The Federal Republic of Canada

[I miss Reagan]

1. I have never called you a fascist

2. I am not a lefty

In that case I apologize.

3. I told the sepratists to leave the country. It would take more then 2% of Albertans to take the Province with them.

No it's much higher. As I understand it it's between 10% and 25%. And I'm hoping for another NEP type of program to push it over 50%.

I don't have a gun to your head, and i don't plan on it, but if you are un-happy in Canada, don't stay, i wouldn't want to keep you here against your will, I'll drive you to the airport.

No I love Alberta. I think I'll stay. Just don't like Eastern Canada.

[Newfie Canadian]

Just don't like Eastern Canada.

I'll try no to take that personally IMR.

Just curious IMR, what is your view on the Senate?

[I miss Reagan]

Sorry Newfie, I often make that mistake. I guess I should say Ontario and Quebec. As for my view on the senate triple E for sure but I think it's just one part of the problem. We need major democratic reform in other areas such as the PMO etc. and more power for the provinces.

[Newfie Canadian]

No offence taken.

I agree with the EEE Senate for sure. I also agree that the PMO is too powerful. More power to the provinces is tricky, but I agree that there are some areas that the provinces should have more say over.

Another real big problem is patronage and croneyism that runs rampant in Ottawa. It's the same old thing year after year because people get recycled due to that stuff. It all comes back to the PMO, it seems to me.

[caesar]

We need more power with the federal governments; a little less for the Prime Minister and keep our country the sames as now with the Queen. A little symbol of non political figurehead that cost us little is great. Americans are enthralled with royalty and try to invent their own. Besides who else would we want on our money???

[August1991]

August, out of interest could you type out a factual list of what makes a switch from a constituational Monarchy to a republic that much better. I am not by any means a strong supporter of remaining apart of the commonwealth, but I also have yet to see a convincing arguement for change.

Firstly, India (for example) is a republic but still a member of the Commonwealth. So, that's not the issue.

Second, Canada's nominal Head of State is determined solely and completely by birth. In Canada, we wisely and usually don't fill positions in such a snobbish fashion. For a position such as Head of State, we certainly shouldn't. After all, the position is primarily symbolic.

Third, as much as I disagreed with what Trudeau did in 1982, I have to admit that it is a good thing that we in Canada now have a Constitution Act, not a British North America Act, and we don't have to go to the UK for amendments. Pierre Trudeau won alot of bedrock Liberal votes when he did that. IOW, Canadians want to grow up (must grow up) and assume entirely alone collective responsibility for this territory we inhabit.

Fourth, the so-called "Queen of Canada" is obviously not Canadian. To many people living in Canada, her status as Head of State is perceived at best as completely meaningless and at worst as a reminder of who really controls things. I sincerely believe that if Canada became a Federal Republic, there would be less friction between Canadians of all origins.

Look, in the US, Schwarzenegger made Governor of California but the President has to be American born. These simple rules matter.

[Guest eureka]

August, I m glad that you did resurrect the thread. I have just read through the articulate and informed posts of G.Bambino.

I could add only one thing to them about the money end of things. That is that the list of properties that are not owned by the Monarchy used to be owned by the Institution: those and more. The Royal Family was a couple of centuries ago, the largest landowner in Britain and the wealthiest. Its properties were turned over to the State in return for a guaranteed income that does not nearly match what it gave up.

I wonder if he has read the Canadian John Farthing's "Freedom wears a Crown." It is one of the best expositions of the value of a Constitutional Monarchy ever written.

My own position is that of a Monarchist: a very strong Monarchist. I am that because there has, as yet, been no system of government devised that could serve the principles of democracy and freedom so well. If ever there should be such a creation, then I would agree to abolish monarchy.

However, until that time, I am completely with Bambino. The churlish behaviour of Quebec's leaders; the source of antipathy in Quebec, carries no weight. Quebec owes its survival to the Institution of Constitutional Monarchy.

[August1991]

Eureka, I am not a monarchist. So, I disagree with you. I was never a monarchist, but I became a republican through thought and reflection. No one says anything about divine rights anymore, except maybe in North Korea.

I must say that I was impressed with the actions of King Juan-Carlo in Spain but then, any right thinking person would have done the same.

----

Quebec owes its survival to the Institution of Constitutional Monarchy.

Modern Quebec owes its existence to the fact that for about six or seven generations, each woman gave birth to about 20 children. This growth rate is unparalleled in history.

The British intention, Crown or otherwise, was to rid itself of this backward, papist minority.

[Guest eureka]

Read the Constitutional protections built in for the "backward, Papist minority." Read the Quebec Act. Consider why Quebec has its Civil Code instead of Common Law.

[August1991]

Read the Constitutional protections built in for the "backward, Papist minority." Read the Quebec Act. Consider why Quebec has its Civil Code instead of Common Law.

What do these have to do with the number of children a women gives birth to?

----

How many French boats entered a harbour in British North America between 1760 and 1850? [Answer: Zero.] How many French immigrants came to Canada in the 1800s? [Answer: Zero.]

[Stoker]

QUOTE 

Read the Constitutional protections built in for the "backward, Papist minority." Read the Quebec Act. Consider why Quebec has its Civil Code instead of Common Law. 

What do these have to do with the number of children a women gives birth to?

Nothing, but they shoot holes through your theory that the British crown wanted to rid itself of French roman catholics within Canada

[August1991]

Nothing, but they shoot holes through your theory that the British crown wanted to rid itself of French roman catholics within Canada

If you are Canadian, please learn the history of your country - the history of the people who lived in this territory.

The British were not Nazis. There were no ovens.

But the basic intent, 19th century style, was to create a British North America. The original intent didn't work. And it's been a source of general confusion since.

[caesar]

In Canada, we wisely and usually don't fill positions in such a snobbish fashion. For a position such as Head of State, we certainly shouldn't. After all, the position is primarily symbolic.

No, we don't. We fill these positions with friends of the Prime Minister or Premier; they are called patronage appointments. Much worse in my mind. At least the Quenn or her representatives are asked not to make political statements.

[August1991]

No, we don't. We fill these positions with friends of the Prime Minister or Premier; they are called patronage appointments.

I said "positions" not "such positions".

How did you get your job? How did your Mom/Dad/Brother/Sister get their jobs? Wife/Husband/Son/Daughter their jobs?

Family ties? Connections?

Would you like to apply for a job and then learn you had no chance? Is it good to hire people based solely on family name? Contacts?

Why is that woman's face on our money?

I wonder whether patronage would be less rampant if we were a republic.

[Stoker]

If you are Canadian, please learn the history of your country - the history of the people who lived in this territory

I'm Canadian, and was always a fan of history, but in this case I don't have clue what your talking about............

Your post:

The British intention, Crown or otherwise, was to rid itself of this backward, papist minority.

Alludeds to the fact that the British crown tried to rid itself of the French Canadian minority........I ask you to provide the "W5".

Why is that woman's face on our money?

History......tradition....a link to the past........Why is Macdonald's face on our money? Why do we have a bird on our one dollar coin? Or a bear on two dollar bit?

This leads me back to my first question (I think it was one of the first in this thread months ago), what will we gain by getting rid of the monarchy?

Will becoming a republic bring forth new trade deals for us? Fix healthcare? allow us to lower taxes? Whats the point?

[August1991]

Why is Macdonald's face on our money?

Trudeau ordered it.

Alludeds to the fact that the British crown tried to rid itself of the French Canadian minority

Do you know of Lord Durham? Lord Elgin? Guy Carleton?

Lord Elgin has a statue in front of Quebec's National Assembly. Why?

Why do the Conservatives never get seats in Quebec? Who was Louis Riel? What was Ontario's Regulation 17?

Who was Clifford Sifton? Who did Laurier choose for his first cabinet in 1896?

Canada - this place - has a history.

And it's nothing like the Liberal/CBC nonsense we usually hear.

[Bakunin]

I think the main idea of this debate is:

Nobility, giving special status to someone based on his blood's heridity (the queen)... vs all man are born equal.

The GG is choosen by the queen with the help of the prime minister. vs a GG choosen by the people.

------------------------------------------------

Here are some solution proposed:

1) Indirect election by parliament. Very similar to what we have now where the Governor General is selected by the Prime Minister and approved by Parliament and the Senate. This would simply amount to republicanizing our Westminster style of parliament. It could be done with a minor amount of modification to our current system and minor changes to our constitution. The President would retain the same politically-neutral and symbolic position as the Governor General (with some reserve powers for special circumstances) and would not result in a change in the power now exercised by parliament. India, a former constitutional monarchy, presently has the most successful version of this model.

2) Indirect election by a selection committee of political peers such as judges, former or sitting federal or provincial politicians, academics, etc. This model, a variation of which is practiced by Germany, offers some solace to those who think a President elected or appointed solely by parliament would somehow be indebted or subservient to it. The president remains the politically-neutral head of state with some executive powers while the Prime Minister (or in Germany's case, the Chancellor) retains the position of head of government. This system again would require minimal effort to implement, with very little constitutional change.

3) Direct election by all eligible voters. There are three main sub-groups of this style:

a) The U.S. mode that essentially has one executive head of state, the president, but the bulk of the legislative power is distributed between congress and senate. To the lay person, it's a very complicated system that has the President elected not by the popular vote but by a majority of electoral college votes. Comparably, because we've instituted our own constitution (which is uncommon among Westminster parliamentary systems), we already have a strong US style supreme court that can legislate over the will of the government. So in that respect, our systems are already somewhat alike. Outside of that, the similarities are few. In Canada's case, adopting this governing formula would involve merging the position of Governor General with that of the Prime Minister. Since many political observers believe the Prime Minister's Office already wields too much power and due to the total overhaul that would have to be done to our constititution to adopt this style of republic, it may be one of the less likely choices.

B ) The French style which is a combination of the Westminster and US systems. Like the Prime Minister, the President is directly elected but has symbolic as well as some executive powers. In many ways, the President and the Prime Minister are political rivals because both are elected separately and thus both are responsible to their constituents.

c) Similar to Ireland, direct election but the same duties as that of our current Governor General. In this system, the power structure would naturally change in favour of the President and away from the Prime Minister and Parliament. Although it wouldn't necessarily be written into the change-over, the difference would be not in the powers granted by the position but in the willingness to exercise existing ones. Our current Governor General is a symbolic and ceremonial head of state who asserts his or her limited or reserve executive powers in rare emergencies (as would an indirectly elected or appointed president). However, if this position is filled by a directly elected official, who has their own constituents to whom to answer, the supremacy of Parliament could be altered. For that reason, this style of republic could be difficult - although not impossible - to implement in Canada.

i took those suggestion from:

http://www.canadian-republic.ca

[August1991]

Canada’s head of state should be a Canadian citizen and not be above our laws. Presently, the Act of Settlement of 1701 constitutionally binds Canada to only heads of state who are members of The Church of England, thereby legislatively preventing Roman Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Muslims or anyone not a member of that Protestant denomination from becoming Canada’s head of state. Section 15(1) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability".

Bakunin, good web site.

[Stoker]

Do you know of Lord Durham? Lord Elgin? Guy Carleton?

Lord Elgin has a statue in front of Quebec's National Assembly. Why?

Why do the Conservatives never get seats in Quebec? Who was Louis Riel? What was Ontario's Regulation 17?

Who was Clifford Sifton? Who did Laurier choose for his first cabinet in 1896?

Canada - this place - has a history.

And it's nothing like the Liberal/CBC nonsense we usually hear.

So which British King or Queen "ordered" it is that you ( and the people of Quebec?) have their back up over?

George III ? George IV ? William IV ? Victoria ?

Bakunin, I know you put alot of work into that post, but I still want to know why we need a change?

[Guest eureka]

Do you know of Durham and the others. I am not sure what you imply there, but, yes, I know of them. I also know that the Durham Report was rejected in the part that suggested the assimilation of French Canadians. The rest of the report was a brilliant blueprint for a democratic society.

I also know of Riel and his plans to set up a state in the muddle of Canada.

Bakunin, Bambino's postings already contain adequate refutation of the "Presidential ideas suggested. The weakness of the arguments can be summed up in pointing to the untruth that the Canadian Supreme Court can make law.

All the rest is about systems that have been attempted to replace monarchy; and all are stumbling. Some, as the American, have been a disaster and are not at all like the ideal presented in that site.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Not broke? You mean 1995 referendum not broke? Or just not broke? (BTW, denial is also a river in Egypt.)

And what about principle? What about living a whole life lying, or finally telling the truth.

I don't cherish monarchy, but it seems like a low priority issue to me.

As for the 1995 referendum, I have no problem with how it turned out. The good guys won, right?

[The Terrible Sweal]

..., we already have a strong US style supreme court that can legislate over the will of the government.

You're mistaken on this point. First, the Courts in Canada do not legislate, and second, regarding Charter rights, the legislatures are empowered to overrule the courts.

[Newfie Canadian]

Notwithstanding Clause.

The federal Parliament or a provincial legislature may declare a law or part of a law to apply temporarily "notwithstanding" certain sections of the Charter, essentially using it to negate any federal/provincial or judicial review by overriding the Charter protections for a limited period of time. This is done by including a section in the law clearly specifying which rights have been overridden.

[g_bambino]

I thought I'd bring this old thread to the top so that it's clear to all that M. Bambino is a neanderthal monarchist.

Thank you, August1991, for breathing new life into this thread.

I'm also pleased you noticed that I am a monarchist.

The neanderthal part, however, serves nicely to show the level of decency and manners you possess.

Bambino believes that the symbolic leader of a country should get the job solely by the accident of birth. What a symbol!

No, I'm afraid I don't believe someone should become sovereign of a country solely by accident of birth. That would make them an absolute monarch, and unaccountable to their subjects.

I appreciate the Canadian system because who our monarch is, and who will be, is laid out in Canadian constitutional law; law which was created by governments who were, and are, the elected representatives of the people.

This makes monarchs accountable to Canadians, for if they are not happy with whomever is in the sovereign's position (or even in line for the position) they may freely voice their opinions on the matter. Their opinions may be strong enough that they will call for the laws which govern succession to the throne to be removed or altered by their government to either depose the monarchy all together, or call for another to take the throne.

Examples of how the people can affect their monarch can be seen in the abdication of King Edward in 1936, or the Queen's recent moves following the death or Diana, Princess of Wales.

[Bakunin]

Like august posted:

Canada’s head of state should be a Canadian citizen and not be above our laws. Presently, the Act of Settlement of 1701 constitutionally binds Canada to only heads of state who are members of The Church of England, thereby legislatively preventing Roman Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Muslims or anyone not a member of that Protestant denomination from becoming Canada’s head of state. Section 15(1) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability".

Funny, looks like racism, this mean a french person couldnt be GG except if he or she become a member of the england church ? its just another thing that make's it an "english only" symbol.

Bakunin, Bambino's postings already contain adequate refutation of the "Presidential ideas suggested. The weakness of the arguments can be summed up in pointing to the untruth that the Canadian Supreme Court can make law.

Eureka your a blind man...., do you really think that evry non constitutionnal monarchy country are faillure ? im sorry but you need a brain transplant..

usa, germany, switzerland, france, italy, finland, poland.

sorry i do not consider those country failure. Sure you can take them one by one and point out problem wich are absolutly not relyed in the fact they are republic or that they dont have a pure blood born monarch (never elected) to look after them...

You're mistaken on this point. First, the Courts in Canada do not legislate, and second, regarding Charter rights, the legislatures are empowered to overrule the courts.

First i didn't write this text and second read it one more time...

..., we already have a strong US style supreme court that can  legislate over the will of the government.

---------

Bakunin, I know you put alot of work into that post, but I still want to know why we need a change?

no i didnt.

And for the last time here is why:

1st) Its Symbolic, like its written it doesnt require to be an enormous change, and the people would not see a big change.

2nd) Its philosophic and symbolic, at lest for the french , read "the social contract" of rousseau

http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.txt

a small quote:

I therefore give the name "Republic" to every State that is governed by laws, no matter what the form of its administration may be: for only in such a case does the public interest govern, and the res publica rank as

a reality. Every legitimate government is republican;[10] what government is I will explain later on.

it would be too long and hard to explain. after reading this quote you will tell me then canada is a republic ? well your right it is the same thing, the difference is that in france they fighted to get a republic and it ended in a blood bath.In england, the monarchy slowly gave the power to a republic government to keep their head on their shoulder and now they are symbolic.

I think the difference remains there, for some people specialy the french, the monarchy symbolic is not a good symbol, while for the english "monarchy" has no real symbolic or for some stupid reason, some people think that monarchy is a sign of democracy while on its basement, its based on blood heridity... it has nothing to do with democracy...

to deviate the debate, some will say a constitutional monarchy is the best government system, while its basically a copy of a republic (What is the difference between coke and pepsi ?)... its is a copy of a republic except 1 thing, the 1 thing where i dont agree with constitutional monarchy... the fact of having a monarchy symbolic. Now if someone want to debate seriously, it must be on this fact:

having a monarchy symbolic vs having no monarchy symbolic.

AND BY MONARCHY I MEAN HAVING A QUEEN BASED ON BLOOD HERIDITY AND A GG FROM THE ENGLISH CHURCH WHO IS NOT ELECTED BY THE CANADIAN CITIZEN.

ps, if someone reply to me and did not undestand what i wrote in CAPS and BOLD, well i won't reply...