Topic: Retain the Monarchy in Canada?

[Torlyn]

Hey, whatever happened to Mitsu?  Remember "Bye bye, mon cowboy"?  I'm pretty sure she's looking for work.

Much better choice...  Hey!  WE could change the anthem to reflect that while we're at it...  "Bonjour, mon canada" sung to that tune?  Hmm...  Catchy. 

T

[Infanteer]

Why don't we broaden the powers of the Governor General and have the position become an elected executive office and then we can avoid this whole stupid conversation.

[Torlyn]

Why don't we broaden the powers of the Governor General and have the position become an elected executive office and then we can avoid this whole stupid conversation.

Elected monarchy?  Alrighty then...  How would you propose we go about it?  As Michael pointed out earlier, if you're so certain that it's a dumb idea, perhaps you should explain yourself, instead of killing bandwidth.

[Infanteer]

Elected monarchy?  Alrighty then...  How would you propose we go about it?

I have done so on this thread a few times.  Here is an example

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,17308.0.html

As Michael pointed out earlier, if you're so certain that it's a dumb idea, perhaps you should explain yourself, instead of killing bandwidth.

I believe Michael captured the essence of the thread by stating that "Fantasizing about Prince William porking some hot babe from Quebec isn't really an interesting or entertaining method of discussing governmental change."

But thanks for the advice.

[Pieman]

Having an elected monarchy is an idea, but I feel it lacks the allure of a real monarchy. It makes the position less meaningful to me. Sorry there are those here who feel this is not an interesting or exciting way of discussing this topic, but others seem to be having fun with it.

  If the monarchy came up for debate, I'm quite certain that Quebec's stance would be to completely abolish it or nothing (even with Charest in power).

Yes, I can certainly see that happening too. But what if further french accommodations are made to have the french population accept the idea? Having a french Canadian Queen is one thing, perhaps there are additional steps that could be made. Having the couple reside in Quebec might be another step. Any ideas? How would one alter a monarchy so that the French Canadian population would not just accept it, but embrace it?

How old would that 'mon coyboy' girl be now anyway? She might be a tad old for either of the Princes now lol.

[Garbageman]

Come to think of it, Alberta might present just as much a problem, if not more than Quebec in convincing that there is a need for constitutional change.  Unless of course you could tack on a rider that included an elected Senate! 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Now that we got rid of the Prince porking......etc.
I think we could totally disband the position of GG, not that this one hasn't FAR exceeded anything I expected from her, its just that the money [along with the greatly reduced Senate] that could be saved has a far better use.
....I'm thinking Olympic athletes[ameteur] but feel free to insert your choice here.
Will probably have more to say when I sober up!
By the way Pieman, saw Mitsou on a talk show not long ago....not too old at all!

[Kirkhill]

Elected monarchy is an old idea.  The King of Scots used to be the either "last man standing" with the requisite blood line or the member or the royal family best considered suitable to lead by the Earls.  None of your poncie continental notions of primo geniture there.  That notion was introduced to Scotland by the Stewarts  - nasty folks them.

And Betty's great-great.....grandad, George I his first title was Elector of Hannover, one of a select bunch of Germans that got to elect the Holy Roman Emperor.

Kings can be elected.

[Infanteer]

I never advocated an elected Monarch, I advocated the position of the Governor-General, as the representative of the sovereign be elected.  By electing the GG, there would be a legitimate role for the position to perform its executive powers.

The Head of State would still be HRH Queen Elizabeth II; only her powers would be executed by an elected official responsible for Peace, Order and Good Government.

[Kirkhill]

I second Infanteer's motion.

Excellent idea Infanteer.

Cheers.

[Torlyn]

And Betty's great-great.....grandad, George I his first title was Elector of Hannover, one of a select bunch of Germans that got to elect the Holy Roman Emperor.

Kings can be elected.

Hmm...  Let's see...  Who had the ability to vote in those elections?  To me, an election includes all members of a country, not those who happen to be related to royalty..  (You do remember that votes in that particular situation could be refuted if the reigning monarch (or elected monarch) deemed fit..)

Mind you, seems to still be more fair that the florida elections, wot?

T

[pbi]

Being fully  mindful of my oath of service and of the source of my Commission, as well as of the genesis of my Regiment's title, and having great respect (unlike some...) for our present GG, I propose that natural political evolution, as well as the gradual change of our national demographic picture away from a plurality of WASPs, will bring us to a day upon which we will sever all formal ties with the Royal Family.

I would liken this eventual severance not to the traumatic event as experienced by our American friends to the South, but rather to the experience of a teenager who grows happily into adulthood in his parent's home, but reaches the day of reckoning and strikes out on his own. He still loves and respects his parents, and is always mindful of what they did for him, but he makes his own life under his own roof (OK-my son hasn't done this yet, but...)

The practice of having a Canadian Head of State as distinct from Head of Govt, regardless of what title we bestow upon the incumbent HOS, is a step in this evolutionary process. Inviting a non-Canadian in to do it would be, IMHO, a retrograde step.

[TR]

What if we gave the GG the power and responsibility to hold the elected officials to the laws of our country and not allow them to arbitrarily change laws to suit them. If they Mess up the GG gets to hold them to the law.

[pbi]

TR, you said:

What if we gave the GG the power and responsibility to hold the elected officials to the laws of our country and not allow them to arbitrarily change laws to suit them. If they Mess up the GG gets to hold them to the law.

I thought that was the role of the GG now, since bills are not law unless she signs them. Elected officials cannot really "arbitrarily change laws to suit them." Are you being facetious or am I missing something here? Cheers.

[Kirkhill]

TR, I agree with PBI.  I thought that was the role of the GG.  In addition to being able to withhold approval on laws she can also dissolve parliament and demand a new election.

The reason she doesn't do this is because she lacks moral authority.  That is she lacks the proven support of the majority of Canadians to act in that fashion.  Historically, it was accepted by peoples around the world that a Monarch had authority by virtue of blood lines, conferred authority by  peers like other kings and popes and by force.  The GG was delegated that authority.

Under British practice, which we inherited, the powers of the Monarch (and by extension the GG) were constrained but the underlying premise was that the Monarch had powers, would make decisions, and that Parliament would limit the powers of the Monarch.

That progressed through stages of limiting the powers, to sharing the power, to superseding the power (in the British case), to denying that any power ever existed (the current Canadian case).

The reality is that the laws have not changed as fast as public perception has changed.  Many of the laws and that allowed royal prerogative are still on the books and available to be used.

The GG still has many powers which could be, and were intended to be, used to balance the authority of Parliament and the Prime Minister.  In Canada that balance was lost during the King-Byng affair and never rediscovered.  It was lost by PM W.L MacKenzie-King declaring that this appointed foreign representative of a foreign Monarch's government had no authority in Canadian affairs, he lacked legitimacy and had no moral authority.

The GG was sidelined.  However the GG's powers were never withdrawn.  No GG has ever dared to exercise them since because they continue to lack moral authority and because they are dependent on the PM of the day, the very person they are there to limit, for their job.

The solution to today's democratic deficit is just as Infanteer and others have suggested - to effectively return to the Status Quo Ante prior to the King-Byng affair by supplying the GG with the legitimacy to make the decisions he/she is empowered by law to make. 

In our modern world this legitimacy can only be conferred through an election and the democratic transfer of authority to the GG.

[TR]

pbi, Kirkhill:

That was what I was trying to get at. I did realize that those powers existed for the GG but I want them to exersice those powers as others have sugensted. Thank you for explainig it much more eloquently then I. 

[Carcharodon Carcharias]

Back in the mid to late 90s we actually had a referendum on keeping the Queen or not. The majority felt that the queen should stay.

There just was too much back biting, and back stabbing within the republican movement, so until they get their shyte together, the British monarchy will be here for a while yet.

I beleive that sooner than later Australia will be a republic, its pretty much enevitable, but I hope they never change the Australian National Flag.

As for Canada, well who knows, but I am sure there is plenty of you who would like to see your kids be able to be Head of State of their own country one day, rather then some foreigner.

My 2 bob.

Wes

[Bill Smy]

Just a couple of points:-

The reserve powers of the Crown are quite important and powerful. I don't have all the details at hand, but there are instances in our history where the Governor General and one or two Lieutenant Governors exercised them. Viscount Byng for one, and I think the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba. And there was a Constitutional crisis resently in Australia.

It is quite conceivable that the present Governor General may have to decide whether to disolve Parliament and call an election, or call upon the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to form a government, without having an election.

The idea of a royal taking up the position of GG is not new. In my younger days (back in the 60s, when some of you were not even a gleam in your father's eye   ) it was suggested that Charles was leading a bored and unchallenged life, and perhaps a tour of duty in Canada as GG would spice it up.

Certainly we have had lesser royals as GG.

With a regard to only the Heir to the Throne having an income based on his position in the line of succession, I recall reading that when Prince Andrew went through his divorce, his wife's lawyers were surprised to find that the only real incomes he had was as a Commander in the Royal Navy. All the rest were bestowed at Her Majesty's pleasure.

Senator Forsey once wrote an article on the cost of Monarchy in this country, and if I recall correctly, it was very small in relation to other expenditures government made, and that was many, many years ago. With the explosion in government spending nowadays, I would suspect, that notwithstanding the apparent extravagant budget of the GG, the same results from a similar study.

On another note, and I hope it will not generate a long debate off topic, I note in reply # 36, back on 27 September, that pbi used the term WASP. I recall being at a government sponsored meeting in British Columbia a little over ten years ago when the speaker used that term most negatively, and often.

My challenge to her was "What does that term mean?" She stuttered and I replied that simply put "White, Anglo Saxon Protestant."

I pointed out that there were no Black, Red, or Yellow Anglo Saxons. And degrading Protestants could be interpreted as a hate crime. I say all this with tongue in cheek , but I really don't think people realize what they are saying when they use the term, other than believing they are relating it to being some sort of bad "British" (only the Protestant "British", not the Roman Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish "British").

   

[pbi]

Bill Smy:

On another note, and I hope it will not generate a long debate off topic, I note in reply # 36, back on 27 September, that pbi used the term WASP. I recall being at a government sponsored meeting in British Columbia a little over ten years ago when the speaker used that term most negatively, and often.

My challenge to her was "What does that term mean?" She stuttered and I replied that simply put "White, Anglo Saxon Protestant."

I pointed out that there were no Black, Red, or Yellow Anglo Saxons. And degrading Protestants could be interpreted as a hate crime. I say all this with tongue in cheek  , but I really don't think people realize what they are saying when they use the term, other than believing they are relating it to being some sort of bad "British" (only the Protestant "British", not the Roman Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish "British").

Being a WASP myself (well, Anglican, which is not really Protestant per se, but...) I think that it is really a term that does not bear dissection, like "hot fire" or other such redundancies in popular use. It is really best taken as a whole, and refers most accurately to the people who once  made up the majority of our population, but today are probably at  best a plurality if even that. I certainly never intended as a racial slight and I have never actually heard it used as such. At one time in this country it represented the credentials of social and political power, but not so much today. Cheers.

[CheersShag]

I could never picture a formal public speaker using the term WASP, I think the closest thing I've heard is "Someone who exhiibits anglican reserve." But outright saying WASP...I think I'd leave.
Not because it's terribly offensive to me...I'm only half after all, but c'mon...who uses WASP in a speech really.

[Aquilus]

I really don't understand all of the fuss about the cost of the gg or of a monarchy...considering what the government spent on gun registry alone, nevermind sponsorship scandal and what not....and look what those two initiatives have done for us...

Also, the queen isn't some foriegn figurehead (Why should the Queen of England have any say in Canada?), however they can  be likened to two separate offices, as Queen Elizabeth II Queen of Canada,  is the Queen of Canada and not specifically the Queen of England. Many people I have spoken with have based their argument essentially on "There is no Queen of Canada". I really don't see why we would have to have a constitional change as the GG is a delegate of the Queen as obviosly the Queen doesnt live here. Thus, having the Queen send Prince Harry as Prince Harry Prince of Canada or however, shouldn't be that great of a legal problem in theory would it? Perhaps someone with a definative understanding of law would be able to help out?

[Pencil Tech]

Canada has been a monarchy ever since Europeans first came to these shores. I cannot imagine it any other way. For me it's the idea of the Crown and our history as Canadians more than who happens to be on the throne. If Canada ever decided to get rid of the monarchy - a constitutional near-impossibility, incidentally - we would be diminished IMHO. Also, I think the G-G's "spending" is a non-issue, it's Foreign Affairs that spends the money for those trips. 

[Kirkhill]

Nicely put Pencil Tech.

[Torlyn]

Also, I think the G-G's "spending" is a non-issue, it's Foreign Affairs that spends the money for those trips. 

I work for foreign affairs.  Her trips come out of her GG stipend from the feds, not us.  We do send people with her (at our expense) but they don't generally get the same treatment on our budget as when GG springs for the bill.  Mainly, because they get audited as soon as they get home, and if we don't like the expense report, we don't pay out.    IT's funny how we're tighter on someone's 32 dollar dinner allowance than what the GG coughs up for coffee, but c'est la vie.  You want to see some fun numbers, the following link provides the expense reports for the upper echelons of FAC...  Pretty scary what some "invitational dinners" cost...

http://www.fac-aec.gc.ca/department/disclosure/menu-en.asp

T

[Pencil Tech]

Torlyn, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I am referring to is the big "Northern Junket" to Russia and Scandinavia, etc which caused all this controversy in the first place was a Foreign Affairs initiative. It wasn't like the G-G decided she wanted to go on a gucci holiday and soaked the taxpayers for it - the govt sent her- yet that's how the story got spun. Likewise, people complain about her flying on govt aircraft but the RCMP will not let her fly on commercial flights. Yes, I'm sure here entertaining bills might be a bit hefty, but we're talking about our de facto head of state here. Some people I'm sure think she should meet foreign dignitaries at Tim Horton's. How Canadian.