Governor-General

[Keepitsimple]

but extensions have be granted as well, so there's nothing unusual about keeping around longer either...

fair enough everyone has an opinion, I'll be disappointed to see her go, and I don't think Ignatieff was out of line suggesting she stay on....

He wasn't out of line for suggesting it. He was out of line for making it public and of course, it has now become another political football for the media to kick around. The opposition leaders are "consulted" for their opinions as a traditional courtesy - appointing the GG is the exclusive right of the PM, as it is to appoint senators. In the past, opposition leaders have honoured the tradition and kept their yaps shut. As to whether Mr. Ignatieff opened HIS due to his continued naivite or whether he was following the backroom boys orders to throw more muck, we'll probably just never know. Either way, it's insensitive and Madame Jean deserves better than to be caught in the crossfire.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[g_bambino]

Parliament wouldn't want to abandon its power, so it would literally be a shell game, replacing the GG with an elected official with the same precise powers.

Not really. In Canada, the sovereignty of the federal government and each of the provincial governments is vested in the Queen, who operates in each of those jurisdictions but is not the sole possession of one in particular. This is what allows for Canada's co-sovereignty, which is crucial to our federalism.

If Canada were to consider adopting a republican form of government, the question then arises: where will sovereignty be placed in the absence of the monarch? If it is "the people", which people specifically? Of Canada, or of the provinces separately? If it's the former, how will the provinces then remain on an equal footing with the federal sphere? Plus there's the matter of presidential elections, how such a process would affect how we perceive our government, and so on, and so on. It really isn't a simple matter.

[ToadBrother]

He wasn't out of line for suggesting it. He was out of line for making it public and of course, it has now become another political football for the media to kick around. The opposition leaders are "consulted" for their opinions as a traditional courtesy - appointing the GG is the exclusive right of the PM, as it is to appoint senators. In the past, opposition leaders have honoured the tradition and kept their yaps shut. As to whether Mr. Ignatieff opened HIS due to his continued naivite or whether he was following the backroom boys orders to throw more muck, we'll probably just never know. Either way, it's insensitive and Madame Jean deserves better than to be caught in the crossfire.

It's a little rich to see the Tories so very concerned about conventions and restraint, seeing as how they've probably caused the GG more cases of bad nerves than the Opposition.

At any rate, I'm not sure what the deal is here. The GG, whoever that person may be, is in normal circumstances so heavily constrained by constitution and convention that it doesn't make that big a difference. I don't mean to say I would want a loudmouth like Don Cherry, simply because there is no small amount of dignity attached to the vice-regal post. But we've had any number of what amount to political appointments to the post, without much trouble. In truth, the GG, like the Speaker, would confer with any number of venerable constitutional experts on tricky matters, and hopefully we're now past the phase of awkward prorogations and attempts to re-fight the English Civil War, so it shouldn't be that necessary.

And this all may be for nothing. The GG may in fact not even want to go another round, so even if the Prime Minister were so inclined to extend her term, he still might have to find a replacement.

Convention in Canada is pretty clear. A GG has a single five year term. The constitution allows longer terms or extensions, but I see little reason to argue for an extension.

[g_bambino]

I'll be disappointed to see her go...

Well, I will be, in a way, too. But, not too much.

...I don't think Ignatieff was out of line suggesting she stay on....

He was to make the suggestion publicly. He was approached confidentially but clumsily blurted out his response to everyone, dragging the selection process farther into the political arena than it need be. What other reason would he have to speak his opinion widely other than to try and use the viceregal appointment as a way to put the prime minister in an awkward spot? It's not the end of the world, but Ignatieff should still be rueful.

[punct]

Edited May 3, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

Not really. In Canada, the sovereignty of the federal government and each of the provincial governments is vested in the Queen, who operates in each of those jurisdictions but is not the sole possession of one in particular. This is what allows for Canada's co-sovereignty, which is crucial to our federalism.

If Canada were to consider adopting a republican form of government, the question then arises: where will sovereignty be placed in the absence of the monarch? If it is "the people", which people specifically? Of Canada, or of the provinces separately? If it's the former, how will the provinces then remain on an equal footing with the federal sphere? Plus there's the matter of presidential elections, how such a process would affect how we perceive our government, and so on, and so on. It really isn't a simple matter.

There are sufficient examples of former realms of the British Sovereign becoming republics to lead the way. The extinguishing of the Crown while retaining the core features of the parliamentary system has occurred on a number of occasions. India and Ireland didn't fly to pieces. India, in particular, seems at least somewhat analogous. In all these cases, extinguishing the Crown did not undermine the entire system, and India might offer one way to remake Canada as a republic.

That being said, I merely opined that it would be possible to recreate Canada as a republic. The devil is in the details. Extinguishing the Crown would open up a seething cauldron of issues, in particular as related to Separatism in Quebec, but quite possibly for regionalism elsewhere in the country. I think many of the issues you bring up are pretty stretched, the sort of thing Monarchists try to exaggerate to make the concept of a republic terrifying and uncertain.

For me the core issue is simply a weight of benefits to risk. Considering we'd likely end up with parliamentary government not very dissimilar from the one we currently have (as happened in Ireland and India), and considering that the attempt to make such a fundamental change in our constitution might inflame those forces seeking to tear the country apart, there simply isn't enough benefit and far too much danger. The current system works, and has worked very well in Canada for 143 years, and, in reality, for over 320 years if you count the ancestor to our own Parliament.

The main arguments for a republics in the Queen's realms mainly lean towards an ideological bent; ie. the Queen is a foreigner, the Queen is not chosen and is thus an anathema in a democracy, etc. They don't hold much weight with me because I'm not really all that swayed by the basic notion that changing the color of your underwear makes your bluejeans fit better.

[capricorn]

He wasn't out of line for suggesting it.

If Jean is extended, fine by me as I think she did a very good job. I would just add that Jean is not the only Canadian who can serve with distinction in that post.

He was out of line for making it public and of course, it has now become another political football for the media to kick around.

I'm uncertain where Ignatieff is going with this.

I don’t think there are complicated political or constitutional considerations here,” Ignatieff said. “Going public with this is just a way of saying Canadians should be consulted and should have a public conversation on what kind of governor-general we want next.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/803491--michael-ignatieff-wants-michaelle-jean-term-extended?bn=1

Does he mean just with extending this GG's term? Or is he suggesting the traditional method of selecting the GG be changed? I'd like to know why he broke convention and went public, instead of informing the PM privately of his preference. There must be a reason for this or he would have followed tradition and kept mum.

[ToadBrother]

Does he mean just with extending this GG's term? Or is he suggesting the traditional method of selecting the GG be changed? I'd like to know why he broke convention and went public, instead of informing the PM privately of his preference. There must be a reason for this or he would have followed tradition and kept mum.

I have no idea why either. It seems an odd, even detrimental thing to politicize the selection of the GG. For a guy who basically won a major victory lost week, it seems like an idiotic footnote.

[g_bambino]

There are sufficient examples of former realms of the British Sovereign becoming republics to lead the way. The extinguishing of the Crown while retaining the core features of the parliamentary system has occurred on a number of occasions. India, in particular, seems at least somewhat analogous... [it] might offer one way to remake Canada as a republic.

Ireland is irrelevant - a unitary state with one near-universal and indigenous ethnicity, it has very little in common with Canada. But, yes, India, and Pakistan too, are analogous to our country in that they are parliamentary federations, though, of course, now republics rather than monarchies. Their structures, though - namely, the relation of the states with each other and the federal government - are not the same as ours; the states in those countries are not as powerful against the central government as the Canadian provinces are against Ottawa.

So, Canada becoming a republic isn't impossible, but it would indeed be, as you say, the remaking of the country. And I can't see what argument would convince the provinces to relinquish the level of sovereignty they presently enjoy. In 1978, the premiers all, including Quebec's, opposed a proposal by Trudeau's cabinet to vest executive authority in the governor general, instead of where it lies now, with the Queen. None wanted to lose the co-equal status they have vis-à-vis Ottawa under the Crown.

The main arguments for a republics in the Queen's realms mainly lean towards an ideological bent; ie. the Queen is a foreigner, the Queen is not chosen and is thus an anathema in a democracy, etc. They don't hold much weight with me because I'm not really all that swayed by the basic notion that changing the color of your underwear makes your bluejeans fit better.

Besides my opinion that the change wouldn't be as superficial as you make it out, I agree with what you say above. In fact, I find it telling that Canadian anti-monarchists completely gloss over the subject of what impact the elimination of the monarchy would have on our federation; I've read and heard a lot on the subject, but can't think of once when a republican advocate addressed that particular issue.

[c/e]

Edited May 3, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

So, Canada becoming a republic isn't impossible, but it would indeed be, as you say, the remaking of the country. And I can't see what argument would convince the provinces to relinquish the level of sovereignty they presently enjoy. In 1978, the premiers all, including Quebec's, opposed a proposal by Trudeau's cabinet to vest executive authority in the governor general, instead of where it lies now, with the Queen. None wanted to lose the co-equal status they have vis-à-vis Ottawa under the Crown.

The United States sorted out a way to maintain the sovereignty of the original thirteen colonies whilst simultaneously creating a federal system. The colonies had all had a similar relationship to the Crown that the provinces have now. To a large extent those Crown holdings (which would have been the bulk of the colonies' territories) were transferred to the sovereignty of the individual states, who legally came to occupy the same position as the Crown. Of course, as the US grew, more and more land came under Federal jurisdiction, and that has been a source of some friction between the states and the Federal government down there.

You seem to be suggesting it would be greatly difficult, and yet there are no lack of historical precedents for a realm or holding of the Crown being altered or outright severed. Even within the case of Her Majesty's realms, the Crown of each has effectively been separate in most cases for at least half a century (and in some cases, like Canada and Australia, much longer than that). So the notion of the Crown has changed substantially over time, particular after the Statute of Westminster which is the constitutional foundation of the current status of the Crown throughout the various realms. In fact, even in earlier times, the Crown's position depended to some degree on territory; being slightly different in Scotland than England, and even more stark legal differences between, say, Crown Dependencies and overseas dependencies.

I agree that ending the Monarchy would land us in deep waters, which is why I fear it. Quebec, for instance, now severed from any particular allegiance to the Crown might simply be able to use the event of ending the Crown in favor of an American-style state sovereignty as an opportunity to unilaterally secede, and what exactly could we do, seeing as we just tore down one of the key concepts lying at the heart of the Confederation. Still, theorizing that Quebec would be no more disposed to do this than any other time, and also going further out on the limb and saying everyone would effectively agree to rebuild the confederation up as a republic, retaining the same basic constitutional rights the provinces still enjoy today, it's hardly inconceivable to imagine Canada replacing the monarchy much as the United States did.

Besides my opinion that the change wouldn't be as superficial as you make it out, I agree with what you say above. In fact, I find it telling that Canadian anti-monarchists completely gloss over the subject of what impact the elimination of the monarchy would have on our federation; I've read and heard a lot on the subject, but can't think of once when a republican advocate addressed that particular issue.

[c/e]

That has been the complaint in Australia, though in defense of republicans in our sisterland, the monarchists aren't terribly much better at justifying retaining the Queen. If Australia were to decide to pick its own head of state and end the position of the Crown, it would likely succeed without too much difficulty. What is required, as is always required with any constitutional change, is the desire by all parties to negotiate together towards a common end. In Canada's case, the question isn't whether you could do it or not, but whether the resolve would be there. I think it highly likely that to open these sorts of negotiations would quickly devolve into a quagmire, and as evidenced by Mulroney's own attempts, it's one that could have serious repercussions.

But don't pretend there aren't models and precedents for just this sort of thing.

[g_bambino]

You seem to be suggesting it would be greatly difficult, and yet there are no lack of historical precedents for a realm or holding of the Crown being altered or outright severed.

That's not in question, though. The matter I've been focusing on is the result to our particular federation when the monarchy is dispensed with. In the case of India and Pakistan, the result was federations unlike ours. The same with the United States, where the states are not co-equal with Washington; the American Civil War settled that, and was an event that highly influenced how Canada's founding father's built the Canadian federation.

I think if Canada were to become a republic, confederation would indeed have to be, to use your word, rebuilt, which is a vastly more immense task than simply eliminating the Queen and changing the title of the governor general to president; and not solely because of our regional and cultural politics (we haven't even touched on the First Nations element yet). The republicans in Australia have been at it for more than twenty years now and still can't even agree on a model of republic; they continue to this day to campaign for "a" republic, relying on emotion stirring anti-British bias, tribal nationalism, greater democracy and freedom, and ad hominems directed at Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall instead. I can't see how we'd fare any better here.

[sp]

Edited May 3, 2010 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

I will chime in and say that there are constitutional scholars that believe Canada would legally cease to exist without the Crown. The treaties with aboriginal people and the language in our Constitution and law would make such a drastic change nearly impossible if not completely impossible. Andrew Coyne has also said this very same thing.

[g_bambino]

I just found a piece by Michael Valpy in which he says what I've been rambling about to TB:

Moreover, constitutional monarchy is the concreteness of our contemporary federalism, our collective headship of state — sovereignty vested in one particular individual, the reigning monarch, acting in Parliament for some purposes and in the provincial legislatures for others — which has been the key to the autonomy and identity of the Canadian provinces compared to other federations.

Don't mess with success - and good luck trying

Smart man (said totally without bais, of course )

[ToadBrother]

That's not in question, though. The matter I've been focusing on is the result to our particular federation when the monarchy is dispensed with. In the case of India and Pakistan, the result was federations unlike ours. The same with the United States, where the states are not co-equal with Washington; the American Civil War settled that, and was an event that highly influenced how Canada's founding father's built the Canadian federation.

I think you're dismissing the American model far too quickly. The various colonies, which essentially became sovereign states when they revolted against Great Britain, maintained that sovereignty under the Articles of Confederation. They even at least partially maintained that sovereignty once the Constitution was enacted, as pretty much any power not explicitly stated in the Constitution was in the states' hands. You are right that the system basically broke down and Lincoln essentially rewrote what states rights was defined as. I'm not advocating any such position, I am saying that the US began as colonies under the Crown just like Canada, and still managed to create a relatively stable nation state afterwards, though some issues that the Founding Fathers hadn't seen fit to deal with required the Civil War to ultimately decide.

I think if Canada were to become a republic, confederation would indeed have to be, to use your word, rebuilt, which is a vastly more immense task than simply eliminating the Queen and changing the title of the governor general to president; and not solely because of our regional and cultural politics (we haven't even touched on the First Nations element yet). The republicans in Australia have been at it for more than twenty years now and still can't even agree on a model of republic; they continue to this day to campaign for "a" republic, relying on emotion stirring anti-British bias, tribal nationalism, greater democracy and freedom, and ad hominems directed at Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall instead. I can't see how we'd fare any better here.

I doubt we would, and I think we would fare much worse. Again, I'm not saying it's a good idea. Quite the opposite, I think the Canadian republicans are being naive to the point of outright stupidity. We have a stable, relatively effective government, something that some parts of the world would give their collective left testicle for.

Obviously the transformation would be difficult. As I've said repeatedly, it would require a unity of purpose and the political will to pull it off. It took damned near everything we had to patriate the Constitution, and even then Quebec was basically left out in the cold, which lead to all sorts of difficulties, and ultimately to the rise of the Bloc Quebecois. I simply do not believe that will exists, and there's no one who wants to pull the pin on the constitutional grenade.

In the United States, India and even Ireland, there was, by and large, common purpose between all the parties to seek an independent nation, to cut the ties with Great Britain, that overrode any particular choice of government.

But your fundamental argument that we couldn't do it because we can't decide what kind of government we'd have seems questionable to me. The American Colonies really had little idea what they'd look like if and when they won the war with Britain. All sorts of ideas were floating around, from the US establishing its own monarchy (an idea that would be tried with little success in Brazil and Mexico), to a very loose confederation (essentially the Articles of Confederation were precisely that, but they proved too unworkable), before the exact system we largely see today was decided upon.

In India and Ireland, of course, the governing system was by and large retained. The Crown was extinguished and the state itself came to replace the Crown. This allowed a relatively easy transition, the maintaining of institutions and laws already in place.

I'm no legal scholar, so I'm not going to try to tear too deeply into it. I think, if the parties could come together and find agreement on a suitable replacement to the current system, it might work. The problem that basically puts me on the monarchist side isn't the feel-goodism of the provinces and territories and native groups all getting together for a big constitutional convention where hard negotiations but a spirit of common purpose keeps everybody in reasonable check, but rather that we have this big constitutional convention, and no one can agree. I mean, what if Quebec simply refuses to take part? If I were a clever sovereigntist premier, that's what I would do. "Well, you see, you don't recognize the Crown, so if you drive your tanks into Montreal, you're doing so as invaders and tyrants."

I think the monarchy in Canada is probably as safe as it is in the UK, for the simple reason that it's just too much trouble and risks too much to change it.

[ToadBrother]

I will chime in and say that there are constitutional scholars that believe Canada would legally cease to exist without the Crown. The treaties with aboriginal people and the language in our Constitution and law would make such a drastic change nearly impossible if not completely impossible. Andrew Coyne has also said this very same thing.

Might that not be solved by simply having a clause in the amendments leading to the dissolution of the Crown requiring the ensuing republic to recognize the treaties. Besides, the theory of extinguishment for many treaties with native peoples existed for over a century even with the Crown, and it was in fact the Delgamuukw decision which ultimately forced the Crown to abide by the agreements it had made. If the amended constitution effectively inherited any such decisions or decrees, like the Royal Proclamation of 1763, then first nations groups would still have the legal ability to assure those pre-republic treaties were honored.

Now again note I'm not advocating that position. One of the chief arguments suggesting just how fraught with peril Quebec separation would be was the potential that aboriginal title in Quebec, guaranteed by the Crown, couldn't simply be shut off. Since the native peoples, through their peculiar constitutional position within British North America, could have essentially refused to follow Quebec into independence, and Quebec, particularly in the economically important northern areas of the province might actually have the right under Canadian law and within the wider framework of the Crown's centuries old guarantees and protections to stay within Canada. So far as I know, other than some generic commitments by the separatists, there was never a guarantee. The failure of the 1995 question put it off, but it was never answered. But the question remains, and could legitimately be extended to the rest of Canada. Even if all the provinces were to be on board, I think even the native peoples refusing, or even some fraction of them refusing, would derail the process.

As I said to Myata a few months ago, it's not as if these things couldn't hypothetically be changed, it's just that the extreme difficulties and perils of attempting to would probably put off even the most ardent and open republican government.

[Smallc]

Might that not be solved by simply having a clause in the amendments leading to the dissolution of the Crown requiring the ensuing republic to recognize the treaties.

It's not the republic that I'd be thinking of. It would be the people with whom the treaties were signed. I think that's what you're talking about later.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

It's not the republic that I'd be thinking of. It would be the people with whom the treaties were signed. I think that's what you're talking about later.

Maybe we're talking past each other. It's not so much the "became a republic" part of the question that frightens me, it's the "becoming a republic" that does. It's one thing to offer up compromises to Quebec or native peoples, it's the question as to what happens if these parties, or indeed any party to the negotiation says "No!"

In the case of Ireland, India and the United States, all parties were in full agreement that the Crown had to go. The down and dirty of actually creating a constitution was simply a set of negotiations between groups that had already, for the most part, agreed that they were a nation. In Canada, it isn't that simple, and it's that lack of common ground at the start of the process that almost killed the negotiations leading up to the Constitution Act 1982 and most certainly killed Charlottetown and Meech Lake.

[g_bambino]

I think the monarchy in Canada is probably as safe as it is in the UK, for the simple reason that it's just too much trouble and risks too much to change it.

Well, yes, I agree. And I do suppose I'm venturing far into the theoretical when going on about the effects of a republic on our unique federation. I am confident it would be no benefit, but it's irrelevant, anyway, so long as we have coming before that question the other, more immediate hurdles you mention.

[g_bambino]

Might that not be solved by simply having a clause in the amendments leading to the dissolution of the Crown requiring the ensuing republic to recognize the treaties.

Ah, but see there you speak of "the republic" - an abstraction - recognising treaties. We Canadians have fallen into the habit of mentioning "the Crown", which is also an abstraction, but one that always ultimately cements itself in the tangible person of the sovereign.

I wish I knew more on the specific topic, but I think I understand that First Nations peoples really value a) the personal face a monarch gives to the state with which FNs are bound in treaty (here it says that since the Royal Proclamation of 1763, "all future treaty making with the aboriginal peoples of Canada would be directly with the actual person whose Crown embodies the sovereignty of the British Empire") and the guaranteed uninterrupted continuity of the monarchical lineage, which mirrors their own family/tribal inheritance and monarchical/chieftain traditions, and doesn't exist with presidents. What happened after the American Revolution to aboriginal people in the United States, compared to the treatment they continued to receive under the British and then Canadian Crown in Canada, may also affect their perceptions.

But, as I said, I'm really no expert in this corner of the field.

[fix emoticon glitch consequence]

Edited May 4, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

Ah, but see there you speak of "the republic" - an abstraction - recognising treaties. We Canadians have fallen into the habit of mentioning "the Crown", which is also an abstraction, but one that always ultimately cements itself in the tangible person of the sovereign.

In a monarchy like Canada or Saudi Arabia, the essential notion is that all power ultimately flows from the Sovereign. The Sovereign may be constrained by a constitution of some form or another, but that doesn't change the basic underlying notion that a political power has its source in the Crown, embodied in the Sovereign.

In republics, all power flows from the people. It is an Enlightenment concept, embodied, for instance, in the preamble of the US Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is this that marks the essential divide between republics and monarchies, regardless of whether the republic or the monarchy is autocratic, absolutist, theocratic or however it is formed. While it's a severe oversimplification, for the purposes of our conversation consider the Crown and the People to be somewhat interchangeable. In the United States, Federal and State lands would belong to the People of the United States, whereas in Canada public lands at every level effectively belong to the Crown.

I wish I knew more on the specific topic, but I think I understand that First Nations peoples really value a) the personal face a monarch gives to the state with which FNs are bound in treaty (here it says that since the Royal Proclamation of 1763, "all future treaty making with the aboriginal peoples of Canada would be directly with the actual person whose Crown embodies the sovereignty of the British Empire") and the guaranteed uninterrupted continuity of the monarchical lineage, which mirrors their own family/tribal inheritance and monarchical/chieftain traditions, and doesn't exist with presidents. What happened after the American Revolution to aboriginal people in the United States, compared to the treatment they continued to receive under the British and then Canadian Crown in Canada, may also affect their perceptions.

But, as I said, I'm really no expert in this corner of the field.

[fix emoticon glitch consequence]

It's actually a pretty major constant throughout Britain's current and former possessions and realms. The Monarchy has long been viewed by various indigenous peoples as being the king of kings and chieftain of chieftains. Because in most cases it was treaties of one form or another with the Crown that formalized relationships with these peoples and the British Empire, wherever the British Monarch still reigns, he or she has come to embody the rights laid out in those treaties. The Queen is revered throughout the former Empire by indigenous peoples, often much more than the local governments.

And it does raise the thorny question. In Canada, New Zealand and Australia, in particular, where large indigenous populations can be found, it is an unanswered question. In Canada and New Zealand in particular, there are very well established treaties with the indigenous peoples nad for either country to remove the Crown would have to pay special consideration to those treaties. While I don't know the current constitutional state of the treaties with the Maori in New Zealand, the Supreme Court has made it very clear in Canada that the treaties signed with the Crown, many before Confederation, are still binding and make up the basic law of Canada. In other words, any alteration to the nature of the Crown would likely have to be done with negotiations in mind, and if the native peoples maintained their historic ties to the Monarchy and refused this new republic, what would we do? Force it, and perpetrate a whole new set of grievances?

That's why I think, whether we like it or not, we're stuck with the Monarchy for some time to come. The absurd idea buy guys like John Manley that we could just sort of dump the Monarch on the Queen's death denies the Statute of Westminster and just as importantly the core premise of our system of government since before Confederation, when what was to become Canada was the colonies and territories of British North America. I'm not saying it would be impossible, but the severance would certainly require very wide negotiations, and recent history suggests that such negotiations are fraught with troubles. That leads back to my first point. Those troubles just aren't worth the very hypothetical improvements of a republic. In fact, other than some ideological pronouncements, I don't see any particular advantage at all.

[ToadBrother]

What can Canadians expect next from Michael Ignatieff, whose absence from Canada for 34 years has placed him out of touch with Canadian parliamentary traditions, on which our government relies to a great extent as a democratic tool in governing.

2008 called and wants their talking points back. As to Parliamentary traditions, Harper has shown far more contempt.

He has decided, that the appointment of the Governor General, is a fair topic for open, political and partisan debate. The burning question is how far is he prepared to take that debate on the Governor General.

Buoyed by the Speaker's recent ruling ( which yet may go down as the greatest faux pas of Speaker's rulings in parliamentary history, because common sense is still the most important virtue that any democracy must have and employ to flourish and not short term political gain).

Yes, how dare Parliament be supreme over the Crown. I mean, that's just wrong. Let me know when you finished your bit on how Charles I was right.

"Before us are issues that question the very foundations upon which our parliamentary system is built," Mr. Milliken said during his 45-minute ruling. "In a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and, in fact, an obligation."

What is there to prevent Ignatieff from making a motion in parliament to propose a name of his choice as next Governor General or to propose a motion that the government's choice, after it is made, is not acceptable to most parliamentarians given that it is "the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account" (Can't we just envisage Bloc support for Ignatieff as this is just manna from heaven for the Bloc as a wedge issue to buttress their argument that the system in Canada does not work)

At the end of the day the Crown is subservient to Parliament. Still, the constitution pretty much states that the Queen acts on the advice of her ministers, so Parliament's capacity to control who becomes GG is largely indirect. I suppose it's conceivable that Iggy could get a motion through Parliament, but I don't see what you're problem is. If Parliament doesn't want the PM's choice, Parliament in the system of government we have is supreme.

How far will Ignatieff go, and what parliamentary turmoil is he prepared to foist on Canadians, in his selfish quest for power, aided and abetted by his ignorance of parliamentary traditions due to being AWOL for 34 years?

What may save Canada and Canadians is that if this is the vision and process ( along with the scandalous actions of carnival cheques, doorknobs, wafergate, H1N1) that Ignatieff and the Liberals offer Canadians to return them to power, it is doomed to failure, as Canadians bask as their government leads the world in exiting the recession and receives bouquets on a daily basis from international agencies and governments for their actions and leadership.

I'm wondering if you have ever cracked open a textbook on our constitution. I'm dubious that you know anything about it, as seen by the utter lack of knowledge and insight. I pity Tory mouthpieces when they talk about constitutional matters. It's like watching a half-wit trying to drive.

Edited May 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

While it's a severe oversimplification, for the purposes of our conversation consider the Crown and the People to be somewhat interchangeable.

Somewhat. 'The Crown' is more synonymous with 'the State'; it represents the apparatus of governance. In a constitutional monarchy such as Canada, 'the People' more translates into 'the Queen/King' (as illustrated in the difference between the title of a court case in the US - The People v. [Name] - and one in Canada - Her Majesty v. [Name], or Regina v. [Name], or some such thing). This arises out of the fact that the people of a constitutional monarchy have vested their sovereignty in the person of the monarch (hence, the name 'sovereign') via a democratically supported constitution, whereas, in a republic, the people have constitutionally handed their sovereignty back to themselves. Of course, the Queen and the Crown are inseparable, but they are not entirely the same thing.

As I said in my earlier post, the First Nations in Canada seem to view their treaties as being between they and the monarch personally, not with the institution of the Crown possessed by the monarch, or with any particular vehicle through which she governs - cabinet, parliament, or the courts. This permits a personal relationship; since the early 18th century, aboriginal chiefs have always approached the king or queen directly on treaty matters; as recently as 2005, First Nations leaders wanted to meet personally with the Queen to discuss grievances (though bureaucrats disgracefully denied them their ancient right to do so).

I wonder how this works in a republic, though. When the people of a nation now generally number in the multiple millions, Aboriginals can't present their complaints about treaty violations to the People. To the president, then? Perhaps, but he's just a politician reflecting populist whims who'll likely be gone in a few years; they lack the direct lineal, blood connection to one of the original signatories to the treaties, as well; what has been called the "living heritage" of the treaty relationships.

That piece I linked to above points out the same as you: republicans tend to be extremely casual in their opinions about the monarchy. The author, a First Nations individual, goes further, though, to say that this cavalier approach is insulting to Aboriginal people, given that it completely disregards the value they place in the monarchy. A valid complaint, if you ask me.

[ToadBrother]

I wonder how this works in a republic, though. When the people of a nation now generally number in the multiple millions, Aboriginals can't present their complaints about treaty violations to the People. To the president, then? Perhaps, but he's just a politician reflecting populist whims who'll likely be gone in a few years; they lack the direct lineal, blood connection to one of the original signatories to the treaties, as well; what has been called the "living heritage" of the treaty relationships.

Um, they go to court. In those cases where there were treaties between American native tribes and the US government, they hold as much as weight as treaties do between tribes in Canada and the Crown. Ultimately, the People in the United States are the government (remember Government of the People, For the People and By the People). Despite what many Canadians may think, the Founding Fathers put in place a system specifically designed to curb pure populism.

The Makah Tribe of Washington State, for instance, was able to assert its treaty rights via the Treaty of Neah Bay to start whaling again back in the 1990s.

Edited May 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

Um, they go to court. In those cases where there were treaties between American native tribes and the US government, they hold as much as weight as treaties do between tribes in Canada and the Crown. Ultimately, the People in the United States are the government (remember Government of the People, For the People and By the People).

Though they are inseparable, I believe the People is actually greater than the Government. But, if the reality in a republic is indeed that the closest any aboriginals can get to contact with the People is the courts, since the People is so vast a body as to essentially become an abstraction, then that only serves to affirm my theory that the abolition of the Canadian monarchy would mean the loss of the personal relationship First Nations presently cherish with the apex of the nation - the sovereign. It simply couldn't be replicated in a republic.

[c/e]

Edited May 4, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

Though they are inseparable, I believe 'the People' is actually greater than 'the Government'. But, if it is the case that the courts are the highest point of contact for aboriginals in a republic, since the People is so vast a body as to essentially become an abstraction, then that only serves to affirm my theory that the abolition of the monarchy would mean the loss of that personal relationship First Nations presently cherish with the monarch. It simply couldn't be replicated in a republic.

But the same applies in Canada since the Constitution Act 1982. If Parliament will not act to preserve and propagate aboriginal title (which was the underlying claim in Delgamuukw v British Columbia, in effect v the Queen), then the courts are the ultimate arbiters. So I'm curious as to why you think, fundamentally, a native tribe in the United States being forced to use the courts to assert title and treaty rights is somehow different than a native tribe in Canada being forced to use the courts to assert title and treaty rights. In fact, under a pure Sovereign Parliamentary system as the UK and New Zealand, it is perfectly conceivable that the Crown could extinguish aboriginal title. In Canada it would be more complex now because it would trigger Section 25 and Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, not to mention the Royal Proclamation of 1763. In effect, it is the American-styled aspects of our constitution that pretty much guarantee title and treaty rights. In the UK, if there was a similar group with a longstanding constitutional right, since Parliament is not limited in any way in what it can legislate on, such title could conceivably be extinguished by a simple Act of Parliament.

[g_bambino]

But the same applies in Canada since the Constitution Act 1982. If Parliament will not act to preserve and propagate aboriginal title (which was the underlying claim in Delgamuukw v British Columbia, in effect v the Queen), then the courts are the ultimate arbiters. So I'm curious as to why you think, fundamentally, a native tribe in the United States being forced to use the courts to assert title and treaty rights is somehow different than a native tribe in Canada being forced to use the courts to assert title and treaty rights.

Because I'm not focusing on the minutae of governmental machinery. You're right that, even if the First Nations chiefs speak or write to the Queen directly, everything still in actuality gets worked out by the ministers in cabinet, judges in the courts, and legislators in parliament. But, what I'm perhaps not articulating very well is that, in Canada, the relationship between a First Nation and the Canadian nation can be demonstrated at the highest level in physical, human form: the personification of a First Nation - the Chief - can speak directly to the personification of the Canadian nation - the Queen. In the US, on the other hand, the Indian chief has no counterpart from the American nation, since the American nation is embodied by the People, something so vast as to essentially be intangible; the best he can expect is a judge, who is merely an officer of the State.

An event that took place in Labrador I think illustrates what I'm trying to get at: In 1997, the Queen and Chrétien were in Labrador and the Innu people of the region took that opportunity to present a list of complaints about treaty violations. The thing is, the Queen and the Prime Minister were side by side the entire time, but the Innu leader handed his papers directly to Elizabeth, not to Chrétien. After talking with the Innu chief, the Queen passed the list to her prime minister for the Cabinet and parliament to work on. Clearly, though the monarch had no other direct part in the resolution of the matter, the aboriginals were aware of who was actually party to the treaties and purposefully demonstrated that their relationship was with the monarch - the nation - and not merely her group of advisors - the ministers of the Crown.

It's mostly a symbolic thing, but not completely, and it's evidently very important to Aboriginals in this country.

[c/e]

Edited May 4, 2010 by g_bambino