The Federal Republic of Canada

[Smallc]

The "Crown" has no functional power or authority over the nation , the constitution determines everything. The Westminister Act says it all with respect to the powers and responsibility vested in the Crown in very real and practical terms. Canada is a sovereign nation, self governing, independent of the crown. The nation itself exists whether the "Crown" says yea or nay.

Where do you think that the Constitution of Canada gets its power from? The Crown. Canada and the Crown are not only intertwined, but they're one. Canada most certainly isn't independent from the Crown.

[cybercoma]

Where do you think that the Constitution of Canada gets its power from? The Crown.

Except if you want to change the Constitution. I would love to see a unilateral action to change the Constitution by the Crown.

[Smallc]

Except if you want to change the Constitution. I would love to see a unilateral action to change the Constitution by the Crown.

The government changing the Constitution are using the power of the Crown to change the Constitution. It's actually rather simple.

[cybercoma]

The government changing the Constitution are using the power of the Crown to change the Constitution. It's actually rather simple.

The government can't change the Constitution either.

[Smallc]

The government can't change the Constitution either.

Yes they can. There are only certain set parts of the constitution that require the consent of other governments...and they're also operating through the authority of their respective crowns.

[cybercoma]

Yes they can. There are only certain set parts of the constitution that require the consent of other governments...and they're also operating through the authority of their respective crowns.

Elected governments through a referendum of the people.

[Smallc]

Elected governments through a referendum of the people.

Elected parliaments that form governments actually (or in our case, an elected House of Commons). These governments, with the blessing of the people and the authority to govern, wield but do not hold the power of the Crown. These things are integral design elements of our system...and somehow you say this shows they don't exist.

[cybercoma]

Ok, they wield the power of the Crown with the consent of the people. How about we just use Occam's Razor and say they wield the power of the people.

[Smallc]

Ok, they wield the power of the Crown with the consent of the people. How about we just use Occam's Razor and say they wield the power of the people.

Because that would be factually incorrect. There are many other things involved than the simple will of the people.

[cybercoma]

I don't disagree that it's factually incorrect. I'm well aware of that. I'm saying functionally, practically that's the way it is.

[Smallc]

I don't disagree that it's factually incorrect. I'm well aware of that. I'm saying functionally, practically that's the way it is.

And I'm telling you that functionally, that isn't even close to correct. The Crown enables the functions of the state.

[cybercoma]

And I'm telling you the state would function just fine without the Crown. I guess we just don't agree.

[Smallc]

And I'm telling you the state would function just fine without the Crown. I guess we just don't agree.

It's not that we just don't agree. The above simply isn't true. There is no possible way for the Canadian state as it is currently configured to function without the Crown of Canada. States don't just function because things happen a certain way. Look at any parliamentary republic for examples.

[g_bambino]

The idea that the provinces would not be on equal footing because eliminating the GG would put the source of power in Ottawa is hilarious because the source of power already is in Ottawa not only by way of the Constitution, but by virtue of the Lieutenant Governors being appointed by the Governor General who is hand-picked by Prime Ministers anyway.

Wrong. The constitution is not Ottawa's possession alone and does not place provincial sovereignty with the Queen specifically in right of Canada, despite the fact that the lieutenant governors are appointed by the governor general.

As far back as 1882, it was recognised that the lieutenant governors act as direct representatives of the monarch, not of the governor general, when the Lord Watson of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in Maritime Bank v. Receiver-General of New Brunswick that "the Lieutenant Governor... is as much a representative of Her Majesty, for all purposes of Provincial Government as the Governor General himself is, for all purposes of Dominion Government."¹

At the time of constitutional patriation, the Manitoba Court of Appeal reaffirmed the provinces' co-sovereignty with Ottawa, Justice Joseph O'Sullivan asserting that the Queen "'is the same Queen over all, but she acts in different rights...' The courts themselves recognised this whenever they had to decide disputes between Ottawa and one or more provinces. In such cases they habitually distinguished 'the Queen in right of Canada' from the Queen in right of the various provinces. This division of executive authority, as signified by the monarch's many crowns, formed the basis of the provinces' sovereignty as it did of the Dominion's."² The Supreme Court itself found that "Canada was essentially a classic federation, with equally sovereign levels of government,"³ as reflected in the eventual amending formula adopted.

Right up to the present day, you have constitutional scholars and ministers asserting this:

Jacques Monet in The Canadian Crown said "The adaptation of the Crown to a federal system was a unique and daring experiment. But it works. The sovereignty of the same Crown is exercised by different representatives in different jurisdictions. Thus, diversity has been reconciled to unity."

David E. Smith in a 2010 speech at a conference on the Crown and the constitution: "federalism in Canada is very much about the Crown. Elsewhere, I have described the Canadian federation as one of compound monarchies. From being perceived as an institution amenable to enforcing Sir John A. Macdonald's highly centralized federal ambitions, the Crown came to underwrite the autonomy of the provinces and thus lay the foundation for the federative principle in Canada. This is the explanation for the strength of executive federalism in Canada and why Canada differs so markedly from its neighbour, the United States, the first modern federation. There, federalism is about representation; indeed, that is all that it is about. Here, it is about jurisdiction. In this contrast lies the source of frustration would-be reformers of Canada's Senate experience, since the Canadian body is unrepresentative in any popular sense of the term."⁴

Jason Kenney: "The Canadian Monarchy, along with that of Australia, is a shared monarchy or 'a divisible crown'. The Canadian Crown is not part of either federal or provincial jurisdictions. The sovereignty of the provinces is not passed on by the Governor General or Parliament but through the Crown itself... The provincial Crown, and your role as Lieutenant Governors, are essential in defining the nature of our federation as one in which both orders of government have full and equal authority in their own areas of jurisdiction."⁴

I hope that clears up your misconceptions about the Canadian federation and the Crown's place as keystone in it.

Any authority that the monarchy still has is nothing but a vestigial anachronism.

You appear to be stuck on repeat.

[c/e]

Edited November 9, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

And I'm telling you the state would function just fine without the Crown.

How?

[cybercoma]

Wrong. The I hope that clears up your misconceptions about the Canadian federation and the Crown's place as keystone in it.

It does. Thanks. I would still like to see the monkey holding cymbals as the GG though.

[Smallc]

It does. Thanks. I would still like to see the monkey holding cymbals as the GG though.

In order for something to be the Governor General of Canada, it would have to be able to make actual, conscious decisions.

[cybercoma]

Yeah. I don't see it. Even after bambino's essay. I see courts making decisions and someone signing off on what the PM says. I mean... I suppose you would have to teach the monkey to scribble its name. If it can play cymbals and dance, it shouldn't be a problem.

Edited November 9, 2011 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

Yeah. I don't see it.

Given the rest of your post, I'm not surprised.

[blueblood]

Given the rest of your post, I'm not surprised.

No doubt, isn't a big part of the gg's job is that when there is a situation involving parliament, they have to intervene? It might not happen much, but when it does someone qualified should do it and not some random celebrity.

[Smallc]

No doubt, isn't a big part of the gg's job is that when there is a situation involving parliament, they have to intervene? It might not happen much, but when it does someone qualified should do it and not some random celebrity.

Or a monkey. You're right, it doesn't happen much but it could. just look at the current situations in Greece and Italy. Their 'ceremonial' presidents have a huge hand in the goings on, and the formation of new governments.

[g_bambino]

I see courts making decisions and someone signing off on what the PM says.

That's what we usually see. But, you choose to only see that, deliberately ignoring the possibilities when that's not what would happen or the examples where that didn't happen.

Take the parliamentary crisis we had in late 2008. If not the Governor General, who would've put on the length of the prorogation the Prime Minister was asking for the limit that Jean did? If you can train a monkey to perform critical thinking based on convention, the law, precedent, and advice from constitutional experts, you should have your own TV show.

[c/e]

Edited November 11, 2011 by g_bambino

[WWWTT]

It does. Thanks. I would still like to see the monkey holding cymbals as the GG though.

Actually when the libs. were in power the GG was part of team Canada going around the world to help promote trade and commerce.

Ironically the reform party of the time heavilly critisized her(and the libs) for this!

And it appears now that the strongest supporters of the crown now are the conservatives?!?!

Just another example of conservative hypocrocy!

WWWTT

[Wild Bill]

Actually when the libs. were in power the GG was part of team Canada going around the world to help promote trade and commerce.

Ironically the reform party of the time heavilly critisized her(and the libs) for this!

And it appears now that the strongest supporters of the crown now are the conservatives?!?!

Just another example of conservative hypocrocy!

WWWTT

Once again you revise history to give a slam at your hated conservatives. Once again you show that you can't even pronounce objectivity, let alone practice it!

First off, the present CPC is NOT the Reform Party! Despite outnumbering the PCs overwhelmingly at the time of the merger, the PCs have successfully succeeded in gaining control and stamping out virtually any trace of the old Reform platform. The present CPC is merely a clone of the old Mulroney party. As I keep saying, I no longer have any idea why Manning and those of us who followed him even bothered! We wasted our time.

Second, you imply that Reform was against the idea of a GG, period. That's crap festered in ignorance! If you were of age at that time or had made even the slightest effort to research the history you would have known that Reform railed against the EXTRAVAGANCE of that particular GG! Not only did she spend money on trips, parties and diplomatic receptions like she was the Queen herself but on several occasions she made comments in the media that assumed she had the powers of the Monarch herself, when she didn't! We saw her as an arrogant woman appointed and supported by the Liberals, with an unlimited credit card that Canadians had to pay.

If you truly believe that Reform was against the very position of a GG, which is hard to believe since you so obviously pulled the very idea out of your butt, then give us some reputable cites to prove it!

We're waiting...

Edited November 11, 2011 by Wild Bill

[WWWTT]

No doubt, isn't a big part of the gg's job is that when there is a situation involving parliament, they have to intervene? It might not happen much, but when it does someone qualified should do it and not some random celebrity.

Actually the GG job should be a full time job,not a part time job!

The GG role now should be to promote Canadian values and interest nationaly and internationaly!

I believe someone with charisma and charm would suit this role fine

Not just that when there is a constitutional crisis in Canada(usually caused by the conservatives) then the GG has a tremendous amount of support and essentially turns into the robotic monkey playing the cymbals(actually I would prefer a funny cartoon character like the robot "Bender" from futurama.Oh I know lets use one of the "transformer" characters!While performing their regular duties as GG,they would have the form of a celebrity,but during an constitutional crisis the GG would then say ""GG transform!"" and then turn into some geeky political scientist).(Oh aswell his left arm would be a machine gun!)

WWWTT