Law, Government and Politics in Canada exam - Essay Example

The Governor General also signs bills into law. He/she also commands the armed forces, calls for elections, appoints judges and hosts other relevant tasks. However, in practice, the Governor General’s duties are symbolic in nature. In approving the laws presented to him by the PM, his /her signature is referred to as royal assent, which is simply ceremonial. In the past 80 years, the Governor General has never failed to assent to a bill and has never removed PM from office. In addition, he/she has never denied appointment and never has he vetoed a law.

These laws are not written; hence subject to discussions. In conclusion, I believe that the Governor General does not have significant political power since his/her powers are symbolic and are indeed delegated to him/her by the Queen. The powers are not significant because he/she follows what has already been decided upon by either the Queen, the PM, or the Cabinet. Being a symbolic post, I think Canada can still make it without the Governor General. However, being a royal country, this symbolic figure means a lot to the country; hence the relevance.

In addition, the above duties entrusted to the Governor General are relevant, and they need someone to perform them (Bogart, 2005). Question 2 I agree with the Supreme Court’s response to question on whether Under the Constitution of Canada, the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec can affect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally. In fact, this was the best answer to that question that the constitution is more than what is written there. It contains global rules and principles that govern the authority of the constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled out that the constitution contains a few provisions that can be misleading if interpreted without considering underlying principles of federalism, rule of law, democracy, respect for minorities, as well as the principle of constitutionalism. The Supreme Court argued that the constitution is based upon these principles and that democracy does not simply mean ‘simple majority rule’. Indeed, it exists in other values, given that province people and those who live in the territories live interdependently.

The court argued that that would be illegal and would only be possible if the majority of Quebecers votes favored secession, which would be followed by negotiations. This would mean that all parties would be satisfied because negotiations mean that each party gives out on something in order to reach a concession (Bogart, 2005). Overall, the court’s response to the reference questions does not harm Canadian national unity. On the contrary, it supports it when it declares that the people of Canada are closely interdependent through economically, culturally, socially and politically and that a decision that would favor secession would put the strong ties at risk.

To preserve national unity, the Supreme Court rule that province secession could not be come up unilaterally, under the constitution and that negotiations were necessary to reach a conclusion. The decision put into consideration, the fact that all participants have a right to contribute to constitution change through continuous discussions. In that decision, the Supreme Court added that rights of others must be respected by Quebec, and vice versa. Negotiation results would be final,