The Federal Republic of Canada

[WWWTT]

I'm not going to ignore the role the other political parties played in the aforementioned dispute. But, yes, the Conservatives have shown a penchant for pushing the system to its limits; in the space of a few months they drew both the governor general and the speaker of the House into a fracas (and lied about the way governments are chosen and coalitions, to boot).

I believe that this paragraph of your comment is more in line with my views.

Yes I believe the GG is very important to the fabric and heritage that is Canadian.

But our GG is now entrenched in the role to promote Canadian interest!

The traditional role should be marginalized and those who put this into jepordy(conservatives) should be publicly scolded!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

It is? You said:

Just after, you said it was your opinion, not a joke.

Okay, well, no biggie.

Where did I use the words "pre-set" and/or "computer"?

But you are right in saying no biggie!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Doesn't the fact that it would require an overhaul of the system to be rid of the monarchy kind of indicate to you that the monarchy may not actually be pointless?

[c/e]

The Monarch has very little, if any real power to make decisions on its own. It's guided by many, many other factors. For the proroguing example, it really ought to have been put to a vote before the House. The Prime Minister shouldn't be able to decide that the House will take an extended vacation because he doesn't want to answer questions any longer. The Governor General, although she could have said no, didn't. She simply did exactly what the PM wanted, as the Governor General has almost always done (Byng being the only exception that I can think of). You say the monarch is absolutely necessary and I can see how that would be the case if it truly made decisions on its own, but I that doesn't seem to be the case. It's as though the monarch is on rails. If it simply acts or does whatever the ministers or prime minister says, then it seems redundant.

I don't see its purpose given the nature of federal politics at this time, but I can see how it could be necessary as a referee at some other point in the future.

[WWWTT]

Harperbot, maybe. But, do you have any idea what the Queen's packing in that permanently affixed handbag of hers?

[sp]

Sounds like one of those crappy "Doctor Who" robots.

Nobody wants to here an uptight crappy robot speaking in a British accent!

WWWTT

[g_bambino]

The Monarch has very little, if any real power to make decisions on its own. It's guided by many, many other factors.

Correct; that is as it should be.

For the proroguing example, it really ought to have been put to a vote before the House.

If that were the case, and should the prime minister's party command a majority in the House, the prime minister could prorogue or dissolve parliament whenever he pleased and for up to the constitutionally mandated maximum of one year; assuming that, with a majority, the prime minister unchecked by any higher authority didn't just amend the constitution or ignore it entirely to his own benefit. That's not something anyone wants.

The Governor General, although she could have said no, didn't. She simply did exactly what the PM wanted as the Governor General has almost always done (Byng being the only exception that I can think of).

You seem to assume that, because the Governor General granted the Prime Minister's request for prorogation, the Governor General did so because she could not have done otherwise. That wasn't at all the case, as you've been told a number of times now. Denying the request was a very real option for her; the fact that she called to Rideau Hall constitutional experts to advise her directly, leaving Harper to wait alone for two hours for Jean's decision, demonstrates in itself that the Governor General had more options than one to explore. But, all factors weighed in - including whatever precedent there was, parliament's regular schedule, the strength (or lack thereof) of the coalition, how short a time it had been since the last election, and whether or not any new, potentially problematic precedent was being set - led to the conclusion that the best course of action was a short prorogation over what would've been the Christmas break, anyway, and with stipulations attached. If the coalition was serious, it would hold out over those few weeks and call Harper to account again as soon as parliament reconvened. Of course, the coalition didn't last but a few more days, showing, again, that the Governor General made the right call.

I go back to what I said earlier: You choose to only see "courts making decisions and someone signing off on what the PM says", deliberately ignoring the possibilities when that's not what would happen or the examples where that didn't happen. Why you so steadfastly refuse to accept both historical fact and what just about every expert on Westminster-style parliamentary constitutions says about the reserve powers of the Crown (or president in parliamentary republics) is beyond me.

[cybercoma]

If that were the case, and should the prime minister's party command a majority in the House, the prime minister could prorogue or dissolve parliament whenever he pleased and for up to the constitutionally mandated maximum of one year; assuming that, with a majority, the prime minister unchecked by any higher authority didn't just amend the constitution or ignore it entirely to his own benefit. That's not something anyone wants.

With a majority that's pretty much the case anyway. The PM doesn't prorogue parliament, but they put forward legislation completely ignore the debate and do whatever the hell they want anyway. I mean, kudos to Harper for retooling the online spying bill, but the only thing stopping the PM from acting like a fool is the people (hence why I believe we're a Republic in practice, but a Monarchy on paper). It's the threat of losing power in the next election. Sure, the GG's powers allows him/her to check the authority of the PM, but it rarely, if ever, happens and with a majority in the House, I'm not sure I can see a situation where a GG's unilateral decision would have any force.

Although I guess there's always the argument, as you go on to say in the rest of your post, that any decision the GG makes is a unilateral decision because Parliament only exists through the Crown. Where Parliament was prorogued, it was her decision alone, not the decision of the Prime Minister. He just made the request.

[cybercoma]

I suppose I'm starting to see how it's a balance between the people and the Crown.

[g_bambino]

With a majority that's pretty much the case anyway. The PM doesn't prorogue parliament, but they put forward legislation completely ignore the debate and do whatever the hell they want anyway.

Pretty much, yeah; it generally isn't the Crown's place to interfere with the democratic process. The Crown's main duty is to ensure the constitution is abided by; it's generally the Crown's place to ensure the democratic process continues working. The prime minister pretty much may prorogue or dissolve parliament (and have an election) whenever he wants, because the governor general can't (without himself causing a constitutional crisis) deny prime ministerial advice so long as it's within the parameters of the law and won't destabilise government. But, pretty much isn't always; so, the governor general can deny the prime minister an election if, say, parliament hadn't even met since the last election and demonstrated its confidence in the goverment by approving the Throne Speech; or, the prime minister wanted another election only months after the last occurred; since, too many elections in a short space of time is not healthy for our parliamentary system. The constitution allows for prorogation to last for up to one year, but the governor general could also deny a prime minister a long prorogation that would lead to no budget being passed and the government thus running out of money.

Sure, the GG's powers allows him/her to check the authority of the PM, but it rarely, if ever, happens...

Which is a good thing.

Although I guess there's always the argument, as you go on to say in the rest of your post, that any decision the GG makes is a unilateral decision because Parliament only exists through the Crown. Where Parliament was prorogued, it was her decision alone, not the decision of the Prime Minister. He just made the request.

I think you've misunderstood something I said. Most decisions the governor general makes aren't unilateral; they're made either on advice from ministers or, as all acts of parliament say, "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada." Parliament doesn't exist through the Crown, the Crown is one of the three parts of parliament. And parliament was not prorogued when Harper went to Rideau Hall seeking a prorogation, though it was Jean's decision alone whether or not to grant that request.

[g_bambino]

I suppose I'm starting to see how it's a balance between the people and the Crown.

Not excatly. The Crown is the embodiment of The People, charged by the written and conventional tenets of the constitution to ensure the continuity of responsible, democratic government for all, regardless of individual political beliefs. It's more like, within our system is a balance between the constant shifts of the political majority (the prime minister, Cabinet) and the continual, stable rule of law (the Crown).

[+]

Edited November 13, 2011 by g_bambino

[WWWTT]

Not excatly. The Crown is the embodiment of The People, charged by the written and conventional tenets of the constitution to ensure the continuity of responsible, democratic government for all, regardless of individual political beliefs. It's more like, within our system is a balance between the constant shifts of the political majority (the prime minister, Cabinet) and the continual, stable rule of law (the Crown).

[+]

I guess if what you are stating is true then it must be written somewhere?No?

Provide the link to back up you claim.

You know what else is made up?

Monarchon!The transforming Governor General,Defending Canada from allien invading robots and over zelous prime ministers!

If your going to make something up,make sure it has a left arm machine gun and a hot girlfriend!

WWWTT

[August1991]

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

This is a key point. The Lieutenants Governor are usually named after advisement from the provincial government. But not always. It is ultimately the Governor-General, after advice from the federal PM, who decides who to name as L-G.

Quebec has had several secessionist governments but it has never had a L-G who favoured independence.

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.

You use the word "Crown". I use the word "State". The terms are interchangeable.

Where we differ, bambino, is that I think the person who embodies the State (or is its ultimate protector) should not be decided by birth. I happen to think that merit - not birth - should decide who is the Head of State.

-----

After a quick glance through the recent posts to this thread, and I am reminded of two things: First, Milton Friedman said that we should not try to elect or choose "good leaders". Rather, we should design a system with incentives so that even "bad leaders" will do good.

IOW, our political system should ensure that we remain a civilized society even if we are saddled with a sociopathic leader, or a complete incompetent.

Second, Andrew Coyne had a good piece the other day, based on a speech he gave:

A prime minister in possession of such a “mandate” decides what will be debated, and, for how long. He decides when Parliament shall be convened, when it should be prorogued, and when dissolved. And if he has to, he has the nuclear option: the power to declare any vote a matter of confidence, and to insist on fresh elections if MPs are so foolish as to defeat him.

Have these powers been abused? Yes. All of them, with increasing frequency.

National Post

But Coyne ignored that Canada is a federal State. The federal PM cannot be a dictator because provincial governments limit his/her power. In a worst case scenario, a sociopathic federal PM could name a compliant GG and stack the federal Supreme Court - but such a federal PM could not dictate who will be the provincial PMs. It is these 10 people, "dictators" in their own realm, who provide a check on the federal government. Incidentally, the role of the Quebec PM is critical in this.

Edited November 14, 2011 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Not excatly. The Crown is the embodiment of The People

With all due respect, "you sonuvabitch!"

[g_bambino]

This is a key point. The Lieutenants Governor are usually named after advisement from the provincial government. But not always. It is ultimately the Governor-General, after advice from the federal PM, who decides who to name as L-G.

That's right; the lieutenant governors are appointed by the Governor General-in-Council. However, they're still regarded as representing the Queen in the provinces as much as the governor general does in the federal area. Even Lesveque disapproved of the proposals Trudeau put forward in the late 1970s that would've seen the governor general vested with full executive authority instead of the Queen, since that would've put meant the Quebec government derived its authority via Ottawa, rather than directly from the Crown as was, and still is, the case.

The Lieutenant Governors, though continuing to be federal appointees and holding some residual federal powers, are seen as the Sovereigns direct and personal representatives, embodying the Crown in the provinces. This means that Lieutenant Governors act in the name of The Queen in right of the province, just as the Governor General acts in the name of The Queen in right of Canada. Lieutenant Governors and the Provincial Crown, which they personify, symbolize the sovereignty of the provincial governments within the federation.

Symbols of Canada; Department of Canadian Heritage

You use the word "Crown". I use the word "State". The terms are interchangeable.

Somewhat. Except that the "Crown" is personified by an identifiable, living person, whereas the "State" is merely an intangible concept with no physical, let alone human, manifestation.

Where we differ, bambino, is that I think the person who embodies the State (or is its ultimate protector) should not be decided by birth. I happen to think that merit - not birth - should decide who is the Head of State.

Yet, it is not solely the random order of birth that decides our head of state; indeed, the law is the supreme decider of who the sovereign is. I can't think of any system that's going to guarantee the head of state achieves the post through merit; unless one counts personal wealth, the right connections, a good public relations team, and the ability to scheme, bargain, and lie most convincingly as meritorious.

The federal PM cannot be a dictator because provincial governments limit his/her power.

The provinces have the power to say no to the federal government only because of the constitution and the fact that it equally disperses authority to the provincial and federal jurisdictions from the same source, the Crown, personified by an individual who has the ability to act against a prime minister who either ignores and/or attempts to change the constitution to his benefit. If the sovereign were eliminated and the post of head of state became either a federal president or merged with the office of prime minister, Ottawa would come to be the source of provincial sovereignty, greatly lessening the current limitations on the federal government's influence over the provinces.

[+]

Edited November 14, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

I guess if what you are stating is true then it must be written somewhere?No?

Yes, in fact:

For [Forsey], the essence of the monarchy was its impartial representation of the common interests of the citizenry as a whole, as opposed to those of any particular government. He explained the importance of the Crown as a permanent and impartial entity in our democratic system, transcending the temporary and the partisan...

"Responsible government means not only responsibility to Parliament or to the electorate," Dad wrote, "but also responsibility for the interests of the nation as a whole." Those interests, he stated, are represented by the Crown, "the symbolic embodiment of the people – not a particular group or interest or party, but the people, the whole people."

The role of Governor-General and Lieutenant-Governor is not a political role at all. It transcends politics. Their job is to ensure that the political process remains intact and is allowed to function.

As David Johnson Enters Rideau Hall...; Forsey, Helen

The monarchy is not an add-on to Canada; it is the constitutional basis of the country. The Queen is not just an admirable woman; she is the face of Canada... The state, as such, holds no political views and can embrace us all.

Committee Transcripts: Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly - April 10, 1996 - Bill 22, Legislative Assembly Oath of Allegiance Act, 1995; Toporoski, Richard

The head of government is the prime minister, whose licence to govern comes from having the confidence of the elected house of Parliament. The head of state is primarily a ceremonial position, providing a personal and non-political representation of the state to its citizens and to the world.

But the head of state has one important power: to protect the integrity of the parliamentary system. This is true of all parliamentary systems whether they are republican or monarchical. There has to be a person who is not a player in partisan parliamentary politics to ensure that the principles of parliamentary government are observed...

The functions of parliamentary heads of state are best carried out by a person who is not closely connected to partisan politics. Such an individual is more likely to command the respect of all citizens.

Similarly, on those rare occasions when it is not clear who commands the confidence of Parliament, a person without a partisan profile will have more legitimacy as an umpire of parliamentary politics. On this point, monarchical heads of state have the advantage of being free of partisan colouring. Republican heads of state who are either directly elected or indirectly elected need partisan backing to get elected.

Grow up Canada: keep the monarchy; Russell, Peter H.

[cybercoma]

God save the Queen!

[g_bambino]

God save the Queen!

Well, much as I long ago tired of Mercer's haughty sarcasm, he's pretty much right, except only for his ignorant, but, honestly, pretty predictable, "Queen of England" slip; kind of ironic that, while snidely pointing out how few Canadians know who the head of state is, he himself wrongly named a woman who's been dead for 297 years and headed a country that no longer exists. Most anti-monarchists don't let facts get in the way of a good, derisive attack on the Crown.

[cybercoma]

You'll be happy to know that after all of these discussions we've been having, the first thing I thought at that scene was, "She's the Queen of Canada. Sheesh."

[g_bambino]

You'll be happy to know that after all of these discussions we've been having, the first thing I thought at that scene was, "She's the Queen of Canada. Sheesh."

Eeeexcelleeeent...

[August1991]

It is rare that I agree with much written in the Toronto Star, and less with columns written by Bob Hepburn, but here's an instance where I must agree:

Michael Bliss, a retired University of Toronto history professor, wrote recently that “a government seriously in tune with the long-term evolution of the country would be quietly laying the groundwork for a dignified phasing out of the monarchy, the last relic of our colonialism.”

A three-step process should be considered.

First, Ottawa should hold a national referendum on a Yes-or-No question: “Should Canada sever ties with the British monarchy?” A simple majority would be sufficient to proceed further.

Second, if the answer is yes, a federal commission (please don’t call it a “royal commission”) should examine how we could select a head of state. The commission, with a one-year mandate, could be appointed jointly by the prime minister and provincial premiers. The commission could look at various models for choosing a head of state, such as direct election or appointment by the federal Parliament.

Third, a second referendum would be held on the commission’s top two recommended methods of choosing the next head of state.

The entire process, including the formality of each province agreeing to the necessary constitutional amendments, should take just two years.

Once completed, Ottawa could delay any formal severing of ties until the Queen died. That would show respect for the Queen, who has served us graciously — and save us from scraping and bowing to the next King of Canada.

Toronto Star

[Smallc]

The point being? This isn't a colony, so the monarchy doesn't represent colonialism, and I fail to see what this process actually gains us.

[Wild Bill]

The point being? This isn't a colony, so the monarchy doesn't represent colonialism, and I fail to see what this process actually gains us.

Is it possible that this is really mostly a Quebecois POV?

[Smallc]

Is it possible that this is really mostly a Quebecois POV?

I think so, and i thing its based in ignorance. Many English Canadians are indifferent to the monarchy, but, again, what's to be gained by a change?

[wyly]

I think so, and i thing its based in ignorance. Many English Canadians are indifferent to the monarchy, but, again, what's to be gained by a change?

monarchy is like a 40 yr old still living at home in his parents basement, it's time to grow up...and the monarchy no longer reflects our multinational heritage, are we british subjects or canadians...

[Smallc]

Like I said, based in ignorance.

[Wild Bill]

Like I said, based in ignorance.

Quite right, Smallc! It's amazing how many people don't even know that we have not been British subjects for generations!

We share a Queen with Britain. That's all that has been left for a long, long, time. And I thought I was an old guy stuck in the past!

There are still many Canadians who support the monarchy. There is another large segment that don't really think it important but would resist any change.

This idea rises up every 10 years or so. Usually, as you said, based on ignorance.

We have the best of both worlds. We share the grand history of Britain and its laws and institutions but we have total independence and are masters of our own fate.

Calling for abolishing the monarchy has always seemed to me to be a rejection of that heritage in the guise of escaping a domination that hasn't existed since before WWII, or even WWI!

Frankly, that can't help but lead to some suspicion of the true agenda...