The Federal Republic of Canada

[benny]

No, however, the English Royal Family is indeed a part of our history. The Queen doesn't have any "power" over Canada, but what is wrong with history if it no longer holds sway over our legislative process? If we switch to a more symbolic system like that of Germany or Israel, what the hell is the point? You're basically keeping every institution the same but just changing the name. That would be to deny our history. Even though it would probably be better for them, it would be like the Americans switching to a westminster system and tearing up the declaration of independence. Again I ask, if there's going to be no substantive reform in the legislative process, why does it need to be changed? The only thing that could possibly be reformed is the senate...even then, it should only be reformed to the point where term limits are introduced and nothing else. Having an effective check on the HoC, like I argued before, would be detrimental to the legislative process in that it would slow things down to a snails pace.

Also, unfortunately, checks and balances DO have a lot to do with the bureaucracy. In the United States there are 21 different intelligence agencies and every single department (Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines) within the pentagon has their own, redundant, air force which gets billions of dollars in spending. Why? Because checks and balances deem it incredibly easy to kill legislation. If lobbyists from the Pentagon or the INtelligence establishment get to a single congressmen because lets remember, there is no parliamentary discipline, that could be the difference between a higher and lower budget for said department.

And so what about NEP? Short-sighted? Sure. In the end, Trudeau wanted a grand vision for us to be buying energy from the west. He wanted to unite the country west-east instead of just having our natural resources go on the north-south axis to the states. In the end, his message was pan-Canadian. My point was that the Conservatives today and the Alliance of yesterday are deliberately playing west and east off each other in order to make electoral gains. Are we different? Sure. IS there a lot we can learn from each other? Absolutely. Is it ok for parties to try and tear the country apart to win a majority? No. Considering the divide between east and west today, it's just as bad as seperatism.

I think we have to look at history for all the unfinished endeavors it contains; Quebec, being close to the legacy of the French Revolution, gets Canada moving fast.

[Topaz]

Worrying about the NAU is like worrying about be ravished by the loch ness monster.

I suppose the people back in Noah days felt the same way about it raining.

[benny]

I suppose the people back in Noah days felt the same way about it raining.

NAU stands for North American Union.

[Smallc]

They would have been right to feel that way, since the flood that the Bible describes is thought to have been caused by the destruction of the natural wall that existed between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea causing the level of water in and around the Black Sea to increase rapidly. It probably wasn't rain.

Yeah, so the NAU has as much chance of happening in the next century as the world being flooded by a rain storm.

[Smallc]

NAU stands for North American Union.

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Smallc

[benny]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

troll

[nicky10013]

I think we have to look at history for all the unfinished endeavors it contains; Quebec, being close to the legacy of the French Revolution, gets Canada moving fast.

Quebec was British long before the revolution. Just because there's a lingual and religious link to France doens't mean that the political link is as strong. Quebec was always loyal to the British, just look at the American Revolution. American leaders were deseperately trying to get Quebec to rebel alongside the other 13 colonies knowing the legacy of conquest but iQuebec stayed neutral. It wasn't until Bond-Head's report that stated we should be assimilating the French that there was a problem.

[benny]

Quebec was British long before the revolution. Just because there's a lingual and religious link to France doens't mean that the political link is as strong. Quebec was always loyal to the British, just look at the American Revolution. American leaders were deseperately trying to get Quebec to rebel alongside the other 13 colonies knowing the legacy of conquest but iQuebec stayed neutral. It wasn't until Bond-Head's report that stated we should be assimilating the French that there was a problem.

It is essentially the Catholic authorities who decided to save Canada from being integrated to the US; here too, we have to look at the history of Catholicism in Quebec for all the unfinished endeavors it contains.

[nicky10013]

It is essentially the Catholic authorities who decided to save Canada from being integrated to the US; here too, we have to look at the history of Catholicism in Quebec for all the unfinished endeavors it contains.

I'm all for the saving of history and wouldn't argue against looking at the history of Catholicism in Quebec, but please, I'm ignorant on the matter, which unfinished endeavours are you referring to?

[g_bambino]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Invoking the Ralph Wiggum defence! Well done!

[g_bambino]

The Queen doesn't have any "power" over Canada, but what is wrong with history if it no longer holds sway over our legislative process? If we switch to a more symbolic system like that of Germany or Israel, what the hell is the point? You're basically keeping every institution the same but just changing the name.

It isn't quite that simple; there are structural consequences to a shift to republicanism, not the least of which is the tipping of the balance between political and apolitical. As I've said elsewhere, the British parliamentary system is the most copied around the world. However, most countries did not heed what the UK had already learned three centuries before: a Westminster system with a president at its head will eventually transform into an autocratic monarchy. That's not to say that is the inevitable result should Canada become a republic, but the chances do greatly increase once that happy medium, centuries in the making, is tipped to one side for no reason other than emotions and symbolism.

[nicky10013]

It isn't quite that simple; there are structural consequences to a shift to republicanism, not the least of which is the tipping of the balance between political and apolitical. As I've said elsewhere, the British parliamentary system is the most copied around the world. However, most countries did not heed what the UK had already learned three centuries before: a Westminster system with a president at its head will eventually transform into an autocratic monarchy. That's not to say that is the inevitable result should Canada become a republic, but the chances do greatly increase once that happy medium, centuries in the making, is tipped to one side for no reason other than emotions and symbolism.

Alright, I must've misread. It also sounds like we're on the same page.

[benny]

I'm all for the saving of history and wouldn't argue against looking at the history of Catholicism in Quebec, but please, I'm ignorant on the matter, which unfinished endeavours are you referring to?

Yes "history is written by the victors", but history shows no definitive capitulation of the vanquished.

[whowhere]

No, however, the English Royal Family is indeed a part of our history. The Queen doesn't have any "power" over Canada.

Really?

What was the 1982 constitution? That document was created by the Liberal Party, Signed off by the Supreme Court of Canada and Ratified by the Queen. This all happened without a say from the people! Show me in this 1982 constitution where the Queen has reliquished herself from Canada?

She is still the Sovereign of Canada and if she could construct the 1982 constitution without your say she can certainly do it again. Not only has the Queen throughout Canada's history altered Canada's operating Framework without the Canadian people's say the the 1982 Constitution, Statue of Westminister, etc, exist in the UK legal Framework. There is nothing stopping the Queen and the UK parliament from repealing all legislation pertaining to Canada at any time and at any point.

If the Queen and the UK were to make that move Canada's political and bureacratic machine could be forced to a grinding halt if the Queen and her Governor Generals refuses ascent to any legislation tabled by the Government. It is also within the Governor Generals power to fire the Prime Minister and Dismiss the Party in Government.

No power????

All you people have is your empty words. Any move by Canada to free itself from the Queen would require Canada to be recogized. Recognized by Who?. Canada may have been a respected Country once upon a time I doubt that is the case today.

Independence is not going to happen for Canada. Independance from the UK and Britain could happen but it would require mobilized non violent support by a majority of Old and New Canadians. Good Luck with that, not going to happen. What will happen is the Queen or her heirs will eventually one day alter Canada unilaterally to reflect the times of day, Like it or not.

Face the facts Canada is no longer a progressive prosperous Country but a stagnate, repressive, stifling, corrupt society. Canada's model of prosperity is based on exploitation and self serving greed. Canada is this because it has no values, no principles, no virtues, no honour, no integrity.

Canada is this, because of the Conservative pary of Canada.

[M.Dancer]

She is still the Sovereign of Canada and if she could construct the 1982 constitution without your say she can certainly do it again.

She did that? What part exactly? Are those parts different from the ones you claim were "created by the Liberal Party"?

There is nothing stopping the Queen and the UK parliament from repealing all legislation pertaining to Canada at any time and at any point.

Do you lay awake at night worry about this? How about black helicopters hovering soundlessly monitoring your communications?

If the Queen and the UK were to make that move Canada's political and bureacratic machine could be forced to a grinding halt if the Queen and her Governor Generals refuses ascent to any legislation tabled by the Government. It is also within the Governor Generals power to fire the Prime Minister and Dismiss the Party in Government.

You should casually bring up your fears with your family doctor. Sometimes the meds don't mix well...

[whowhere]

She did that? What part exactly? Are those parts different from the ones you claim were "created by the Liberal Party"?

Do you lay awake at night worry about this? How about black helicopters hovering soundlessly monitoring your communications?

You should casually bring up your fears with your family doctor. Sometimes the meds don't mix well...

Did I start this thread?

[M.Dancer]

Did I start this thread?

No it had a fairly intelligent beginning..

[benny]

No it had a fairly intelligent beginning..

Count on me for a similar ending.

[jbg]

Count on me for a similar ending.

I have a lot of respect for someone who knows who they are. You seem to.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This is a free and sovereign nation. The illusion of the Crown has no practical application and represents no more than an irritation in legislative matters, its power to interfere is very limited. The Statute of Westminister prevents British Parliament and the Crown from absolute rule and in fact places that power in the hands of Canadian Parliament.

However the document referred to as the Canadian Constitution is wholly inadequate and requires extreme revision. The power and authority of government is not clearly defined and is perceived to be absolute. The courts are held to ransom without clearly defined roles and responsibilities within government itself and the constitution is found lacking in sufficient checks and balances to provide the framework for a nation as diverse and large as this one most certainly is.

The BNA was merely a British sponsored means of divesting itself from the responsibility of governing this nation fully, and the Statute of Westminister ensured it completely. Nowhere in the founding framework of this nation are the values and concerns of our own citizens of paramount consideration. In 1982 when that document was repatriated in order to make the citizens concerns of proper paramount, and yet we lost certain rights and freedoms we had in the original document so that in reality we have taken a step backward. The government took it upon itself to preserve and protect its power and authority and in some ways it actually increased its authority over the citizens. The citizens lost rights and the government gained more political power. The Canadian Constitution, in all its forms, was never written by Canadians and for Canadians because it was written by those would would master us and have us serve them. No citizen ratification was ever undertaken, and no citizen initiative was ever allowed to influence its authorship. The Constitution of Canada fails the citizens of Canada and serves merely the purpose of authenticating the power of government without recognizing the interests and desires of the public.

Soon the citizens will begin to be heard, because the flaws of the nation are becoming as visible as cracks in walls.

[benny]

I have a lot of respect for someone who knows who they are. You seem to.

My mother was like Queen Elizabeth II to me.

[Smallc]

However the document referred to as the Canadian Constitution is wholly inadequate and requires extreme revision. The power and authority of government is not clearly defined and is perceived to be absolute. The courts are held to ransom without clearly defined roles and responsibilities within government itself and the constitution is found lacking in sufficient checks and balances to provide the framework for a nation as diverse and large as this one most certainly is.

No, and even if what you say here was true, the government system in this country still seems to work. I know you don't think so, but I think that most would disagree, and they would be right based on the reading that I've done so far. The simple fact is, the change you want would probably make this country harder (if not impossible) to govern.

[Dave_ON]

The BNA was merely a British sponsored means of divesting itself from the responsibility of governing this nation fully, and the Statute of Westminister ensured it completely. Nowhere in the founding framework of this nation are the values and concerns of our own citizens of paramount consideration. In 1982 when that document was repatriated in order to make the citizens concerns of proper paramount, and yet we lost certain rights and freedoms we had in the original document so that in reality we have taken a step backward. The government took it upon itself to preserve and protect its power and authority and in some ways it actually increased its authority over the citizens. The citizens lost rights and the government gained more political power.

Can you be more specific with the rights that were lost in the transition? This is an oft repeated phrase that I heard from my staunchly conservative family growing up in New Brunswick but I was never given specifics. I always chalked their opposition to the patriation of the constitution to anti-liberal/Trudeau rhetoric. At the time this happened I was far too young to understand politics so I have no firsthand experience.

[benny]

However the document referred to as the Canadian Constitution is wholly inadequate and requires extreme revision.

Through its independence movement, only Quebec has enough determination to push for amendments on the Canadian Constitution.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Can you be more specific with the rights that were lost in the transition? This is an oft repeated phrase that I heard from my staunchly conservative family growing up in New Brunswick but I was never given specifics. I always chalked their opposition to the patriation of the constitution to anti-liberal/Trudeau rhetoric. At the time this happened I was far too young to understand politics so I have no firsthand experience.

For starters we no longer have the right to own property, that was a result of both the NDP and the Progressive Conservatives, hard to believe but true. Another issue is the right of Territories to become provinces, since 1982 an act of Parliament no longer can be used to do this. It now takes 7 provinces and 50% of the population as well as both the Commons and the Senate to make the change. There are other things but these are the two things dearest to my heart. The new constitution limits rather than enhances our freedoms.