The Federal Republic of Canada

[jbg]

Let me take a stab and lets see how bad this Yank does (I didn't google)

- Michaelle Jean: 50%

Haitian traitor and wife of Quebec separatist turned Governor General for Canada, appointed on Paul Martin's lousy "advice" to the Queen

- John A. Macdonald: 40%

First PM under Confederation, and then had another mandate after the Liberals won an election.

- Tommy Douglas: 21%

Eugenist turned leader of the CCF, which morphed into the NDP.

- the year of Confederation: 26%

Tough one, I'm going to guess 1867

- Celine Dion: 90%

Lousy signer who I change radio dial when it comes on.

So, really, you're doing pretty well in comparison.

How badly did I do there?

I've actually run into schoolteachers from Peterborough, ON to whom I had to explain who Montcalm and Wolfe were.

[ToadBrother]

Well, the treatment of the American colonies had little to do with the monarchy; the issue was much more complex, and it has been noted that George III actually was often at odds with his ministers over their advice about New England, finding it to be too punitive in nature.

George III was as a good a representation of the the Revolutionaries were fighting as anything. But it is a point that some of the Founding Fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin, who were not adverse to the notion of a monarchy, and there were many debates as to whether the US should establish its own monarchy, or what precisely the nature of the head of state should be.

But, as for the modern day: that's absolutely my point. Though republicans generally go on about how republics are the epitome of modern constitutional evolution, they argue as though nothing had changed in three or more centuries and Canada was worse than Saudi Arabia.

I can sympathize to the extent that republican movements in the former British Empire have often been about a sense of independent national identity, about breaking even the nebulous ties with Great Britain.

But, to my mind, our system does work relatively well. The problems I have with governance right now would be the same regardless of whether the occupant of Rideau Hall was a regal, vice-regal or elected figure. Unless we're talking about a major overhaul of the institutions, most republicans I've ever talked to seem to be more interested in an elected head of state who would be about as nominal as the current Governor General (I don't see a lot of people advocating a strong executive branch ala the US or France).

To my mind, unless we're going to basically turn this on its head and start talking about major structural changes, it's rather pointless to talk about removing the Queen. I think she's done a rather good job, in the respect that when she's been needed, she's done her bit (ie. the Constitution, the 1995 Quebec referendum), and her vice-regal representatives have been, all in all, a pretty benign lot (I actually think Michael Jean has been a damned good GG, certainly a more dignified and modest figure than Adrienne Clarkson, and not the shamelessly promoted political hack Romeo LaBlanc.

I found Michael Jean's performance last December to be wise, thoughtful and steadying when Parliament, and perhaps the whole country, seemed ready to come apart at the seams. She did exactly what we expect of a Constitutional Vice-Regal. I would be rather afraid in our current system that an elected president would be informed more by his or her party affiliations and loyalties than by the fundamental role as the keeper of our democracy. Since the GG is above the fray, she's in the best position to govern its outcome.

[CAMP]

George III was as a good a representation of the the Revolutionaries were fighting as anything. But it is a point that some of the Founding Fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin, who were not adverse to the notion of a monarchy, and there were many debates as to whether the US should establish its own monarchy, or what precisely the nature of the head of state should be.

I can sympathize to the extent that republican movements in the former British Empire have often been about a sense of independent national identity, about breaking even the nebulous ties with Great Britain.

But, to my mind, our system does work relatively well. The problems I have with governance right now would be the same regardless of whether the occupant of Rideau Hall was a regal, vice-regal or elected figure. Unless we're talking about a major overhaul of the institutions, most republicans I've ever talked to seem to be more interested in an elected head of state who would be about as nominal as the current Governor General (I don't see a lot of people advocating a strong executive branch ala the US or France).

To my mind, unless we're going to basically turn this on its head and start talking about major structural changes, it's rather pointless to talk about removing the Queen. I think she's done a rather good job, in the respect that when she's been needed, she's done her bit (ie. the Constitution, the 1995 Quebec referendum), and her vice-regal representatives have been, all in all, a pretty benign lot (I actually think Michael Jean has been a damned good GG, certainly a more dignified and modest figure than Adrienne Clarkson, and not the shamelessly promoted political hack Romeo LaBlanc.

I found Michael Jean's performance last December to be wise, thoughtful and steadying when Parliament, and perhaps the whole country, seemed ready to come apart at the seams. She did exactly what we expect of a Constitutional Vice-Regal. I would be rather afraid in our current system that an elected president would be informed more by his or her party affiliations and loyalties than by the fundamental role as the keeper of our democracy. Since the GG is above the fray, she's in the best position to govern its outcome.

Well toad, very well put, I totally agree with your assessment of the GG and the monarchy and the set up of our government. It works well. But we do need to have a cleaning up of political parties and MP's being responsible to their constituents, and of course from the other thread we need to get into the technology available to keep our politicians accountable.

[ToadBrother]

Well toad, very well put, I totally agree with your assessment of the GG and the monarchy and the set up of our government. It works well. But we do need to have a cleaning up of political parties and MP's being responsible to their constituents, and of course from the other thread we need to get into the technology available to keep our politicians accountable.

If there's one thing I hate about starry eyed ideological types when they've found a new party to hump, it's this idea that every paragraph must contain a sentence advocating their party.

[CAMP]

If there's one thing I hate about starry eyed ideological types when they've found a new party to hump, it's this idea that every paragraph must contain a sentence advocating their party.

My signature does that quite well doesn't it. So I should just shut up and let all the Liberals and Conservatives do their thing carry on.......

[ToadBrother]

My signature does that quite well doesn't it. So I should just shut up and let all the Liberals and Conservatives do their thing carry on.......

What you shouldn't do is forcefit your political advertising into everything. It's obnoxious and is not likely to produce the result you want.

Believe me, I would love reforms, but I just don't think direct democracy is the answer, nor can it be used to run large scale governments. It worked in Ancient Athens in part because the state was considerably smaller and less complex. Governing by polls is not really governing at all. There are points when politicians have made stands that were, in fact, quite unpopular among their constituencies, and that's not always bad. We get our chance to judge their performance. I actually have better things to do than to be harassed about the minutia of tax policy or who should be named Ambassador to Greece, or whether or not a new national park be formed in Labrador. I make my voice heard by regularly telling my MP, and by voting in each and every election.

If we want better MPs, we shouldn't replace the tyranny of the party with the tyranny of the mob.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What you shouldn't do is forcefit your political advertising into everything. It's obnoxious and is not likely to produce the result you want.

Believe me, I would love reforms, but I just don't think direct democracy is the answer, nor can it be used to run large scale governments. It worked in Ancient Athens in part because the state was considerably smaller and less complex. Governing by polls is not really governing at all. There are points when politicians have made stands that were, in fact, quite unpopular among their constituencies, and that's not always bad. We get our chance to judge their performance. I actually have better things to do than to be harassed about the minutia of tax policy or who should be named Ambassador to Greece, or whether or not a new national park be formed in Labrador. I make my voice heard by regularly telling my MP, and by voting in each and every election.

If we want better MPs, we shouldn't replace the tyranny of the party with the tyranny of the mob.

Direct democracy is not governance by polls, but instead referendums. There is a very real difference, and you need to look at the Swiss system before you say that it doesn't or can't work. They have lived with this system for the last century or so.

[Smallc]

Yes, they have....and we've lived with this system for 142 years (more actually) and despite your assertions, it seems to be working quite well.

[ToadBrother]

Direct democracy is not governance by polls, but instead referendums. There is a very real difference, and you need to look at the Swiss system before you say that it doesn't or can't work. They have lived with this system for the last century or so.

And we've had ours, in one form or another, since the Magna Carta. In fact, our system has proved to be probably the single most resilient, adaptable system of governance of the last thousand years. Direct democracy ain't no panacea, and Switzerland is hardly without its own problems.

[CAMP]

Yes, they have....and we've lived with this system for 142 years (more actually) and despite your assertions, it seems to be working quite well.

Really, and I along with all the rest of Canada bailed out GM. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have happened if we were working quite well. Our country will never see that money again, our health system and other areas could have used that money. We are piling up debt like no tommorrow... yeah it's working real well. NOT!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

WE live in a perfect world in Canada. There are simply no problems that our perfect system cannot resolve. The Quebec issue, the First Nations, health care, public debt, government fiscal accountability, the political integrity of our representatives, our trade agreements, the very nature of Canadian government.

WE are in great shape living in Canada.

[Smallc]

yeah it's working real well. NOT!

You and Jerry can keep ignoring that there is far more right with Canada than there is wrong. We have the odd problem, but nothing you have proposed will fix it. It may in fact make it worse. So you didn't want to bail out GM, well, too bad. Responsible government sometimes requires that the unpopular thing be done. We elected these respresentatives, and they voted for this bailout,

[Smallc]

WE are in great shape living in Canada.

So how will further involving a society that doesn't understand the issues help to resolve any of the problems? It won't.

[jbg]

Direct democracy is not governance by polls, but instead referendums. There is a very real difference, and you need to look at the Swiss system before you say that it doesn't or can't work. They have lived with this system for the last century or so.

California is fiscally hitting the rocks because of the initiative and referendum system.

[gc1765]

I voted yes.

I'm surprised that so many people are in favour of the monarchy.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

California is fiscally hitting the rocks because of the initiative and referendum system.

I can't believe you are blaming the Californian system for its fiscal problems. You don't think the elected representatives have had anything at all to do with their problems? You suggest that the people are at fault, okay, now how do you back that up???

[ba1614]

You and Jerry can keep ignoring that there is far more right with Canada than there is wrong. We have the odd problem, but nothing you have proposed will fix it. It may in fact make it worse. So you didn't want to bail out GM, well, too bad. Responsible government sometimes requires that the unpopular thing be done. We elected these respresentatives, and they voted for this bailout,

Will wonders never cease!! I actually agree with you on something!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Will wonders never cease!! I actually agree with you on something!

The bailout is a done deal, that is true. Yet the pain has not yet been felt. Lets wait and see what happens next, because all indications are that this is far from over. You understand that governments now have major portions of private business in their pocket right?? You will also know that along with that ownership comes liability and responsibility right?

Governments have acted in the corporate interest just the way they were desired to.

[ba1614]

The bailout is a done deal, that is true. Yet the pain has not yet been felt. Lets wait and see what happens next, because all indications are that this is far from over. You understand that governments now have major portions of private business in their pocket right?? You will also know that along with that ownership comes liability and responsibility right?

Governments have acted in the corporate interest just the way they were desired to.

I don't agree with the bailout of GM, the way it was done.

My agreement with smallc was that responsible government has to make unpopular decisions, and the people we elected made this one.

I can only hope it does turn out to be the right move, and I'm wrong, if not I will hold them accountable next time I cast a vote.

I should have bolded the last half of the post I was quoting, my bad.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I don't agree with the bailout of GM, the way it was done.

My agreement with smallc was that responsible government has to make unpopular decisions, and the people we elected made this one.

I can only hope it does turn out to be the right move, and I'm wrong, if not I will hold them accountable next time I cast a vote.

I should have bolded the last half of the post I was quoting, my bad.

I think bailing out corporations is a very bad habit to get into. I would rather of had the government nationalize the damned thing in the interest of keeping jobs. They could then sell it off piece by piece when it became viable again. This way we are NEVER going to get back the investment of tax dollars. We are required to sell our stake in a fixed time frame, seemingly without regard to the cost of doing so. The tax payer got screwed on this big time.

[Smallc]

I don't see how changing to a republic will make anything better. I don't see how introducing another politician to the mix will make things better. I like the system that has allowed this country to prosper, and the monarchy is part of that system.

[CAMP]

So how will further involving a society that doesn't understand the issues help to resolve any of the problems? It won't.

That is a pure assumption by you that the people who would become further involved don't understand.

The job of a true politician is to try and make people understand their position through debate, have both sides represented or even an alternative choice. make the debate public.

Then the people would understand and vote accordingly to their thinking.

Those that would prefer to let their MP continue to represent them could also proxy their vote if they trust their MP.

That is democracy in action. What you have right now is a partial democracy at best. Give the power back to the people where it belongs!

[Smallc]

We don't have time to understand all of the bills. I certainly don't have time. We should leave the running of the country to the parties that we elect to do so.

[CAMP]

We don't have time to understand all of the bills. I certainly don't have time. We should leave the running of the country to the parties that we elect to do so.

We... really (you should only speak for yourself)

And that's fine if that is your choice. The system I'd like to see would give that choice. You could proxy your vote to your riding MP if you so choose through out a mandate or pick the issues you have interest in. I personally wouldn't proxy my opportunity, but that's me, and I'm sure there would be many others who would like the ability to push their government in between mandates and put some accountability in the system.

[Smallc]

There is a ton of accountability in the system, and you simply refuse to recognize it. Also, I didn't elect you to make decisions for me. You didn't win any confidence to give you a direct voice on these matters.You have the same democratic rights as I do right now in this system, and that's the way it should stay.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Smallc