Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

Argus · February 7, 2010

The last sentence is a non sequitur. The first may be true.

MAY be true? Ignatieff's latest brainstorm is to become the great defender of abortions. Uhm, were abortions under threat or something that I didn't hear about?

Is Parliament supreme, or is it not? Does it have the right to demand any and all documents from the government of the day or not?

No and yes. Parliament used to be supreme. It could even overrule the Supreme Court. The constitution changed that. The courts are now supreme and can overrule parliament. I think they do have the right to demand documents, even though I believe it's simply another fishing expedition. If I were the tories I would do whatever necessary to minimize any potential threats or embarassment to allies, then I'd release the documents to specific individuals, each document carefully treated and worded (there are ways of doing this) so that when it was leaked we could trace it to the MP who did it, arrest them, and charge them.

And yes, I have no doubt that no matter what the opposition says, it will leak anything it gets which it believes could in any way, shape or form be potentially embarrassing for the government, whether its part of a top secret memo or not.

William Ashley · February 7, 2010

The real issue is what faith is Camilla - as per catholic church rules both people in a catholic marriage (her first marriage) have to be baptized christian - when was she baptized.. her family such as father and children are catholic - and marriage to a catholic excludes one from succession to the throne in Britain.

So unless she was baptized Anglican in her youth or some other Christian facet - which is unlikely considering her father is Catholic - then it seems when Charles married her, he very well may have given up his right to succession - bear in mind I'm guessing that it will just be swept under the carpet. But it in fact could cause the succession to be unlawful and make the continuance of the office without lawful authority.

"Camilla Shand was according to the rites of the Roman Catholic church, although an Anglican priest also took part. Camilla has always been Anglican"

according to this though she appear to have always been Anglican.

Although I am wondering if remarriage of an Anglican is required to be done in the presbyterian church in Scotland but it was a civil marriage with an Anglican blessing by the Anglican church wouldn't their marriage be invalid due to both being former Anglican divorcees?

Although civilly married - they wouldn't appear to have been married in a church sacrament - so why would the Anglican church or how could it recognize the validity of a non sacramental marriage?

1. They cannot be married in an Anglican church because they are both Anglican divorcees.

2. They had a civil marriage not a sacramental marriage.

I'm guessing it is just technicality.

Oddly it appears that the Catholic marriage was not annulled - so from one perspective there could also be bigamy involved but that is not likely.

Edited February 7, 2010 by William Ashley

nicky10013 · February 7, 2010

MAY be true? Ignatieff's latest brainstorm is to become the great defender of abortions. Uhm, were abortions under threat or something that I didn't hear about?

No and yes. Parliament used to be supreme. It could even overrule the Supreme Court. The constitution changed that. The courts are now supreme and can overrule parliament. I think they do have the right to demand documents, even though I believe it's simply another fishing expedition. If I were the tories I would do whatever necessary to minimize any potential threats or embarassment to allies, then I'd release the documents to specific individuals, each document carefully treated and worded (there are ways of doing this) so that when it was leaked we could trace it to the MP who did it, arrest them, and charge them.

And yes, I have no doubt that no matter what the opposition says, it will leak anything it gets which it believes could in any way, shape or form be potentially embarrassing for the government, whether its part of a top secret memo or not.

They've already tried it. They released heavily redacted documents and spouted off some garbage about the alliance. Parliament has the right to see the original documents. To change the words even slightly only serves to increase suspicions of some sort of cover up.

Also, you're completely wrong when it comes to the courts being supreme. The courts just don't say hey, we don't like that we strike it down. There has to be a case and they have to rule on it. In case you don't have the memory or just chose to forget to fit your own personal narrative of how things work in your world, that happened before they brought back the constitution. Judges could knock down laws that they percieved went against democratic legal rights. Those rights have simply been codified. In fact, you'd think writing them down and making those rights something concrete would reign in that discretion a bit. Right?

jbg · February 7, 2010

Also, you're completely wrong when it comes to the courts being supreme. The courts just don't say hey, we don't like that we strike it down. There has to be a case and they have to rule on it.

Well that's sort of true. My experience is that courts signal what kind of cases they'll give access to and sometimes will reach out to decide certain kinds of cases. In the U.S., the Roe v. Wade case (our Morgethaler) was one where for a long time the appellate cases dodged by finding that the pregnant woman had already given birth or had her abortion so as to make her own case moot. When they decided they wanted to strike down abortion laws they used a doctrine called "capable of repetition yet evading review" in order to be able to rule on the merits.

So Courts can set the agenda.

ToadBrother · February 7, 2010

ON the death of a reigning monarch parliament confirms their choice for succession. Bear in mind they have all sworn allegiance to the queen and her heirs, as well, there is an order of precedence to lawful succession, and they would most likely come from counselors of state - that being charles, william, harry, and prince phillip, and andrew.

Let's remember here that the Act of Settlement is also part of our Constitution, which sets up the succession laws (including excluding Catholics from the throne). While we could, theoretically at least, choose someone else to be monarch, it would strike me that this would amount to yet another amendment, which would require the permission of the provinces. I think it highly unlikely that any of the Realms would choose someone else. More likely some, like Australia, might just decide to drop out entirely and become a republic (the death of the Queen would seem a rather good opportunity).

ToadBrother · February 7, 2010

The real issue is what faith is Camilla - as per catholic church rules both people in a catholic marriage (her first marriage) have to be baptized christian - when was she baptized.. her family such as father and children are catholic - and marriage to a catholic excludes one from succession to the throne in Britain.

So unless she was baptized Anglican in her youth or some other Christian facet - which is unlikely considering her father is Catholic - then it seems when Charles married her, he very well may have given up his right to succession - bear in mind I'm guessing that it will just be swept under the carpet. But it in fact could cause the succession to be unlawful and make the continuance of the office without lawful authority.

I thought Parliament had already dealt with this. She will not to be Queen, she will not be an HRH, no children would be eligible for the throne (though biology has already taken care of that). Beyond that, is there any evidence she's a baptized Roman Catholic? My understanding is that she is not, and thus this does not trigger the Act of Settlement's limitations. According to Wikipedia, she is an Anglican, and though I can't find any other reference to it, it's possible that if there were some question as to her religion, she could have been baptized as an Anglican at any point (it's hardly unusual for women marrying kings or princes to convert to their brand of Christianity). Besides, if they wanted to get technical, I believe that Presbyterian wedding they had in Scotland could potentially represent a public display of her breaking from Rome. But so far, I have to see any evidence that she was a Roman Catholic. Catholics and non-Catholics can get married in a Catholic church (I was in the wedding party of a good friend who was Catholic and married a non-Catholic).

ToadBrother · February 7, 2010

No and yes. Parliament used to be supreme. It could even overrule the Supreme Court. The constitution changed that. The courts are now supreme and can overrule parliament. I think they do have the right to demand documents, even though I believe it's simply another fishing expedition. If I were the tories I would do whatever necessary to minimize any potential threats or embarassment to allies, then I'd release the documents to specific individuals, each document carefully treated and worded (there are ways of doing this) so that when it was leaked we could trace it to the MP who did it, arrest them, and charge them.

And yes, I have no doubt that no matter what the opposition says, it will leak anything it gets which it believes could in any way, shape or form be potentially embarrassing for the government, whether its part of a top secret memo or not.

This seems like a good deal of prevarication. I asked a simple question, and you respond with a red herring about the Supreme Court. About the only way the Supreme Court would get involved is if the Tories continue to refuse full access to the documents, and it seems almost certain, given our constitution, that the Government has no right to withhold any document, so it's likely they would lose in court.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the Tories are above the law. Would that be a fair summation of your opinion, that your chosen government believes it is superior to Parliament?

ToadBrother · February 7, 2010

Now look who's being confused here. Three different versions of reality is as many paragraphs. And all just to confirm that was said already (the Sovereign has the right to refuse any legislation). Thank-you.

Okay, here's the quick and easy.

The Sovereign retains all powers to grant or deny assent to legislation. Certain kinds of legislation which deal with matters of Royal Prerogative (in other words constitutional changes) may, in our system, give the GG more leeway (though since no such bill has come forward since the Constitution Act, 1982, that's an open question to some degree, I've been extrapolating from what happened in the UK in 1999). But, as usual, the Sovereign, save in the most extreme of circumstances, is bound to only use those powers on the advice of His or Her Ministers, in other words, the Government. The GG does not have unilateral powers of any kind, save at moments of constitutional crisis (ie. the dismissal of Charles Tupper, the King-Byng Affair and the Australian Constitutional Crisis, which are just about the only examples you'll find in the last 150 years of a GG being forced to act without the advice of Government).

You simply do not seem to understand what happened with the Glorious REvolution. These questions were dealt with then, because Parliament wanted to make sure that the Sovereign could never again tamper with their powers. The Sovereign's Reserve Powers are just that, REserve powers, only to be used in moments when a government is paralyzed or loses confidence. It is these Reserve Powers that allow a GG, when a government falls, to call a new election or select someone else in the sitting Parliament to be the government.

If you feel our system sits at the pleasure of GGs, kings or queens, I'd welcome you to find any circumstance in the last 200 years where the Sovereign or their Vice-regal representatives have defied the will of government or done anything they damned well pleased (I'll give you a hint, the closest we've ever gotten to that was King George V pondering refusing assent to the Government of Ireland Bill).

And what's that, another "non-sequitur" or in plain words, a lame change of subject, distraction? We were talking about our system affording the executive Sovereign far too many powers inconsistent with notions of balance and division of powers, remember? If Jo on the street doesn't like an undemocratic jerk of a government it does not eliminate the problem with the political system that afforded that government the privilege to do it, does it?

And again, I'm going to challenge you as to when the last time an unelected official ever in fact used these powers without the advice of government. Even the last two prorogations, while things I highly disapprove of, were done on the advice of the Prime Minister, whose government is made up of elected members. In fact, we're witnessing what appears to be a sustained crash in the polls over the last prorogation. In fact, I'd say if his government probably won't be doing it again. But let's not forget here the GG, while technically the party that prorogued Parliament, only acts on the advice of the PM.

That's if you follow the letter of the law ("Parliament is supreme!") rather than creative spirit of it ("See you in the court"). But anyways I don't want to go into hypothetical matters, enough is to say that a year without legislature, without any oversight of government whatsoever is an outrage for any system that calls itself a democracy, not to say modern and responsible one, and by your own admission it would be perfectly legal and can happen right here anytime.

Well, we do not seem to be in a position where that's going to happen. It wasn't that long ago that getting to Ottawa for some MPs was an arduous affair, and the tendency up until the end of the 1930s was to have rather short sessions of Parliament. Remember here, most of the actual "governing" is not done by Parliament, whose function is inherently legislative. The actual practice of government is done by the Ministers, on the advice of senior bureaucrats, and all the way down the chain of command to the guy answering the phones at the Department of Whatchmacallit.

Governments will at times play games with this, sadly. Here in BC, both the current Liberal and the previous NDP governments often had short sessions, or would avoid criticism by canceling spring sittings. But that leads to a lot of criticism, and generally the outrage is loud enough that they don't do that very often (which makes me wonder why Harper would take to shots out of the same cannon on this one, knowing that the electorate can get pretty restive if they think the government is playing these kinds of games).

I would have no problem with moving to a fixed legislative calendar, like the US has, where basically everything is predetermined, the house sits between these dates and these dates, and only extreme circumstances that require a premature recall of the legislature would see that calendar superseded. But that does mean someone has to actually recall Congress. In the US, in general, the Speaker of each house can do this. I don't know if the President can do it, but I suspect that if the President said "Congress needs to cut their vacation short, we've got a big problem", that would be enough to get both houses back to Washington. So we would need some sort of a similar apparatus, and it would probably work just like prorogation, where the PM advises the GG to recall Parliament early.

Clear violation in whose view? Do you recall that by your own admission, the Sovereign (the executive) is also entitled to judge on matters of constitutionality?

Only to a very limited degree. Presumably if Parliament decides they want a more direct role in prorogation, all they have to do is pass legislation that effectively modifies the Royal Prerogative (as SmallC pointed out, this sort of an amendment does not effect the Provinces, so it is a matter purely for Parliament itself). I suppose Harper could try to block that, but if it's using an amending formula, I can't see how he would be successful. Mind you, he now has a lot more influence over the Senate, and as the Senate would need to vote in favor as well, it's likely that if he decided he wanted to nip this in the bud, he'd instruct Tory senators to vote it down, in which case I wouldn't want to be one of the independent senators.

So situation wouldn't be as clearcut, bringing us all so very close to the exciting possibilities of events like e.g. recently in Honduras.

That's right. The balance of power and strict constitutional process common and synonimous with modern democracies is there not as a fancy decoration but for a reason. Some people have learned of the risks of putting all eggs in one (executive) basket. Looks like we still have it in our thrilling political future.

In the Honduras, the president violated the constitution (Honduras has explicit constitutional clauses forbidding the executive from altering the constitution to extend their term or allow them to run more than once for office). What happened down there was called a coupe by some, but so far as I understand their constitution, booting Zelaya out was in fact constitutional, given that he was trying to get a referendum through that would have been of great potential benefit to him. There's an awfully good argument for the Honduras constitution saying what it is, mainly because the history in Latin America of elected leaders stacking the decks every way to sunday (look at Hugo Chavez) to essentially give them unlimited terms is practically as old as democracy in the former Spanish colonies. In that case, the Supreme Court said what Zelaya was trying to do was unconstitutional, and when he tried to ignore the ruling, dismissed the head of the army to circumvent being thrown out, the Supreme Court instructed the army to remove him from Honduras. It strikes me as a very healthy democratic thing to do, it protects HOnduras from what happens so often with its neighbors, a caretaker government was put in place until elections and that government willingly stepped down. All the handwringing elsewhere in the world struck me as bizarre, since everybody knew what Zelaya was up to.

Reading from that glancy hystory book of yours, with beautiful stories and pictures of kind and benevolent Kings? Listen, if we can have that GG as Her M rep that is bound to serve always and forever as a perfect guardian angel of honesty and constitutionality, why even bother with all that messy business of democracy in the first place?

But right, some people create independent instituions, checks and balances and constitutional processes. We have have an appointee of the Sovereign and hope that in the times of crisis they'd show perfect impartiality and alone defend our democracy.

Mocking me doesn't make you look smart. In fact, you seem so damned ignorant of our institutions that one wonders at the extent of your hubris. You're not interested in history, you're not interested in the constitution, you simply are angry that the Coalition blew up, and want a system that stacks the deck in favor of future coalitions.

And your hystory is just another non sequitur here, because as everybody knows there're also notions as reason and learning.

And what would you know of reason and learning? You treat history like a waste of time and don't know how our system works.

People don't usually crawl on their fours past early ages of toddlerhood and no more should independent and mature people hang on to the dear relics of their political babyhood.

This is just pointless word salad.

Update our centuries old political system with detailed definitions of powers of each democratic institution, political and constitutional processes guiding checks and balances on powers and precluding abuse thereof?

This already exists. We know the powers of the government (these are detailed in the Constitution Act, 1982) and we know what the Reserve Powers and Royal Prerogatives.

Didn't I say it like many many times already, but you just prefer to not notice thinking that the system is as perfect as can be, and all problems will just solve themselves after a good night's sleep?

Would you stop this. I never said any such thing. Deal with what I say, not with what you wish I'd say so you could win an argument.

[quote[

Yeah, right come back to this Earth. Walking with your back firmly against the future looking into glorious times of Tupper and Laurier and thing that your ways are and always be no less than perfect is one certain recepy to get yourself in the ditch. As said there's first time for everything, and those who won't learn from mistakes of others will do it on their own.

Your contempt for our history is sad, more sad because I suspect you don't even know who these people are, or what happened, or how it demonstrates how the system does in fact work.

You're clearly saying it with an air of "I like all my eggs in one basket". And I think that in matters as complex as running a country that's a wrong answer. Elections aren't a replacement of working political process with balances and division of powers.

Elections, to my mind, are the superior way of determining who governs. The power to name another party or bloc of parties to government should only be used in fairly rare circumstances (which might have happened in 2008 if the Coalition wasn't falling apart before Harper even visited Rideau Hall).

Yes I thing they should, and if they don't they'll just show more of how inefficient and toothless they are. See, there aren't many steps separating a working democracy from no democracy, they would be 1) political processes, checks and balances between powers; 2) effective Opposition and 3) democratic will of population itself.

At any point the Opposition could bring the government down. That seems like a pretty major check to me.

We don't have #1 here in any meaningful sense, we're down to situation where we do not have #2 either, and so it brings us all the way down to the last step. It may hold for now, but who knows about the next time?

I disagree completely. We most certainly do have powerful checks. Few other governing systems have a check like a loss of confidence. Can you imagine if the US had been able to topple the President in such a fashion? In the US, you're stuck with the same president for four years, stuck with the same House of Representatives for two. The Senate is a bit different since a 1/3 of its seats come up for election every two years. But short of impeachment, there is no way to toss out a President or even a Congressman.

I'm not saying here and now, but if the next confident majority government doesn't bring these issues to the table we'll come really close to have our fate settled as that of people who are averted to change and will never effect any. Unless of course it'd be Harpers's majority government, that would also settle our fate.

The situation hasn't changed. Opening the Constitutional Pandora's Box represents as big a risk as it did 20 years ago. The problem isn't Parliament, the problem is regionalism. I can't quite figure out why you don't understand this. You must have been young (or possibly not born) when Charlottetown and Meech Lake were being wrangled over, because you seem tragically naive of what happened.

blueblood · February 7, 2010

Okay, here's the quick and easy.

The Sovereign retains all powers to grant or deny assent to legislation. Certain kinds of legislation which deal with matters of Royal Prerogative (in other words constitutional changes) may, in our system, give the GG more leeway (though since no such bill has come forward since the Constitution Act, 1982, that's an open question to some degree, I've been extrapolating from what happened in the UK in 1999). But, as usual, the Sovereign, save in the most extreme of circumstances, is bound to only use those powers on the advice of His or Her Ministers, in other words, the Government. The GG does not have unilateral powers of any kind, save at moments of constitutional crisis (ie. the dismissal of Charles Tupper, the King-Byng Affair and the Australian Constitutional Crisis, which are just about the only examples you'll find in the last 150 years of a GG being forced to act without the advice of Government).

What I hope happens out of all of this prorogue/coalition kerfuffle is that the next gov. general picked is actually qualified, and not some token figurehead. Do you think the GG had any idea of what was going on and her responsibilities when she was first picked?

ToadBrother · February 7, 2010

What I hope happens out of all of this prorogue/coalition kerfuffle is that the next gov. general picked is actually qualified, and not some token figurehead.

I keep wishing we'd ask Prince William to come on over and be GG for a few years. It would be excellent practice for him, and we'd get somebody for which our constitution and its conventions actually meant something beyond photo ops.

Do you think the GG had any idea of what was going on and her responsibilities when she was first picked?

Probably as good an idea as your average poster here. It has struck me heavily since the 2008 prorogation that few Canadians understand our system at all.

But don't get me wrong, I think Michaelle Jean has done a good job, or more properly has a good team of constitutional experts to guide her through the few tough decisions she's had.

To be honest, there aren't probably more than a handful of Canadians who are qualified. Maybe an ex-PM or a constitutional expert. But can anybody imagine the noise if Chretien or Mulroney were given the job? And academics, for the most part, tend to shy away from public office, even one so profoundly lacking in rigour as the office of Governor General.

cybercoma · February 7, 2010

I'm curious how it would go over if the public petitioned the Governor-General directly to prorogue parliament on their behalf.

Smallc · February 7, 2010

What I hope happens out of all of this prorogue/coalition kerfuffle is that the next gov. general picked is actually qualified, and not some token figurehead.

Has she somehow shown to you that she isn't qualified?

Smallc · February 7, 2010

To be honest, there aren't probably more than a handful of Canadians who are qualified.

Don Newman....but considering his columns since retirement, well, he won't be getting the job.

William Ashley · February 7, 2010

I believe that Presbyterian wedding they had in Scotland...

You raise some good points. When did they have a presbyterian wedding in Scotland?

Argus · February 7, 2010

This seems like a good deal of prevarication. I asked a simple question, and you respond with a red herring about the Supreme Court. About the only way the Supreme Court would get involved is if the Tories continue to refuse full access to the documents, and it seems almost certain, given our constitution, that the Government has no right to withhold any document, so it's likely they would lose in court.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the Tories are above the law. Would that be a fair summation of your opinion, that your chosen government believes it is superior to Parliament?

I'm not at all sure where you came by that from what I wrote. You asked if parliament was supreme or not. I said yes but no. The Courts are now supreme, not parliament. Do you dispute this? Now in the current case I specifically said that yes, the Tories should give Parliament what it's asked for. Parliament has the right to demand that and the Tories have no choice, even if they strongly suspect the information will be misused for political purposes, and even if it does actually damage security or embarrass allies.

cybercoma · February 7, 2010

The Courts are now supreme, not parliament.

Notwithstanding clause.

ToadBrother · February 7, 2010

I'm not at all sure where you came by that from what I wrote. You asked if parliament was supreme or not. I said yes but no. The Courts are now supreme, not parliament. Do you dispute this?

There is the not withstanding clause, though it cannot be applied to certain things.

Now in the current case I specifically said that yes, the Tories should give Parliament what it's asked for. Parliament has the right to demand that and the Tories have no choice, even if they strongly suspect the information will be misused for political purposes, and even if it does actually damage security or embarrass allies.

Thank you. It's taken me two weeks to get any Tory supporter to admit that the Tories have no choice, and they are violating the constitution by depriving Parliament of those documents.

ToadBrother · February 7, 2010

You raise some good points. When did they have a presbyterian wedding in Scotland?

April 2005 as I recall. But there's no evidence that I can find that says she was ever a baptized Catholic, so even if she isn't Anglican, there are no constitutional difficulties for Charles becoming King.

William Ashley · February 8, 2010

April 2005 as I recall. But there's no evidence that I can find that says she was ever a baptized Catholic, so even if she isn't Anglican, there are no constitutional difficulties for Charles becoming King.

Do you have any sources for the marriage in Scotland.

Everywhere I look on line it says they were married in a civil ceremony at Windsor guildehall (which is in England)

myata · February 8, 2010

I keep wishing we'd ask Prince William to come on over and be GG for a few years. It would be excellent practice for him, and we'd get somebody for which our constitution and its conventions actually meant something beyond photo ops.

Wow, that would certainly resolve all our constitutional woes. Lacking own head on the shoulders, what could be better than that of another? (and preferrably, a royal one at that)

ToadBrother · February 8, 2010

Wow, that would certainly resolve all our constitutional woes. Lacking own head on the shoulders, what could be better than that of another? (and preferrably, a royal one at that)

I shouldn't have expected much but an emotional reaction from you. The reality is that the heir to the throne is probably better versed on constitutional matters than about 95% of the population of this country. I mean, look how little you know.

myata · February 8, 2010

I shouldn't have expected much but an emotional reaction from you. The reality is that the heir to the throne is probably better versed on constitutional matters than about 95% of the population of this country. I mean, look how little you know.

Probably or maybe, who knows, it's not like you're going to have him pass any sort of examination to find out, will ya? And so, just the royal blood should suffice to get the keys to all those special powers, prerogatives and privileges. Just like it's been since the good times of Kings and Queens, who cares what century it is out there in world, correct?

Edited February 8, 2010 by myata

ToadBrother · February 8, 2010

Probably or maybe, who knows, it's not like you're going to have him pass any sort of examination to find out, will ya? And so, just the royal blood should suffice to get the keys to all those special powers, prerogatives and privileges. Just like it's been since the good times of Kings and Queens, who cares what century it is out there in world, correct?

You're now branching off into an entirely different area, which seems to be mainly whether or not we should have a monarchy at all. As I've said repeatedly, I have no particular emotional attachment to either a constitutional monarchy or a republic. However, I'm sort of a monarchist by default, in that the system works, and the risk to national unity is so great from opening up such an enormous constitutional question just isn't worth it in my books. I'd sooner stick with the current system, warts and all, than risk everything for a system whose major difference is simply ideological (ie. constitutional monarchy vs. republic). I suspect that most Canadians, indeed most people in the Commonwealth where the Queen is head of state, are probably of a similar mind. Even Australia, despite having the strongest and most organized republican movement, seems in no particular hurry, perhaps in part because Australian republicans seem so unwilling to actually state what kind of system they want to put in place of the current one.

Do you have any actual preferences here? Do you want a strong presidential model? A hybrid presidential model? A weak presidential model (ie. like Ireland's where the GG is replaced by an elected but largely ceremonial presidency)? Another kind of executive (ie. a council of state or have the cabinet perform the function in full)?

Edited February 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

Argus · February 8, 2010

Probably or maybe, who knows, it's not like you're going to have him pass any sort of examination to find out, will ya? And so, just the royal blood should suffice to get the keys to all those special powers, prerogatives and privileges. Just like it's been since the good times of Kings and Queens, who cares what century it is out there in world, correct?

I was in favour of this when it was proposed years ago.Realistically, who do you foresee who could possibly do it as well as him? He's a motivated, intelligent, well-spoken, attractive man who has been trained in public speaking and performance, politics and constitutional law since birth. He's also bilingual, and would be politically neutral.

Now let's see, what were the qualifications of our current GG? She was Black, female and French. Greeeeat. And her training? Like her predecessor - who was chosen because she was female and Asian - she'd worked for the CBC. Neither woman had any other known skills or training, and certainly none in the kinds of duties the job entailed.

If you see him as being foreign, then you must also see the Queen as foreign, so what do you care if one foreigner represents another foreigner to Canada?

myata · February 8, 2010

You're now branching off into an entirely different area, which seems to be mainly whether or not we should have a monarchy at all. As I've said repeatedly, I have no particular emotional attachment to either a constitutional monarchy or a republic. However, I'm sort of a monarchist by default, in that the system works, and the risk to national unity is so great from opening up such an enormous constitutional question just isn't worth it in my books. I'd sooner stick with the current system, warts and all, than risk everything for a system whose major difference is simply ideological (ie. constitutional monarchy vs. republic). I suspect that most Canadians, indeed most people in the Commonwealth where the Queen is head of state, are probably of a similar mind. Even Australia, despite having the strongest and most organized republican movement, seems in no particular hurry, perhaps in part because Australian republicans seem so unwilling to actually state what kind of system they want to put in place of the current one.

Yes but as already mentioned, Australia has proportionally elected Senate. And, it actually has an active debate going about moving on to the republican model, maybe even a referendum, not sure about that. And New Zealand has had proportional elections in all of its legislation for a while now. We here appear to be the last and only sorry democracy of this world that uses foreign political system entirely as is without as much as a minuscule native modification, and then cry "dear William come save us poor and unworthy we're messed up with that system of yours and we just can't figure it out ourselves".

Do you have any actual preferences here? Do you want a strong presidential model? A hybrid presidential model? A weak presidential model (ie. like Ireland's where the GG is replaced by an elected but largely ceremonial presidency)? Another kind of executive (ie. a council of state or have the cabinet perform the function in full)?

I listed my preferences so many times already my tongue is getting sore to repeat it while fingers - to type. But to begin small and practical, how about doing away with those royal/crown, etc privileges, powers and prerogatives that as been explained have nothing to do with operation of modern, independent and responsible democracy?