Does Canada Now Have a New (Haitian) Head of State?

[Argus]

Well, Harper has corrected the matter. Seems he learned something last December after all!

I think the problem for the PMO wasn't so much Jean's mistatement of the facts, but that spokesthingees for the GG had, on being asked about her statement, twice tried to support the suggestion she actually was head of state.

[Who's Doing What?]

But whether you like it or not, photo ops and trips across the globe representing Canada are necessary.

Sounds like that is something that could be done by an ambassador or some other beaurocrat.

When Jean meets the coffins of soldiers coming home from Afghanistan she represents Canada in a neutral way which the presence of say, Harper - who some hold as responsible for them going there, or at least, staying there - cannot.

Sure that is nice but again it is something that could be done by someone else.

[Argus]

Sounds like that is something that could be done by an ambassador or some other beaurocrat.

Sure that is nice but again it is something that could be done by someone else.

They ARE being done by someone else. She IS the someone else, man.

[Who's Doing What?]

They ARE being done by someone else. She IS the someone else, man.

Sure but there is no reason why she needs to represent the Queen or be placed above the PM.

We don't need the Queen or her representatives anymore.

[Smallc]

We'd need something in their place...unless you;re saying we need a Full Presidential Republic...which is quite rare.

[Who's Doing What?]

We'd need something in their place...unless you;re saying we need a Full Presidential Republic...which is quite rare.

Sure that is what I have been saying. Way to follow along.

[Smallc]

And what exactly would be the benefits to a presidential republic...over say, a simple republic...or a monarchy with a parliamentary democracy.

[g_bambino]

I think the problem for the PMO wasn't so much Jean's mistatement of the facts, but that spokesthingees for the GG had, on being asked about her statement, twice tried to support the suggestion she actually was head of state.

Oh, absolutely. Jean is merely following the advice of her staff on such matters, probably having previously had, like most Canadians, no real concept one way or the other. The self-aggrandisement of governors general has been going on since at least the time of Jeanne Sauvé, and the effort has since become institutionalised at Rideau Hall. Liking Jean as a vicereine, I actually feel bad for her that this all came out during her watch, with people implying or making outright accusations that she is not only aware of the usurpation of the Queen's position, but masterminding it. As you say, it's not her personally, it's the bureaucratic employees of Government House with whom the PMO is actually having the spat.

[g_bambino]

Sure that is what I have been saying. Way to follow along.

Then why didn't you just outright say it, instead of playing riddles?

[jbg]

We'd need something in their place...unless you;re saying we need a Full Presidential Republic...which is quite rare.

You'd have to pull the President and Cabinet outside of Parliament. In short, a U.S.-style separation of powers.

[ToadBrother]

And what exactly would be the benefits to a presidential republic...over say, a simple republic...or a monarchy with a parliamentary democracy.

The chief advantage of a presidential-style republic over, say, a constitutional monarchy (like ours) or a parliamentary republic (like Israel), both of which have nominal heads of state, is separation of power. In a presidential system, the Executive branch tends to balance off the Legislative branch. In a parliamentary system, the legislative branch, and in particular, the office of Prime Minister (or whatever it is called) wields a rather enormous amount of power with few actual constraints. In jurisdictions where you have proportional representation, you tend to get a lot of coalition governments, so this acts as a kind of a check on the excesses of the governing party, but in places like Canada and England in a majority situation, there are far fewer curbs, save the highest courts.

[ToadBrother]

Sure but there is no reason why she needs to represent the Queen or be placed above the PM.

We don't need the Queen or her representatives anymore.

We sure need something. The office of Prime Minister has been steadily accruing vast powers over the last century. At one time, the Prime Minister was simply the First Minister, head of the Cabinet, but Cabinet Ministers wielded a great deal of power in their own right. But in many Westminster systems, but in particular in Canada, the office of Prime Minister has taken on presidential overtones. In the UK, calling a PM "presidential" is still an insult, but here it seems that Parliament has willingly allowed the position to extend to that degree, to the diminishment of Parliament itself.

I have little problem with the Queen as head of state in and of itself. I would like our institutions reformed, however it is done, to put more curbs on the powers of the Prime Minister. If that means turfing the Monarchy and creating an elected head of state who isn't so constrained in the use of its powers, then so be it.

[Who's Doing What?]

Then why didn't you just outright say it, instead of playing riddles?

Try reading my earlier posts. It's pretty simple.

[Smallc]

I would say that there are definitely positives and negatives to each system. I certainly don't think we have to go as far as radical system change to fix the few problems that we do have. Overall, what we have has worked well for us, and I expect that to continue. That said, if we ever do become a republic, I doubt it will be of the presidential variety, and will instead be parliamentary. Whether the president has and real every day power (as is the case in France) or not is another matter.

For now, I like what we have, and I think that we should keep it until we think long and hard about any change.

[g_bambino]

In a presidential system, the Executive branch tends to balance off the Legislative branch. In a parliamentary system, the legislative branch, and in particular, the office of Prime Minister (or whatever it is called) wields a rather enormous amount of power with few actual constraints.

While it's true that there has been of late a "presidentialisation" of the prime minister in the UK, as you say, that process is held in check to a greater degree there than here. I would say that's the case because the British legislative branch is more effectual than its Canadian counterpart at balancing the executive. Hence, the Westminster parliamentary system works well enough (as if 300 years of continuous existence and a spread to every corner of the globe wasn't proof), it's only that in Canada we've let our political party system gunk up the machinery: By having party members, rather than MPs in caucus, elect party leaders, MPs have a reduced influence over the individual who typically becomes PM. This means that, in times when their party is the majority in the Commons, PMs can increasingly hoard power around them without much effectual resistance from parliament.

Our system could be further altered by replacing the sovereign with an elected president, but that brings its own problematic baggage: A president and prime minister may each declare simultaneously that they have the popular mandate to implement their particular, and different, political views. This would be a greater check on the PM, but, at the same time, would further undermine parliament and slow down the legislative process. An elected individual would also be less trusted to act impartially in situations like we had last December, thereby fostering more, rather than less, instability. It's a format that's been adopted by some countries, but the monarchical original has lasted longer than any republican version. And Canada has that messy issue of provinces to factor in; presently, they hold an equal status with Ottawa under the Crown.

[Guest TheRepublicofCanada]

No, it's not hood ornament type stuff, no matter how much you want to make it out to be. The signing of laws, the opening of parliament, and the formation of governments are all important legal steps and none of them are simply technicalities. Similar arguments can be made when talking about the deployment of our forces or the awarding of our country's highest honours. The Governor General (and the Queen) often serve very ceremonial roles, but that doesn't take away from the importance of their offices within our system. To simply talk about them as a hood ornament is to underestimate their importance within our constitution and history.

The GG doesn't sign anything. Laws are officially passed with just a nod. The GG does nothing it seems.

[g_bambino]

The GG doesn't sign anything. Laws are officially passed with just a nod. The GG does nothing it seems.

It might seem so to someone who wished to ignore the facts in order to see it that way.

[Smallc]

The GG doesn't sign anything. Laws are officially passed with just a nod. The GG does nothing it seems.

It doesn't matter. The consent that is required is still given.

[M.Dancer]

The GG doesn't sign anything. Laws are officially passed with just a nod. The GG does nothing it seems.

Not always true.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-conte...ssentbill-e.htm

[Topaz]

First of all, I want to apologize to Angus and Moonbox who were very upset with me for starting a new thread. I didn't notice what the that thread was but I guess we're not suppose upset anyone on this forum. On the topic I think both, are very childish, PMO and GG so much so the Queen had to try to inject Buckingham's point of view to clear things. We all know Stevie, the Queen is the head of state and that the GG is her representative to carry out her duties. Now don't sweat the SMALL stuff and go try to get people back to work!!! http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainme...8588/story.html

Edited October 14, 2009 by Topaz

[ToadBrother]

While it's true that there has been of late a "presidentialisation" of the prime minister in the UK, as you say, that process is held in check to a greater degree there than here. I would say that's the case because the British legislative branch is more effectual than its Canadian counterpart at balancing the executive.

The major difference is that there isn't the tradition of absolute caucus solidarity. While it's the norm, whips in Westminster do more than act like hall monitors.

Hence, the Westminster parliamentary system works well enough (as if 300 years of continuous existence and a spread to every corner of the globe wasn't proof), it's only that in Canada we've let our political party system gunk up the machinery: By having party members, rather than MPs in caucus, elect party leaders, MPs have a reduced influence over the individual who typically becomes PM. This means that, in times when their party is the majority in the Commons, PMs can increasingly hoard power around them without much effectual resistance from parliament.

At the end of the day, it's in the voters' hands. Maybe people should elect more independents.

Our system could be further altered by replacing the sovereign with an elected president, but that brings its own problematic baggage: A president and prime minister may each declare simultaneously that they have the popular mandate to implement their particular, and different, political views. This would be a greater check on the PM, but, at the same time, would further undermine parliament and slow down the legislative process.

Then don't give the President actual legislative power. Retain the veto, but remove the traditional constitutional notion of the head of state always listening to the PM.

An elected individual would also be less trusted to act impartially in situations like we had last December, thereby fostering more, rather than less, instability. It's a format that's been adopted by some countries, but the monarchical original has lasted longer than any republican version. And Canada has that messy issue of provinces to factor in; presently, they hold an equal status with Ottawa under the Crown.

Why would that change on becoming a republic?

[g_bambino]

Then don't give the President actual legislative power. Retain the veto, but remove the traditional constitutional notion of the head of state always listening to the PM.

It's not clear what you're proposing. The power of veto is the retained ability to dismiss the prime minister's advice. The difference between a president and a monarch holding that power lies in the fact that the latter is, by nature, non-partisan, whereas the former is inherently politicised, which puts into question his or her reasoning for using the veto or how it was employed.

Why would that change on becoming a republic?

Because presently, the provinces' sovereignty stems not from the federal government or parliament, but from the overreaching Crown. Should the Canadian monarchy be replaced with a president of Canada as full head of state, then provincial sovereignty will end up under the control of the federal government.

[ToadBrother]

It's not clear what you're proposing. The power of veto is the retained ability to dismiss the prime minister's advice. The difference between a president and a monarch holding that power lies in the fact that the latter is, by nature, non-partisan, whereas the former is inherently politicised, which puts into question his or her reasoning for using the veto or how it was employed.

The difference is different than that. In most constitutional monarchies, veto power is very largely hypothetical; it's a Reserve Power that could, under vaguely defined circumstances, be used, but it's hard to foresee in the normal course of governance how it would ever be used. The last time, I'm aware, that our Sovereign considered refusing assent to a bill was King George V in 1914 over the Government of Ireland Bill. Certainly in the modern Westminster system, it is difficult to imagine a reigning monarch refusing assent.

In the US, for instance, the veto is much more commonly used.

Because presently, the provinces' sovereignty stems not from the federal government or parliament, but from the overreaching Crown. Should the Canadian monarchy be replaced with a president of Canada as full head of state, then provincial sovereignty will end up under the control of the federal government.

The logical solution is to emulate the American model, treating the Provinces as sovereign or semi-sovereign units for the purposes of remodeling into a Republic. I wonder what the Australian republicans have in mind, as they are in the same boat.

[ToadBrother]

The difference is different than that. In most constitutional monarchies, veto power is very largely hypothetical; it's a Reserve Power that could, under vaguely defined circumstances, be used, but it's hard to foresee in the normal course of governance how it would ever be used. The last time, I'm aware, that our Sovereign considered refusing assent to a bill was King George V in 1914 over the Government of Ireland Bill. Certainly in the modern Westminster system, it is difficult to imagine a reigning monarch refusing assent.

Actually, I misspoke. The last time in British Empire or Common Wealth that the Sovereign or a Vice-regal refused assent was in Alberta in 1937 when the Lieutenant Governor refused assent to a number of Social Credit bills.

Edited October 14, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

To qualify being the new head of state of Haiti you must be capable of eating raw meat and smile.