rather than just being a "good Canadian" since their job can have serious ramifications for the country.

The same with Senators. its not like with MPs where you need to pick candidates that appeal to dipshit voters like us no matter their qualifications to do the job effectively.

I think the character requirement is fine, and finding someone who can listen to advice. The GG will have Peter Hogg on speed dial at any rate in the event a major constitutional question arises. So I don't think we need a constitutional expert necessarily, although it was nice knowing that David Johnson had a good understanding of the constitutional implications of the position.

 

[firehawk12]

Every form of government will have its own inherent crises and issues. Belgium has a different type of parliamentary system, and they recently had no sitting government for almost two years. Even in a U.S.-style republic, which -- and correct me if I'm wrong here -- you seem to hold as inherently superior to Westminster systems, is based on parties following certain norms and conventions; the last eight or nine years should be proof of what happens when one party decides it's going to just ignore all those in favour of self-interest.

Dysfunction to some degree is inevitable in any system, since it's impossible to prescribe rules for every situation imaginable.

I'd feel more comfortable with actual rules in place for the GG, which the people decide on via the House of Commons, so that there is no question what a GG should do in a given situation. As it stands, the GG is a completely unaccountable person who theoretically can make any decision they want. But I think it's silly that Westminster traditions are not codified in any meaningful way.

I look at the silliness with the Senate, where Harper imposed term limits that no one has followed and Trudeau's "Independent Liberal" Senators. Having the Senate change based on the whims of whoever is in charge at the moment shouldn't be the best that we can hope for.

Ugh, that's ridiculous.

Makes me wonder why GG/LGs aren't actually from the royal family if 'royal' assent is required. Give us a cousin thrice removed or something, haha!

I don't get why Prince Harry isn't forced to become King of Canada or whatever if we're pretending that the monarchy is a thing that we should care about. Why not force him to become King, then force him to pop out kids to become Lt GGs.

 

[CazTGG]

For the five of you wondering what Justin Trudeau jams to...here you go?:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/trudeau-spotify-playlist-1.4207067

If you're wondering what Justin Trudeau listens to in his downtime, look no further: the prime minister has released an official Spotify playlist.

Trudeau revealed his "PM Mix" by posting a link to the streaming service on Twitter Saturday. Many of the 39 tracks might be on your playlist, as well — Drake's Signs, Shawn Mendes's There's Nothing Holdin' Me Back and Alessia Cara's Scars to Your Beautiful are among them.

The list includes songs for just about any mood, including R.E.M's melancholy hit Everybody Hurts, K-OS's energetic tune Crabbuckit and the chart-topping remix of Luis Fonsi's Despacito, which features vocals from Justin Bieber.

I take back everything nice I ever said about the current Prime Mininster.

 

[Pedrito]

Look at all that CanCon. No complaint from the CRTC.

 

[maharg]

nm

 

[SRG01]

Horgan's missing the Premier's meeting because he's getting sworn in... except he could've been sworn in days ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ll-skip-premiers-meeting-in-alberta-1.4195597

 

[firehawk12]

Horgan's missing the Premier's meeting because he's getting sworn in... except he could've been sworn in days ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...erta-1.4195597

I assume this is pipeline related.

 

[killer rin]

Horgan's missing the Premier's meeting because he's getting sworn in... except he could've been sworn in days ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ll-skip-premiers-meeting-in-alberta-1.4195597

Eh, Even if he was sworn in days ago, the article says they still need time to actually pick their ministers and get caught up on the files. Its either that or they go in blind and look like a complete fool.

 

[SRG01]

Still breaking news, I suppose. The US posted its intentions for the upcoming NAFTA negotiations: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-ustr-negotiating-objectives-monday-1.4208459

Notable items include exempting local/state government contracts from Canadian/Mexican firms, and opening up dairy/agricultural sectors.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Still breaking news, I suppose. The US posted its intentions for the upcoming NAFTA negotiations: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-ustr-negotiating-objectives-monday-1.4208459

Notable items include exempting local/state government contracts from Canadian/Mexican firms, and opening up dairy/agricultural sectors.

American milk is not milk.

 

[Fuzzy]

And the draft of the new Canadian Food Guide is dropping milk as its own food group. Coincidence?

 

[killer rin]

American milk is not milk.

America should be allowed to export their dairy products here. As long as their producers follow 100% of our health regulations on the product that comes up here. If there is a banned hormone in Canada used on a cow in the USA, that cow's milk should not be allowed anywhere near us.

 

[gutter_trash]

the Dairy cartel is too poweful, especially in Quebec.

so powerful that they tanked Maxime Bernier in his own riding for an Ontarian Andrew Sheer

fuck the Dairy Mafia Cartel.

bring on EU dairy and US dairy

the Dairy Cartel is so evil that even block local producers who do not abide by their Cartel rules..

Saputo dairy has been continuosuly snubbed in man Super Market chains in Quebec, only some Loblaw owned business carry them.

 

[CazTGG]

Still breaking news, I suppose. The US posted its intentions for the upcoming NAFTA negotiations: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-ustr-negotiating-objectives-monday-1.4208459

Notable items include exempting local/state government contracts from Canadian/Mexican firms, and opening up dairy/agricultural sectors.

Ha, like that'll happen.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Saputo dairy has been continuosuly snubbed in man Super Market chains in Quebec, only some Loblaw owned business carry them.

Huh? I find Saputo cheese in any grocery store around here.

Funny that you use the word "cartel" to describe dairy companies OTHER than Saputo though... xD

 

[matthewwhatever]

So the CPC has decided to go full-on Republican-style misinformation over Omar Khadr. Michelle Rempel went on Fox News, told a bunch of lies, and promoted The Rebel, while Cheryl Gallant -- who was never that grounded in reality to begin with -- has decided to start screeching about "fake news." Conservatives aping the Republicans is nothing new, but I'm surprised they're being so overt about it, given that Trump is so incredibly unpopular here.

I'd feel more comfortable with actual rules in place for the GG, which the people decide on via the House of Commons, so that there is no question what a GG should do in a given situation. As it stands, the GG is a completely unaccountable person who theoretically can make any decision they want. But I think it's silly that Westminster traditions are not codified in any meaningful way.

I look at the silliness with the Senate, where Harper imposed term limits that no one has followed and Trudeau's "Independent Liberal" Senators. Having the Senate change based on the whims of whoever is in charge at the moment shouldn't be the best that we can hope for.

I don't think that prescribed actions in any given situation is possible, let alone desirable. The problems don't happen with the 99.9% of the GG's actions that fit within his/her usual mandate, it's the .01% of the times that are unprecedented. You could write up rules for the most outlandish scenarios imaginable, but I think it's just easier to accept that, somewhere in the Commonwealth, you'll find relevant examples, and that those precedents can be applied to the Canadian situation.

As for the Senate, some of the issues there actually come from it being too prescribed. If you look at the SCC ruling on what Harper could and couldn't do, they pretty explicitly stated that he couldn't impose term limits (or do most of what he was trying to do) because the Constitution was so clear on what was expected of Senators. Trudeau's kicking all the Liberal Senators out of caucus was actually an example of a party doing what they could within the bounds of the law, and him only appointing independent senators is actually forcing the Senate to change their rules within their constitutional parameters -- since one thing they can change unilaterally is the definition of what constitutes a Senate caucus. I think if the Senate rules were based more on conventions than written rules, substantial reform would be much, much easier.

the Dairy cartel is too poweful, especially in Quebec.

so powerful that they tanked Maxime Bernier in his own riding for an Ontarian Andrew Sheer

Andrew Scheer is from Saskatchewan.

 

[Pedrito]

Why are they suddenly giving a shit about the widow and the children now that Khadr got a check? Why didn't they organize that charity drive a decade ago?

rhetorical questions...

 

[gabbo]

Why are they suddenly giving a shit about the widow and the children now that Khadr got a check? Why didn't they organize that charity drive a decade ago?

rhetorical questions...

Because they can use it against Trudeau instead of having it over their heads. Trying to dominate the message on this issue

 

[CazTGG]

So the CPC has decided to go full-on Republican-style misinformation over Omar Khadr. Michelle Rempel went on Fox News, told a bunch of lies, and promoted The Rebel, while Cheryl Gallant -- who was never that grounded in reality to begin with -- has decided to start screeching about "fake news." Conservatives aping the Republicans is nothing new, but I'm surprised they're being so overt about it, given that Trump is so incredibly unpopular here.

Ceterum autem censeo Conservative Party of Canada esse delendam.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Why are they suddenly giving a shit about the widow and the children now that Khadr got a check? Why didn't they organize that charity drive a decade ago?

rhetorical questions...

For the same reason that someone like gutter posted pictures of the deceased -- because they know that their position is wrong on merit, so they hope appealing to emotion will make people overlook that.

Ceterum autem censeo Conservative Party of Canada esse delendam.

...citius in melius.

 

[firehawk12]

I don't think that prescribed actions in any given situation is possible, let alone desirable. The problems don't happen with the 99.9% of the GG's actions that fit within his/her usual mandate, it's the .01% of the times that are unprecedented. You could write up rules for the most outlandish scenarios imaginable, but I think it's just easier to accept that, somewhere in the Commonwealth, you'll find relevant examples, and that those precedents can be applied to the Canadian situation.

I feel like for those 0.1% situations, the power should either go up to the Queen or go back down to the PMO. I just don't think having a random person decide something that can have long lasting ramifications but with no mandate is highly problematic... even if in most cases, GGs have acted extremely conservatively.

As for the Senate, some of the issues there actually come from it being too prescribed. If you look at the SCC ruling on what Harper could and couldn't do, they pretty explicitly stated that he couldn't impose term limits (or do most of what he was trying to do) because the Constitution was so clear on what was expected of Senators. Trudeau's kicking all the Liberal Senators out of caucus was actually an example of a party doing what they could within the bounds of the law, and him only appointing independent senators is actually forcing the Senate to change their rules within their constitutional parameters -- since one thing they can change unilaterally is the definition of what constitutes a Senate caucus. I think if the Senate rules were based more on conventions than written rules, substantial reform would be much, much easier.

But there are still rules for funding and committees and such, which is why there are two independent caucuses anyway. I dunno, the senate will always be a shitshow to me, even if I acknowledge the usefulness of the body.

I just wish there were enough grownups in Canada to allow everyone to just sit down and hash out some actual Constitutional reform. But we live in an age where no one is willing to risk doing it (we can't even get electoral reform), so we're stuck with this crap probably for as long as Canada is a country.

Andrew Scheer is from Saskatchewan.

I assume he was talking about the leadership race? lol

 

[Pedrito]

For the same reason that someone like gutter posted pictures of the deceased -- because they know that their position is wrong on merit, so they hope appealing to emotion will make people overlook that.

I believe they think they're 100% right in this case. But sending money to the widow at this point is just virtue signalling. She doesn't need more money now than she needed a month ago before a settlement was announced, or a decade ago when the soldier died.

Anyway, it's just Ezra trying to create the news as usual.

 

[gutter_trash]

Andrew Scheer is from Saskatchewan.

even worse

 

[curiouscharles]

I mean if you look at the standards of living and metrics of freedom in Westminster democracies or similar constitutional monarchies I think you'll see that's not the case.

I mean there is a completely busted failure of a governmental experiment happening directly to the south of us and another shitshow of a bicameral legislature with separate executive occurring directly to the south of that. Compared to other democracies I think the current system looks pretty good.

honestly, to call the Westminster parliamentary system broken is inherently.... naive.

toss in some proportional representation at the federal & provincial levels [hi Australia!] and you've got the best version of democracy we currently know.

the Dairy cartel is too poweful, especially in Quebec.

so powerful that they tanked Maxime Bernier in his own riding for an Ontarian Andrew Sheer

fuck the Dairy Mafia Cartel.

bring on EU dairy and US dairy

the Dairy Cartel is so evil that even block local producers who do not abide by their Cartel rules..

Saputo dairy has been continuosuly snubbed in man Super Market chains in Quebec, only some Loblaw owned business carry them.

1,000,000% agreed.

the dairy "industry" in Canada [esp. Eastern Canada] is fucking evil.

also their whinging about CETA delayed its provisional implementation JUST enough to cost me another $30,000 in import duties this FW.

Spoiler

fuck you Canadian dairy industry

American milk is not milk.

and Canadian milk is absolute unforgiveable dog shite.

whereas all the vegetables in Western Europe taste like sand to me, their milk & cheese is like nothing you can get in Canada [and yes, the USA too, but that should be obvious].

 

[firehawk12]

toss in some proportional representation at the federal & provincial levels [hi Australia!] and you've got the best version of democracy we currently know.

The good or bad thing is that there are so many pet senators that the Australian senate serves to moderate everything. Doubly so since the senate also has to pass a budget bill and assent isn't automatic (well, mostly automatic) like it is here.

That said, two Australian senators just resigned because they didn't realize they had second citizenships. lol
(Although funny enough, they don't need byelections because they just choose the next person down on the ranked ballot from the previous election)
(Oh, double fun - one of them is a Canadian, although she's going to renounce it. lol)

 

[Pancake Mix]

and Canadian milk is absolute unforgiveable dog shite.

whereas all the vegetables in Western Europe taste like sand to me, their milk & cheese is like nothing you can get in Canada [and yes, the USA too, but that should be obvious].

....No

Point is we don't want what's in US milk up here. The EU probably has similar rules or even stricter ones so cool, whatever, but the US does not.