The Federal Republic of Canada

[ToadBrother]

We are very close to a republic now. It would require little in terms of established practice to have a federal republic.

Both Germany and India are good examples of federal republics where power lies symbolically with a non-hereditary head of state whereas the head of government exercises power.

Germany, for example, chooses its president through a special body composed of both federal and provincial (lander) MPs. In Canada, our head of state could for example be proposed by the federal parliament subject to approval of provincial parliaments, with the Quebec National Assembly having veto power.

All of this happens now informally. When selecting a new GG, the federal PM devises a short list and then typically consults with other politicians and certain provincial premiers to see what they think.

I'm aware there are different types of presidents.

And I find it sad to the point of being pathetic that you believe Canadians must rely on a woman abroad, who got her job solely by birth, to defend better our individual rights against the State than we could do ourselves in Canada.

I'm not particularly married to the idea of a monarch, nor do I actually believe that the flowers will be a little brighter or our politicians any better if tomorrow I woke up and we had a president.

What I am saying is that if we're going to down that path, then we need to modify the institutions. The Queen and Her Vice-Regent's Reserve Powers are enormous, and I have a lot more faith in the Queen via the GG holding them than, say, a political flyboy unchained from tradition and precedent. I'm shivering at the thought of last December's near-crisis and imagining someone who was very much part of the political scene in there. As it is, I think it rather underlined the value of a person who, because their position is not in the quagmire of politics, holds the power to keep things in check. Call me a practical monarchist, if you like. The Constitutional system passed down to us from Great Britain is, in fact, a rather sturdy system that has survived since 1688. How many republics have risen and fallen since that time? The historical record is clear, our system, whatever its numerous faults and hypocrisies might be, has endured many crises.

Let's be very clear on the very least that needs to happen. Our Constitution recognizes the monarch as the head of state. So we're going to have to amend the constitution. I can guarantee you that when Elizabeth II dies and her son is crowned Charles III, even if 80% of Canadians say "nah" and even if most MPs say "nah", no one is going to be willing to open the Constitutional question, because once that door opens a bit, it's going to explode. Parliament will dutifully follow Westminster's example and Charles will be crowned (unless, of course, the Queen lasts a lot longer, in which case it will be William).

If Canada is to be a civilized country in the full meaning of the term, then it must become a Federal Republic.

I don't see how that's a rational statement in the least. There are plenty of republics out there that are anything but civilized. I think we are, in the full meaning of the term, a civilized country. But then again, I'm not interested in playing fast and loose with definitions and concepts, nor do I find people who do terribly convincing.

Edited July 10, 2009 by ToadBrother

[CAMP]

We don't have the knowledge to make all of these decisions. I want professionals to make the important decisions for this country, not people who don't know the issues and who are only thinking of themselves.

So all of these people who win an election are so knowledgeable. The fellow who had my area sewn up for a number of years I knew personally and he had a basic education and was involved with child social services looking after and counseling youth, not much more than college in that field... Andrew Telegdi, and most others are like that or lazy lawyers who want the easy ride. And you know where lawyers put their hands... in your pocket.

You sell yourself short if you think our politician are some kind of geniuses doing things way above our level of thinking. Most are in it for the money and the pension. They know a cash cow when they see one.

Besides the system I propose if you are so inclined to not want to be involved then you can proxy your vote to your MP if you want. Some people say we shouldn't have online voting because it's just for lazy people who won't go to their polling station. I say those who don't want to be involved through out a mandate are lazy people!

[ToadBrother]

So all of these people who win an election are so knowledgeable. The fellow who had my area sewn up for a number of years I knew personally and he had a basic education and was involved with child social services looking after and counseling youth, not much more than college in that field... Andrew Telegdi, and most others are like that or lazy lawyers who want the easy ride. And you know where lawyers put their hands... in your pocket.

You sell yourself short if you think our politician are some kind of geniuses doing things way above our level of thinking. Most are in it for the money and the pension. They know a cash cow when they see one.

Besides the system I propose if you are so inclined to not want to be involved then you can proxy your vote to your MP if you want. Some people say we shouldn't have online voting because it's just for lazy people who won't go to their polling station. I say those who don't want to be involved through out a mandate are lazy people!

Who the hell said we weren't involved during the mandate? You know, I'm beginning to dislike you and your party more and more by the moment. Who do you think you are? You don't know what any of us do in our interactions with the political system. Just because your hanging out at Timmys with all your little reformer friends bantering about how the Internet is going to make every thing soooo wonderful doesn't mean you know damn thing about the rest of us. I can tell you one thing, you don't know nuthin' about the Internet. I have been involved in the Internet as a system administrator for an ISP and as a network admin for about thirteen years now, and I can tell you that there are still some serious issues about broadcasting data over open channels. If we want to talk about specialized voting applications that run on a VPN where a disposable password is the private key that only the user and Elections Canada knows, then maybe we're talking, but I'll wager you turkeys are probably thinking moronic thoughts like "We'll run it on a web browser."

Do your bloody homework, and quite assuming things about other people. It's rude and arrogant.

[CAMP]

Who the hell said we weren't involved during the mandate? You know, I'm beginning to dislike you and your party more and more by the moment. Who do you think you are? You don't know what any of us do in our interactions with the political system. Just because your hanging out at Timmys with all your little reformer friends bantering about how the Internet is going to make every thing soooo wonderful doesn't mean you know damn thing about the rest of us. I can tell you one thing, you don't know nuthin' about the Internet. I have been involved in the Internet as a system administrator for an ISP and as a network admin for about thirteen years now, and I can tell you that there are still some serious issues about broadcasting data over open channels. If we want to talk about specialized voting applications that run on a VPN where a disposable password is the private key that only the user and Elections Canada knows, then maybe we're talking, but I'll wager you turkeys are probably thinking moronic thoughts like "We'll run it on a web browser."

Do your bloody homework, and quite assuming things about other people. It's rude and arrogant.

I didn't say anyone wasn't involved. What I am saying is you aren't involved at a level that can actually be more meaningful. I said it before and I'll say it again. If the Canadian public were allowed to be involved I doubt we would have bailed out GM, and who knows about Afghanistan. Presently our government does what it wants even with a minority it seems, and against the majority in the GM case. As far as internet security if it's so unsafe why are we able to process our income tax returns online? Your entitled to your opinion so carry on. I guess perhaps you didn't like the fact I shoveled comments back about people being lazy. After all I was told by you or another like you that online voting well that's just for lazy people. Touche' Lazy people are those who don't want to be bothered with their country and would rather pass it off to their MP 100% . Now don't assume I am saying this about you. I was responding to another person who said that, just look at the previous posts.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I didn't say anyone wasn't involved. What I am saying is you aren't involved at a level that can actually be more meaningful. I said it before and I'll say it again. If the Canadian public were allowed to be involved I doubt we would have bailed out GM, and who knows about Afghanistan. Presently our government does what it wants even with a minority it seems, and against the majority in the GM case. As far as internet security if it's so unsafe why are we able to process our income tax returns online? Your entitled to your opinion so carry on. I guess perhaps you didn't like the fact I shoveled comments back about people being lazy. After all I was told by you or another like you that online voting well that's just for lazy people. Touche' Lazy people are those who don't want to be bothered with their country and would rather pass it off to their MP 100% . Now don't assume I am saying this about you. I was responding to another person who said that, just look at the previous posts.

Paperless voting, and online voting are undoubtedly a part of our future. It will happen, the only question is when and how. Our entire political system on this planet is challenged by technological developments, because society has evolved far more quickly than politics.

There was a time when language was one of the largest barriers between citizens, but now the greatest barriers are living standards and economies. Times change.

Sooner or later politics must catch up to the reality of the human experience. It is not geniuses that this nation or any other needs but instead people with common sense and a sense of civic duty. In truth, the best representatives are citizens who have already lived a life with all of the challenges put before them. Citizens work through their child bearing and rearing years and then retire when that task is complete. Those are the folks that have been there and done that and lived to tell the tale. Those folks know what life is like, they have lived it! Ivory tower lawyers and academics don't sweat for decades just to replace the population of the nation. The average citizen does. There is a 2% cream at the top of the society pile who literally rule over everyone else. That 2% is the most affluent and most influent and they get their way, and they always have. The other end of the spectrum is the 2% of the population that is at the bottom of the society scale, they have nothing and contribute nothing to society. The great unwashed mass of humanity, the 96% of the population works for a living and pays all the bills for the poor and the rich.

That demographic will sooner or later choose to exercise their democratic rights in order to get what they want. When that happens in an uncontrolled manner then the top and the bottom will be very adversely affected. It is therefore in everyones interest to do it in a controlled manner. Online voting is a small step toward solving the problem. There is much more that needs to be done.

[benny]

People voting for a constitutional monarchy are people voting against democracy.

[Smallc]

Ummm, no. We have a Parliamentary Democracy as part of our Constitutional Monarchy.

And CAMP, we may not be in Afghanistan, and we may not have bailed out GM, but who's to say that what the government did was wrong and what the public would have voted for is right?

[Remiel]

People voting for a constitutional monarchy are people voting against democracy.

What an odd thing to say. Do you not think that the essence of democracy is captured more purely in choosing how to be governed than in choosing who to be governed by?

[benny]

What an odd thing to say. Do you not think that the essence of democracy is captured more purely in choosing how to be governed than in choosing who to be governed by?

Dictatorship consists in the way in which democracy is used and not in its abolition. (Rosa Luxemburg)

[CAMP]

Ummm, no. We have a Parliamentary Democracy as part of our Constitutional Monarchy.

And CAMP, we may not be in Afghanistan, and we may not have bailed out GM, but who's to say that what the government did was wrong and what the public would have voted for is right?

Simple fact of the matter would suggest that in a true democracy the decisions should be made via the majority.

Here is the Webster dictionary definition of democracy... I would say # 1 would fit with me the best and the system I propose would fall directly into the #1 definition.

De`moc´ra`cy Pronunciation: dė`mǒk´rå`sŷ

n. 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delagated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government.

4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called.

Obviously you prefer #2 and that is your perogative. However I will point out that popular representation is the key word. Also that a first past the post system does not supply you with that definition of popular representation which is really also the popular vote. Presently our governments are being put together with less than the popular vote and we could face a majority government with only 30% of the popular vote.

Further to this I can't really believe anyone can truly say that in the present system we have that #3 is true anymore with what's been going on with GM bail outs and Afghanistan etc.

Don't get me wrong Canada is one of the best countries in the world. But sadly we are slipping, and fast now.

I truly believe we have a system of government that always was prone to abuse if politicians so chose to exercise a less than scrupulous attitude. I would say from approx the early sixties our politicians were more or less upstanding or not as morally prone to abusing it. Since then it's been a downhill slide gradually as we lose our democractic rights and freedoms. And I won't pick on any one party or belief because the two main parties are both very guilty of it. The system we have needs to be changed for improvement to plug up the holes and get back to the people in control directly now because we can't trust a representative government anymore. Proof is in the pudding. What will the Canadian people have to bail out next and have no say on. That scares the hell out of me a lot more than keeping our present system. Mybe we'll be waging war on some other crisis strewn country? Maybe our country will go into debt so far we get cut off from the world bank like New Zealand did? May be our government will sell off our rights to the largest fresh water great lakes so they can bail themselves out. All hypothetical but very real possibilities now that I've seen the GM bail out. At least with a minority government for the moment I feel a little safer but not much. After all we did bail out GM in a minortiy situation.

Plainly and simply put our politicians can no longer be trusted to use the system we have with out abusing the temptations that exist.

Edited July 10, 2009 by CAMP

[Smallc]

Simple fact of the matter would suggest that in a true democracy the decisions should be made via the majority.

Thankfully we also have a Constitutional Monarchy to prevent such a thing. The majority can be wrong.

Here is the Webster dictionary definition of democracy... I would say # 1 would fit with me the best and the system I propose would fall directly into the #1 definition.

De`moc´ra`cy Pronunciation: dė`mǒk´rå`sŷ

n. 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delagated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government.

4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called.

Obviously you prefer #2 and that is your perogative.

I prefer the system that has helped this country o be stable and prosperous. You prefer to tinker, or even radically reform.

Further to this I can't really believe anyone can truly say that in the present system we have that #3 is true anymore with what's been going on with GM bail outs and Afghanistan etc.

But number three is true..truly. We elect these people and they form the government. If we elected people that are willing to bail out GM, so be it.

Don't get me wrong Canada is one of the best countries in the world. But sadly we are slipping, and fast now.

It is? Really? By what metrics?

I truly believe we have a system of government that always was prone to abuse if politicians so chose to exercise a less than scrupulous attitude.

There is no system that can completely eliminate abuse because we as people are imperfect beings.

I would say from approx the early sixties our politicians were more or less upstanding or not as morally prone to abusing it.

There has always been abuse.

Since then it's been a downhill slide gradually as we lose our democractic rights and freedom

In the sixties, our democratic rights weren't enshrined in the Constitution. Now they are.

Plainly and simply put our politicians can no longer be trusted to use the system we have with out abusing the temptations that exist.

And what about the people? Can the people be rusted anymore than the politicians (who are people)?

[benny]

Simple fact of the matter would suggest that in a true democracy the decisions should be made via the majority.

Here is the Webster dictionary definition of democracy... I would say # 1 would fit with me the best and the system I propose would fall directly into the #1 definition.

De`moc´ra`cy Pronunciation: dė`mǒk´rå`sŷ

n. 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delagated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government.

4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called.

I would not say a majority and a people are synonymous. A whole group may vote for an action, it doesn't mean any member of this group is willing to do it. Power comes from a will or motivation to act together as a people.

Edited July 10, 2009 by benny

[CAMP]

Thankfully we also have a Constitutional Monarchy to prevent such a thing. The majority can be wrong.

And so can a minority of people at the top of a party. You will see the GM bail out as wrong in the near future. Also the Afghan war. We are losing many lives for a cause that is at best another vietnam. Just wait and see. This is war you cannot win.

I prefer the system that has helped this country o be stable and prosperous. You prefer to tinker, or even radically reform.

Our country is in the hole how many billions and sinking further? Do the math. Prosperous is Preposterous!

But number three is true..truly. We elect these people and they form the government. If we elected people that are willing to bail out GM, so be it.

We didn't elect people to bail out GM at least I didn't. I voted for what I thought was a party that was fiscally prudent and has turned out not to be. As many other Canadians did.

It is? Really? By what metrics?

Yes it is really! Just investigate honestly.

There is no system that can completely eliminate abuse because we as people are imperfect beings.

I agree totally with you here. "BUT" there is plenty of room for improvement to tighten up the system.

There has always been abuse.

Yes again you are correct "BUT" again as time has gone on even more outrageous abuses have come forth. IE bags of money just to mention one. We could just as easily pick on the Liberals but you get the picture.

In the sixties, our democratic rights weren't enshrined in the Constitution. Now they are.

True you have basic rights and freedoms as long as whatever faction is in power and doesn't change something. Our democratic right of making decisions as to where our country heads fiscally or otherwise is on hold until another election. Partial democracy at best.

And what about the people? Can the people be rusted anymore than the politicians (who are people)?

The people are you and me and everyone else who would choose not to proxy their vote to an MP.

At least when you have a large mass of people there are way more eyes keeping track of the purse and be able to say NO when the majority don't want to spend on something, or embroil us in some sort of activity IE war.

When there are only a few people with total control is when things can go off the rails.

[Smallc]

You really don't seem to understand our system. There are not a few people with total control.

[ToadBrother]

I didn't say anyone wasn't involved. What I am saying is you aren't involved at a level that can actually be more meaningful.

Sure I am. I write at least one email to my MP every few months, either complaining, or, for instance, in the case of home improvement tax credit, to praise a useful and inventive initiative. I'm not interested in micromanaging him, I keep my eye on him, and let him know. And, at the end of the day, I'm not apathetic moron who sits on his hands on election day. I have voted in every single election I've been eligible for since I was 18, thank you very much.

I said it before and I'll say it again. If the Canadian public were allowed to be involved I doubt we would have bailed out GM, and who knows about Afghanistan.

I happen to agree with being in Afghanistan, and think the crime is the artificial deadline of 2011, forced on the government by a pack of cowards.

Presently our government does what it wants even with a minority it seems, and against the majority in the GM case.

The government is very much restrained right now. We had little choice in the GM case, it was either follow Washington or lose out entirely.

As far as internet security if it's so unsafe why are we able to process our income tax returns online? Your entitled to your opinion so carry on.

Because people and governments are overtrusting of the technology. The general rule of hacking is that if the gains are attractive enough, someone will crack it. There is an enormous amount to be gained by cracking an online voting system.

I guess perhaps you didn't like the fact I shoveled comments back about people being lazy. After all I was told by you or another like you that online voting well that's just for lazy people.

It is just for lazy people.

Touche' Lazy people are those who don't want to be bothered with their country and would rather pass it off to their MP 100% . Now don't assume I am saying this about you. I was responding to another person who said that, just look at the previous posts.

You were making arrogant generalized statements. I know, you're trying to sell your stupid little political party, but you're no salesman.

[benny]

The people are you and me and everyone else who would choose not to proxy their vote to an MP.

At least when you have a large mass of people there are way more eyes keeping track of the purse and be able to say NO when the majority don't want to spend on something, or embroil us in some sort of activity IE war.

When there are only a few people with total control is when things can go off the rails.

Decisions about war involve top secret classified information, i.e. information that should not be seen by the public for public security reasons.

Edited July 11, 2009 by benny

[jbg]

What I am saying is that if we're going to down that path, then we need to modify the institutions. The Queen and Her Vice-Regent's Reserve Powers are enormous, and I have a lot more faith in the Queen via the GG holding them than, say, a political flyboy unchained from tradition and precedent. I'm shivering at the thought of last December's near-crisis and imagining someone who was very much part of the political scene in there.

So am I.

It would be even scarier if a Kerr-Whitlam type crisis arose where it was necessary to turf the PM. Can you imagine the fallout if the President were even some universally admired Canadian as Carolyn Parrish or Paul Bernardo?

As it is, I think it rather underlined the value of a person who, because their position is not in the quagmire of politics, holds the power to keep things in check. Call me a practical monarchist, if you like. The Constitutional system passed down to us from Great Britain is, in fact, a rather sturdy system that has survived since 1688. How many republics have risen and fallen since that time? The historical record is clear, our system, whatever its numerous faults and hypocrisies might be, has endured many crises.

It even works better than the U.S. system, which despite its durability has endured such meltdowns as the U.S. Civil War and Watergate.

Let's be very clear on the very least that needs to happen. Our Constitution recognizes the monarch as the head of state. So we're going to have to amend the constitution. I can guarantee you that when Elizabeth II dies and her son is crowned Charles III, even if 80% of Canadians say "nah" and even if most MPs say "nah", no one is going to be willing to open the Constitutional question, because once that door opens a bit, it's going to explode. Parliament will dutifully follow Westminster's example and Charles will be crowned (unless, of course, the Queen lasts a lot longer, in which case it will be William).

I can't imagine any other outcome either.

[CAMP]

Decisions about war involve top secret classified information, i.e. information that should not be seen by the public for public security reasons.

You are correct about classified information about the logistics of war, but not the decision to wage war or not. That is the decision I speak of.

[benny]

Can you imagine the fallout if the President were even some universally admired Canadian as Carolyn Parrish or Paul Bernardo?

Go spit your stupidities elsewhere!

[jbg]

Go spit your stupidities elsewhere!

Maybe Paul Bernardo isn't so universally admired. I'm a Yank and don't know much about Canada.

From what I can tell Parrish is revered.

[benny]

You are correct about classified information about the logistics of war, but not the decision to wage war or not. That is the decision I speak of.

I think that to declare war, one has to have very worrisome secret information about the enemy.

[CAMP]

I think that to declare war, one has to have very worrisome secret information about the enemy.

If a country was to wage war on another such as the US did with IRAQ can we really rely on secretive information and trust that our politicians are doing the right thing? The reason given by Bush was weapons of mass destruction. Thankfully Canada up to now has been a non aggressive nation. IMHO we have been drawn into a conflict we should have not been, or at the very least have had a referendum for the majority to decide, rather than a few individuals at the top of a party who have a minority position to govern. It is not necessary to divulge the top secretive information for a country to decide to enter a war. For a country to enter a war with out the desire of the people to fight is foolish and dangerous for our future respect as a nation of peace. There must be a noble cause to fight a war. IMHO we have been duped by our politicians using our media to create a noble cause of women being oppressed by Taliban men. We entered this war mainly for that reason.

We as Canadians made a mistake because this is their culture and religion. I don't agree with it, but we will never change a situation of this nature with out a very long term occupation and education and loss of life. To have any measure of real success this country would need to be occupied for most likely 2 to 3 generations. It will remain to be seen how long the UN will carry on this occupation or have the will to do it. I am worried the mission for Canada will be increased even further than our present date.

Aggressive nations use propaganda to create a war, not secretive information. Peaceful nations get sucked in by aggressive nations.

Edited July 11, 2009 by CAMP

[bush_cheney2004]

....IMHO we have been drawn into a conflict we should have not been, or at the very least have had a referendum for the majority to decide, rather than a few individuals at the top of a party who have a minority position to govern.....

Was there such a referendum for Operation Allied Force (Kosovo). Nope....even Parliament didn't get to vote.

Aggressive nations use propaganda to create a war, not secretive information. Peaceful nations get sucked in by aggressive nations.

Yes...the decision to invade Haiti and depose a democratically elected president was made in Canada. Very aggressive!

[CAMP]

Was there such a referendum for Operation Allied Force (Kosovo). Nope....even Parliament didn't get to vote.

Yes...the decision to invade Haiti and depose a democratically elected president was made in Canada. Very aggressive!

We keep getting sucked in by the UN period! And need to change this scenerio somehow.

[benny]

If a country was to wage war on another such as the US did with IRAQ can we really rely on secretive information and trust that our politicians are doing the right thing?

The question I think is not so much about the possibility for a nation to rely on secretive information but the necessity for a nation to learn to live with that kind of information.