[Winnipegger]

Tman1 wrote:

Winnipegger wrote:

Canada is an independent country, but that does not mean the constitution as it existed before 1982 is invalidated. In reality, Canada is independent but the British North America Act is amended and continues to be our constitution. That's my point, sorry you can't understand it.

Nope sorry, you indicated (want me to quote your own post?) that ties were not severed. Now you just agreed with me that Canada is an independent country. Now, you can take that in several ways. Due to our close links with Britain with our heritage and Constitutional Monarchy, yes we are still very much close but the monarchy and whatnot do not dictate our foreign policy or defense which was BEFORE, 1982. I never said the Constitution before 1982 was invalid or in any way wrong. I even said the constitution is amended which means there are several changes. Still, you didn't even answer my questions about Britain's policies concerning Canada after 1982. Do they or don't they still have a say in our polices? It was pretty simple. The very fact you are contesting this means you yourself don't understand the constitution so don't be so smug chum. Sorry you can't understand it.

Canada is an independant country, Britain does not have any say in our policies, but that does not invalidate the document that constituted the office of Governor General. Just like the British North America Act, which was a bill passed in the British parliament, once our constitution "came home" those documents became Canadian. The British no longer have a say, but those documents are not invalidated. Sorry you don't understand that.

[WBenson]

The document could hardly be described as British even before 1982. It wasn't signed on the advice of the British government, and they had just about 0 say in it.

Quote:

In witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to made Patent, and for the greater testimony and validity thereof, We have caused Our Great Seal of Canada to be affixed to these presents, which We have signed with Our Royal Hand.

Given the eighth day of September in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty-Seven and in the Eleventh Year of Our Reign.
BY HIS MAJESTY'S COMMAND,

W. L. MACKENZIE KING,
Prime Minister of Canada

[Calbeck]

JJ wrote:

As I said, the GG's powers are essentially lapsed ones, so it really matters little what the constitutional documents say at this point.

Convention (or, rather, precedent) is always trumped by documentation. A court may reinterpret a document, but may not rewrite it, and the particular clauses of the Canadian Constitution in question are not particularly questionable. All it would take is simple assertion by the GG or Queen of these declared powers.

What seems interesting in all this is that folks seem to be very enamored of the idea of an empowered GG in terms of a "system of checks and balances", but NOT of a GG which is actually empowered as noted in the Canadian Constitution. In other words, a benevolent dictatorship, where the GG could assert sweeping powers of control but chooses not to.

And BTW, WBenson: if the document you're referring to isn't British in nature, who's the "Majesty" King is signing by "command" of? I note that a "Great Seal" was also created for Northern Ireland in 1922, possessed by the Governor of that subject state, and used for the express purpose of ruling the region in the name of the Queen. The same is true, at current, of the Great Seal of Canada, which is nothing less than the symbol of the right of the Governor General to represent the Queen of England. Her image is upon the seal, with the inscription "Queen of Canada".

Obviously, having a Great Seal is no indication of independence, and especially not in Canada's case.

[WBenson]

Calbeck wrote:

And BTW, WBenson: if the document you're referring to isn't British in nature, who's the "Majesty" King is signing by "command" of? I note that a "Great Seal" was also created for Northern Ireland in 1922, possessed by the Governor of that subject state, and used for the express purpose of ruling the region in the name of the Queen. The same is true, at current, of the Great Seal of Canada, which is nothing less than the symbol of the right of the Governor General to represent the Queen of England. Her image is upon the seal, with the inscription "Queen of Canada".

Obviously, having a Great Seal is no indication of independence, and especially not in Canada's case.

The Majesty is the King, obviously. That makes the document about as British as a coin from that era, though. He was not operating under the advice of any British ministers, which means that it was a Canadian document. Note the signature at the bottom, which proves that it was a document signed solely by the advice of the Canadian government. Had it been a British document there would be the name of a British minister on it.

[Tman1]

Winnipegger wrote:

Tman1 wrote:

Winnipegger wrote:

Canada is an independent country, but that does not mean the constitution as it existed before 1982 is invalidated. In reality, Canada is independent but the British North America Act is amended and continues to be our constitution. That's my point, sorry you can't understand it.

Nope sorry, you indicated (want me to quote your own post?) that ties were not severed. Now you just agreed with me that Canada is an independent country. Now, you can take that in several ways. Due to our close links with Britain with our heritage and Constitutional Monarchy, yes we are still very much close but the monarchy and whatnot do not dictate our foreign policy or defense which was BEFORE, 1982. I never said the Constitution before 1982 was invalid or in any way wrong. I even said the constitution is amended which means there are several changes. Still, you didn't even answer my questions about Britain's policies concerning Canada after 1982. Do they or don't they still have a say in our polices? It was pretty simple. The very fact you are contesting this means you yourself don't understand the constitution so don't be so smug chum. Sorry you can't understand it.

Canada is an independant country, Britain does not have any say in our policies, but that does not invalidate the document that constituted the office of Governor General. Just like the British North America Act, which was a bill passed in the British parliament, once our constitution "came home" those documents became Canadian. The British no longer have a say, but those documents are not invalidated. Sorry you don't understand that.

I never said the Constitution before 1982 was invalid or in any way wrong. I even said the constitution is amended which means there are several changes. Sorry you can't read.

I never said the Letters Patent was invalid, only that now there are limitations concerning that document which, ironically, doesn't mention at all. Why? Because the person who wrote it didn't think about the future as it is now nor the changes in the government of this country. Sorry you don't understand that.

[Tman1]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... .htm#KeyB1

Quote:

1. What are the powers and functions of the Governor General?

The Governor General represents the Queen, who is Canada’s head of state. (The Prime Minister is the head of government.) The Governor General is appointed by the Queen, on the personal recommendation of the Canadian Prime Minister. Since the early 1950s, only Canadians have been appointed to the office. The manner of appointment of the Governor General is not mentioned in the Constitution, and is made through a commission granted under the Great Seal of Canada. The office of the Governor General is actually constituted by royal Letters Patent, the latest of which date from 1947 and were issued by King George VI.(3)

Under the Canadian Constitution, the Governor General possesses enormous powers; but, by convention, these are exercised only on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In a constitutional monarchy, except in rare cases – usually associated with election results, the dissolution of Parliament and the formation of a government – the Governor General has no independent discretion, and must follow the advice tendered.

In the event of an emergency or catastrophe where the Prime Minister is incapacitated, together with significant numbers of his or her Cabinet and Parliament, the Governor General would be significantly freed of the constraints on his or her discretion and could probably appoint an emergency interim government.

Quote:

What are the rights or powers of the Governor General to dismiss a Prime Minister/government or to replace a Prime Minister/government?

Just as a Governor General has the legal power to appoint a government, he or she also has the power to dismiss it. However, this power is stringently limited by conventional rules.

Constitutional authorities generally agree that a Governor General may dismiss a government if it has been defeated on a clear vote of confidence and refuses to resign and call an election, or if another party has won a majority in an election and the existing government refuses to resign.

I rest my case.

As for the Great Seal of Canada, it is in possession of the office of the Registrar General of Canada who of course is appointed by the GG at the advise of the PM. Even he has more powers than the GG and that includes any "letters patent".

[Calbeck]

WBenson wrote:

The Majesty is the King, obviously. That makes the document about as British as a coin from that era, though.

Which means it's British. A British coin "from that era" is still a British coin. It doesn't magically become Canadian simply because time passes, and neither does law.

Quote:

He was not operating under the advice of any British ministers, which means that it was a Canadian document.

No, he was operating "by command of His Majesty", which requires no intervening ministers at all. And since they can only advise the Crown in any case, they have no preventative authority of any kind. It's nothing more or less than a ritual process, like swearing in a US President with the Bible.

Quote:

Note the signature at the bottom, which proves that it was a document signed solely by the advice of the Canadian government.

Advice does not trump authority, which came directly from the King of England, as stated in the document you cite.

Quote:

Had it been a British document there would be the name of a British minister on it.

Kindly cite the law which supports that idea.

Tman1 wrote:

As for the Great Seal of Canada, it is in possession of the office of the Registrar General of Canada

Who, in fact, possesses it on behalf of the Governor General. The Great Seal itself remains vested in the office of the GG regardless of who has the physical object.

[Tman1]

Calbeck wrote:

Who, in fact, possesses it on behalf of the Governor General. The Great Seal itself remains vested in the office of the GG regardless of who has the physical object.

Your clarification isn't needed nor necessary. The Great Seal of Canada is kept by the GG on a formality but passed on to the Registrar General of Canada. Whoever has the "physical object" is irrelevant.

[bobackwords]

pffft the reason why Canada is so messed up is because of lack of federalism .You are right about mediocracy we could do much better .

[Calbeck]

Tman1 wrote:

Calbeck wrote:

Who, in fact, possesses it on behalf of the Governor General. The Great Seal itself remains vested in the office of the GG regardless of who has the physical object.

Your clarification isn't needed nor necessary. The Great Seal of Canada is kept by the GG on a formality but passed on to the Registrar General of Canada. Whoever has the "physical object" is irrelevant.

Seems you didn't bother to read what I wrote, since I said that physical possession was irrelevant. You're arguing with the person I was responding to, not me.

However, you are incorrect in any event regarding the Registrar General: the Constitution vests the Great Seal in the office of the Governor General. That is not "a formality", it is law.

[kenmore]

well he has some valid points...however he seems a bit narcissistic. the autocrat king harper will be a hard act to follow..