« Technically » independent states who relinquished many of their powers to a central government, who has been, over the last 137 years became the de facto dominant political body instead of just an emanation of the Provinces.
I don't quite agree with the "dominant" nature of the confederal government, but a great deal of that is likely perspective: I'm a British Columbian, so the comings and goings of the Canadian government in Ottawa are both distant and irrelevant to me.
Those 10 independent states still have no way of amending their partnership and look at the fuss when one tries to get away...
I'd disagree with that. The amount of "fuss" is quite tiny in comparitive terms. West of the Great Lakes, the perception of Quebec exiting confederation is best described as "We're not letting you leave the table until you settle your portion of the restaurant bill". In comparison, most other similar political constructs like the confederation would have had a shooting war(Ex. The US Civil War).
Another part of the problem is that even the most ardent Quebec seperatist has to admit that without the billions in direct aid heaped on top of the billions of indirect aid that the rest of the confederation pours into Quebec annually, Quebec isn't viable as a province, let alone a real independent nation state without some pretty major changes in the way they live. None of that even includes that they would need to take at least a per capita percentage of the debt of the confederation.
Both of the referendums have not asked if they want out of the confederation, instead asking if they can "demand" something called "sovereignty-association".
The speed and ease in which a province can walk out on the confederation will not be shown in a "have not" like Quebec; they lack the ability to even seriously ask for it. When an Alberta or British Columbia, places that are rich and have established cultures, leave the confederation, it will be blindingly fast and there will be even less fuss than the Quebec song and dance of the last couple of decades.
I wouldn't personably combine the functions of the LG's with those of the GG : I would get rid of their function entirely. I understand the role of the Queen representatives in our political system but apart from giving assent to bills, is there a meaningful functions for a LG ? Perhaps the one in Quebec is the worst example of the lot but I don't see do a lot outside her purely symbolical functions. To paraphrase JKF, « What can your LG do for you ? » Call me too materialistic but is their vice-regal status (and the expenses that go with it) really justified ?
The LGGs have exactly the same role as the GG. They drop the writ for the Legislatures, Parliaments, etc in each province. Most people forget that "Premier" is simply the french translation for "Prime Minister" and that the provincial government essentially mirror the confederal one. In fact, until the 1960's, BC referred to it's as "Prime Minister", not Premier. In other words, if you can justify a GG, you have automatic justification for the LGGs. I don't agree that the reverse is true, however.
I know that BC's LGGs have been kept hopping, what with British Columbia's cultural predeliction for "dynamic government"(If you can't see the grin on my face over the internet, rest assured it's there.). If the PM of BC isn't under arrest, under investigation or under his lawyer's advice not answering questions, they're vacationing in Hawaii. I know that the LGG in BC hinted strongly to Clark that if he didn't resign, the Legislature would be dissolved out from under him. Vander Zalm was told point blank get out or get shoved out.
In terms of justification, they provide an apolitical executive authority.
