And the New GG Is.....

[TimG]

Bambino, you live in a fictional/fantasy world where the Queen Elizabeth is a "Queen of Canada".

Legally that is the office she fills. The Queen of England has no standing in the Canadian constitution. It is no different than a single person who is the CEO of two companies - the roles are legally distinct even if they are filled by the same person.

Bambino may need to correct me but I do not believe there is a legal requirement to have a british royal fill the office of 'Queen of Canada' but I am not sure what process would be used to select an alternate.

Edited July 8, 2010 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Maybe Matt Damon was a Canadian in the Toronto media? The Toronto media may play fantasy sometimes, but at least it knows that Matt Damon is not Canadian.

Bambino, you live in a fictional/fantasy world where Queen Elizabeth is a "Queen of Canada".

The Soviet Union was a fiction/fantasy too, that collapsed in August 1991.

So far as I can tell the USSR was a cohesive political entity from 1917 (well, 1922 officially) until 1991. That it ultimately collapsed doesn't make it a fiction or fantasy any more than the Austro-Hungarian, Napoleonic, Roman or any of the other empires and ultimately failed states out there.

I realize you're trying to score some sort of rhetorical point here, but on the face of it, on both counts, what you've written is pure idiocy. The USSR was very much real, and the Queen is very much the head of state. When she is in Canada, in fact, the GG's functions are technically suspended. During those times in Her Realms when she has been there when a Parliament or provincial legislature is opening, she has delivered the Throne Speech (she did so in Quebec in 1964, in Alberta in 2005 and in the Federal Parliament twice; in 1957 and in 1977). If she happened to be touring Canada when the Government fell, then it would be her decision, not the GG's as to whether to ask someone else to form a government or to call an election (the odds of that happening are generally pretty slim, though if she wants to stay out of these tumultuous political times in Canada, she best keep her visits to a minimum for the foreseeable future).

The rule of thumb in Her Realms is that when she is visiting/in residence there, the GG in fact becomes a shadow post, with all the Sovereign's constitutional powers directly in her hands. In fact, we sort of saw that with this last visit, Harper smartly using the timing of the visit to have the next GG, David Johnston was introduced to her (although Michael Jean is still GG until Johnston visits Buckingham Palace), demonstrating that ultimately it is the Queen, on the advice of Her Government, who chooses who shall use her constitutional powers while she is not in Canada.

If you want to suggest that she no longer holds the same esteem, or ought not hold the same esteem, because Canada has shifted away from its roots, or something along those lines, I won't argue with you too much. As I have often said, I'm a Royalist of convenience, I don't exactly see much benefit to an elected head of state whose powers are largely the same as the Queen's (like Ireland or India), certainly not enough of a benefit to risk more constitutional confrontation like Meech Lake and Charlottetown. If we're talking more radical changes, like moving to a presidential or semi-presidential system, hell I'd love to debate that, and probably fall more towards an American or French style of governemnt if I had to pick, but I doubt very many Canadian republicans are pondering that, because that's basically taking our constitution and tearing it to pieces and starting from scratch.

Edited July 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Legally that is the office she fills. The Queen of England has no standing in the Canadian constitution. It is no different than a single person who is the CEO of two companies - the roles are legally distinct even if they are filled by the same person.

Precisely. In Canada, she is the Queen of Canada, in Australia the Queen of Australia, in the UK the Queen of the United Kingdom, and so on. The Crown is embodied in a single person, but separate for each Realm.

Bambino may need to correct me but I do not believe there is a legal requirement to have a british royal fill the office of 'Queen of Canada' but I am not sure what process would be used to select an alternate.

It's the Statute of Westminster, which both serves as a bedrock element of Her Majesty's Realms' constitutions and as an effective treaty between the Commonwealth Realms when it comes time for the succession of a new king or queen. As well, older documents, in particular the Act of Settlement, 1701, also a key constitutional document in the Commonwealth Realms, dictates those rules of succession.

Edited July 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Just what we need, Prime Ministers with even more power. Keep the GG.

In these modern times of high-speed communications, I think we should dispense with the GG entirely and go with the Queen directly. I suspect Prime Ministers would feel somewhat less emboldened if they had to deal directly with the Sovereign.

[August1991]

I realize you're trying to score some sort of rhetorical point here, but on the face of it, on both counts, what you've written is pure idiocy....

The USSR was very much real, and the Queen is very much the head of state.

And the USSR no longer exists.

---

ToadBrother (or Bambino, or other English Canadian monarchists), I don't mean any harm.

First. I want a republican Canada.

Second. Most people living in Canada now are republicans.

Third. The world changes.

[Smallc]

(although Michael Jean is still GG until Johnston visits Buckingham Palace)

Actually, I don't think he'll even be GG then.....he will not be sworn in until sometime in September.

[TimG]

As well, older documents, in particular the Act of Settlement, 1701, also a key constitutional document in the Commonwealth Realms, dictates those rules of succession.

So you are saying that the constitution requires that we choose a British Royal?

[Smallc]

So you are saying that the constitution requires that we choose a British Royal?

The rules of succession dictate that Charles will be King, provided he is still alive.

[ToadBrother]

And the USSR no longer exists.

So what? Neither does the Byzantine Empire, but it was real too.

---

ToadBrother (or Bambino, or other English Canadian monarchists), I don't mean any harm.

First. I want a republican Canada.

Fair enough. What kind of republic?

Second. Most people living in Canada now are republicans.

I think that's debatable. Most Canadians don't seem to care. That's not exactly a plus for the Monarchists, but it's not really a plus for republicans either.

Third. The world changes.

And why should that change anything? The United States is governed, with some amendments, under the same document that the thirteen states agreed upon in 1787, less than a hundred years after the Bill of Rights, 1689 ushered in our constitutional system.

Why does a changing world mean we should throw our political institutions on its head? If we're going to make improvements, then by all means, but if this is just some sort of goofy notion that somehow electing a head of state with powers identical to that of the Monarch, I see no reason to go through any of the hard effort and risk required to bring about that change.

Edited July 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

So you are saying that the constitution requires that we choose a British Royal?

The Act of Settlement, 1701 sets the terms for who is eligible to sit on the Throne, the Statute of Westminster makes that a constitutional requirement in all the Commonwealth Realms. So, in short, yes, though the phrasing is once again bad. The Monarch resides mainly in Britain, but in his or her capacity as Canada's Sovereign, he or she is the King or Queen of Canada, who through constitutional requirements, ends up being Prince Charles in all cases.

Edited July 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

Bambino, you live in a fictional/fantasy world where the Queen Elizabeth is a "Queen of Canada".

I'm afraid it's you who lives in an anachronistic Quiet Revolution fantasy wherein Canada is still a colony of the United Kingdom, which is what we'd be if there was no such thing as the Queen of Canada. But Canada is instead a sovereign nation; no independent country can be headed by a monarch that is not its own.

[g_bambino]

Bambino may need to correct me but I do not believe there is a legal requirement to have a british royal fill the office of 'Queen of Canada' but I am not sure what process would be used to select an alternate.

There's no requirement in our succession laws that the monarch be British or any other nationality; the only vaguely related stipulation made is in the Act of Settlement, which limits Canada's monarchs to the descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, which now numbers in the thousands, spread all over the globe. Any changes to the succession would require the approval of all eleven legislatures in Canada.

[g_bambino]

Most people living in Canada now are republicans.

That's a little tough to believe when the vast majority of Canadians can't even name their head of state. Most are ambivalent on the subject and likely don't even understand what it means to be or what it would take to become a republic. And, if faced with the likely reality of who will be their future presidents, I think a good number would make up their minds quite quickly in favour of the status quo.

[+]

Edited July 8, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

There's no requirement in our succession laws that the monarch be British or any other nationality; the only vaguely related stipulation made is in the Act of Settlement, which limits Canada's monarchs to the descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, which now numbers in the thousands, spread all over the globe. Any changes to the succession would require the approval of all eleven legislatures in Canada.

Though the letter of the law in the Act of Settlement does spell that out, in reality, tradition and precedent largely require Parliament to go with any of the children of the Queen. The last time a change in the succession was made was in assuring that the throne would pass on George VI and, inevitably, to Elizabeth II. I would argue that the Letters Patent that created George VI's brother, Edward VIII, as Duke of Windsor, largely constitutes a constitutional narrowing the pool to Elizabeth II's children and their offspring. Certainly there is some limited precedent in offering the throne to someone other than the rules of primogeniture, namely Mary II and William, though Parliament retroactively made that right with the Act of Settlement, forbidding a Catholic from sitting on the throne.

I'd say this chalks up to one of the unwritten elements of our constitution. It's quite inconceivable that Prince Charles wouldn't become King, unless he died before his mother or asked to be passed over in favor of Prince William (commentators love to jabber on about this one, though I see no meaningful indication that either the Queen or Charles, or any of the Parliaments have any interest in mucking around with the succession).

[ToadBrother]

That's a little tough to believe when the vast majority of Canadians can't even name their head of state. Most are ambivalent on the subject and likely don't even understand what it means to be or what it would take to become a republic. And, if faced with the likely reality of who will be their future presidents, I think a good number would make up their minds quite quickly in favour of the status quo.

[+]

It isn't a popularity contest. Since becoming a republic effects the provinces, republicans would need to do a lot more than that. I'm thinking that attempting to become a republic effects the Office of the Queen, so wouldn't Section 41 apply here?

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of each province:

(a.) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

(b.) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

(c.) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;

(d.) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and

(e.) an amendment to this Part.

That reads to me like it would pretty much require unanimous consent of all the legislatures in Canada, and I think that would be a pretty difficult stunt to pull off.

Edited July 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[TimG]

An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada

Ultimately this is the key: the Queen serves at the pleasure of the people of Canada and can be fired at anytime should people decide that is what they want (i.e. a referendum).

[Wilber]

In these modern times of high-speed communications, I think we should dispense with the GG entirely and go with the Queen directly. I suspect Prime Ministers would feel somewhat less emboldened if they had to deal directly with the Sovereign.

You may have a point but with the present system the GG is a Canadian even though they are the Queen's representative. I don't know that I would want that to change.

[Remiel]

I'll agree w/ this comment. We've innovated in so many different areas in the past century it's laughable to see some people arguing that some part of our current system is necessary because that's how it was done in the past.

This kind of attitude is why some countries still have kings of queens. It's laughable and pathetic.

No more laughable and pathetic than the idea that we must change because we should not do anything the way it was done in the past.

[nicky10013]

No more laughable and pathetic than the idea that we must change because we should not do anything the way it was done in the past.

Yep. What I want to know is what position will replace the GG? Will it be an elected or appointed position and what powers will the position have. These are difficult questions and ones which, by people who can only sum up their argument as "grrrr monarchy bad," have never thought of and are unqualified to answer.

Edited July 9, 2010 by nicky10013

[eyeball]

By the same token, rejecting a system merely because of its age seems utterly idiotic. There has to be reason for change other than the infantile "I just want something different?"

I'd be happy just knowing the capacity to change exists, not so much at the apex of society where the Monarchy perches but elsewhere far below that. The near permanent rigidity of constitutional incrementalism is like some inertial dampening field that's affected the entire edifice of government from top to bottom. The pace of change picks up a little along the way but far too many wheels grind far too slowly in a soul destroying process that can take the better part of a lifetime or more to unfold for some people.

Will there ever be a point at which we can say the time to lead and follow has come and gone and now it's time to get the hell out of the way?

[nicky10013]

I'd be happy just knowing the capacity to change exists, not so much at the apex of society where the Monarchy perches but elsewhere far below that. The near permanent rigidity of constitutional incrementalism is like some inertial dampening field that's affected the entire edifice of government from top to bottom. The pace of change picks up a little along the way but far too many wheels grind far too slowly in a soul destroying process that can take the better part of a lifetime or more to unfold for some people.

Will there ever be a point at which we can say the time to lead and follow has come and gone and now it's time to get the hell out of the way?

Constitutions aren't meant to be changed easily and for good reason. That being said, the common law basis on which parliament is predicated moves things along fairly well. Canada in terms of efficiency of the legislature is much better off than the stone rigidness of American Republicanism.

[ToadBrother]

I'd be happy just knowing the capacity to change exists, not so much at the apex of society where the Monarchy perches but elsewhere far below that. The near permanent rigidity of constitutional incrementalism is like some inertial dampening field that's affected the entire edifice of government from top to bottom. The pace of change picks up a little along the way but far too many wheels grind far too slowly in a soul destroying process that can take the better part of a lifetime or more to unfold for some people.

Will there ever be a point at which we can say the time to lead and follow has come and gone and now it's time to get the hell out of the way?

As I have explained countless times to Myata, what stops amending the Constitution at this point is not the amending formulas (which differ in no great degree from the amending formulas for any other constitutional federation of provinces or states), but rather psychological. You don't need a new constitution, you need a brain-warping ray that can make politicians not think of Meech Lake or Charlottetown every time the thought of big changes comes around, and you'll have to point that ray at the political leaders and electorates of Eastern Canada, which ultimately has the most to lose by creating more equitable constitutional arrangements (like a Triple-E Senate).

Your problem isn't the document, which has not too outrageously difficult formulas for altering it, it's human beings. Most Canadians, simply put, don't think the potential risks as far as national unity are concerned are worth it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Constitutions aren't meant to be changed easily and for good reason. That being said, the common law basis on which parliament is predicated moves things along fairly well. Canada in terms of efficiency of the legislature is much better off than the stone rigidness of American Republicanism.

Indeed....Canada can go to war without Parliament even discussing the issue...how "flexible" !

[ToadBrother]

Indeed....Canada can go to war without Parliament even discussing the issue...how "flexible" !

Somebody will have to explain to me where Congress gave the okay for the Vietnam "conflict".

[bush_cheney2004]

Somebody will have to explain to me where Congress gave the okay for the Vietnam "conflict".

See Southeast Asia Resolution (Public Law 88-408) aka Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Congressional support for previous actions in South Vietnam can be found going back to approved Truman and Eisenhower budget line items, particularly after Dien Bien Phu.

Edited July 9, 2010 by bush_cheney2004