The next Governor General

[Queenmandy85]

24 minutes ago, Hates politicians said:

We arent locked into anything we can get rid of the crown and have a president. There are people who are'nt politicians who can run this country better than the shitbags  who are running it into the ground currently

It requires opening up the Constitution. Have you forgotten Meech? Where are you going to find a Federal Government and all Provincial Governments stupid enough to do that? How would you weed out politicians running for President?

As for Her Excellency the GG, why don't you like her. She is a highly respected scientist and astronaut, not a politician. 

[JamesHackerMP]

Yeah you'd have to amend the constitution wouldn't you? Sorry I hadn't thought of that. And I hope I didn't come off as another Yank telling the world what to do; that wasn't my intent.

Meech? What's that about?

Edited October 5, 2018 by JamesHackerMP

[Queenmandy85]

4 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Yeah you'd have to amend the constitution wouldn't you? Sorry I hadn't thought of that. And I hope I didn't come off as another Yank telling the world what to do; that wasn't my intent.

Meech? What's that about?

It has been a long time so I am fuzzy on the details.

Meech refers to Prime Minister Mulroney's attempt to amend the constitution to make it agreeable to Quebec. Quebec never signed the Canada Act of 1982. The Federal - Provincial Conference that led to the Meech Lake Accord was held at Meech Lake. (suprise suprise) The ratification process failed. They tried again after an incredible amount of public consultation and held a referendum which failed. Each time, every wing-nut in the country tried to bring in every concievable  lunitic amendment. It showed that any attempt to open up the constitution brings with it a can of rattlesnakes. The lesson of Meech is if you open the constitution, it will eat you alive.

[Wilber]

There have been eleven minor amendments but when it comes to major changes the process is daunting. Amendments require the approval of the Commons, Senate and two thirds of the provinces representing at least 50% of the population.

[Queenmandy85]

The arguements went on for so long,  months and months, that people began to name their exhaustion as being meeched.

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The arguements went on for so long,  months and months, that people began to name their exhaustion as being meeched.

Several provinces held referendums.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Several provinces held referendums.

It was a national referendum with a partnership of Pierre Trudeau and Preston Manning opposing the amendments. Go figure, a Liberal and a Bolshevik working together.

[JamesHackerMP]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It has been a long time so I am fuzzy on the details.

Meech refers to Prime Minister Mulroney's attempt to amend the constitution to make it agreeable to Quebec. Quebec never signed the Canada Act of 1982. The Federal - Provincial Conference that led to the Meech Lake Accord was held at Meech Lake. (suprise suprise) The ratification process failed. They tried again after an incredible amount of public consultation and held a referendum which failed. Each time, every wing-nut in the country tried to bring in every concievable  lunitic amendment. It showed that any attempt to open up the constitution brings with it a can of rattlesnakes. The lesson of Meech is if you open the constitution, it will eat you alive.

So when the feds propose (who proposes the amendment in canada) an amendment, does it have to be ratified by all 10 provinces?

The 1982 Canada Act: was that the "repatriation" of Canada? What happened with that?

Did the original constitution act (1867) describe an amending process?

Edited October 6, 2018 by JamesHackerMP

[Queenmandy85]

From the Canadian Encyclopedia:

"The fifth part contains the procedure for amending the Constitution. Most sections of the Constitution can be amended upon approval from the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the provinces (seven provinces), so long as those provinces contain at least 50 per cent of the population of all the provinces. This is known as the 7/50 rule.

Unanimity of the Senate, the House of Commons and all 10 provincial legislatures is required to amend provisions that deal with the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada, the use of the French and English languages, the right of a province to have at least as many members of Parliament as senators, or the offices of the Queen, the governor general, or the lieutenant-governors.

The amending formula does not specifically mention abolition of the Senate. In 2014, however, the Supreme Court ruled — in answer to a constitutional question from the federal government — that changing the makeup of the Senate (in this case, limiting the terms of senators to nine years) would require an amendment under the 7/50 rule"

If the amendment only concerns one province, I believe it only requires agreement between the province and the Federal Government. If I am wrong, I am sure some one will correct me.

[JamesHackerMP]

Then, what's Quebec's role in this? If you can meet the requirements to amend the constitution, how can one province (Quebec) affect it so much?

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Then, what's Quebec's role in this? If you can meet the requirements to amend the constitution, how can one province (Quebec) affect it so much?

Meech is a very interesting and complicated subject, you would probably be better off researching it yourself because it is difficult for even Canadians to explain to each other, let alone to a foreigner.

[JamesHackerMP]

lol, wow.

[Queenmandy85]

22 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Then, what's Quebec's role in this? If you can meet the requirements to amend the constitution, how can one province (Quebec) affect it so much?

At the time the Constitution was adopted in 1982, Rene' Levesque's separatist government in Quebec could not sign on without giving up the dream of independence. After his government was replaced by the federalist Liberals, they tried again to come up with a formula that Quebec could sign on to. The result was the Meech Lake Accord which failed. 

[Hates politicians]

On 10/3/2018 at 10:33 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

It requires opening up the Constitution. Have you forgotten Meech? Where are you going to find a Federal Government and all Provincial Governments stupid enough to do that? How would you weed out politicians running for President?

As for Her Excellency the GG, why don't you like her. She is a highly respected scientist and astronaut, not a politician. 

The queen and royal welfare bums are a waste of skin. I don't know payett and don't care. So what if she is a scientist. And an astronaut. That means nothing. The bureaucratic waste of money needs to gotten rid of period. It does nothing to run this country sucsesfully.

[JamesHackerMP]

Canada, I read, pays nothing to maintain the royal family, if that's what you were talking about. I also read no Canadian taxes go to the UK. (I guess the poms learned their lesson the hard way with the Americans, lol). I take it then that you would rather have a mostly-ceremonial president of Canada, than a GG? One you elect rather than is appointed by the PM's fiat? Many commonwealth countries have gone this route. T&T springs to mind.

Also, if you need the 7/50 requirement, couldn't that theoretically be done without Quebec's consent? Like, if the rest of the country met the requirement, couldn't they just tell Quebec to suck it up and live with it?

Edited October 7, 2018 by JamesHackerMP

[Queenmandy85]

50 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

couldn't they just tell Quebec to suck it up and live with it?

That would drive Quebec back into separation mode. Right now, separatist sentiment is at an all time low and the smart thing is to keep it that way. 

[JamesHackerMP]

16 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That would drive Quebec back into separation mode. Right now, separatist sentiment is at an all time low and the smart thing is to keep it that way. 

would it matter if they left?

[Queenmandy85]

It would split the Atlantic provinces off from the four western provinces, and cut access to the Atlantic for western Canada. Worse, it could potentially lead to civil war. Most Canadians and Quebecers would strive to make it peaceful but in the October Crisis of 1970, a dozen terrorists caused a crisis from coast to coast. If the separatist government was not very strong, they could face violent resistance from gangs of idiots that felt the government was too soft on "anglos" or others who wanted to stay in Canada. It doesn't take many terrorist groups to shake a government. Faced with that situation, the government of Quebec would have to call on the Canadian Forces to aid the civil power. That would create a domino effect. It could be similar to the OAS resistance in Algeria when France withdrew. 

The chances are, separation would go smoothly but the risk to Canada and Quebec is too great. We would eventually face the risk of being taken over by the US. When the FLQ became active in the mid-1960's, it seems McGeorge Bundy had contingency plans drawn up to send in the US Marines. (This Hour Has Sixty Minutes). The American people are wonderful neighbours but I don't want to be one of them.

Edited October 7, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[JamesHackerMP]

I understand your reasons in the first paragraph; but the idea of the maritime provinces, or the west, or all of the rump state of Canada, joining the States is pure fantasy. You have a completely different form of government than we do. There is no way either Americans or the ex-Canadians would ever "compromise" on their own uniqueness to form a union between states of a parliamentary government and those of a presidential one.

Yeah McGeorge Bundy was a whacko, wasn't he?

There was a book where it happened, about a long-buried "North America Treaty" of 1914, in which, for the sum of one billion dollars, the United States bought Canada from the UK, so it would have more  money to prosecute the war. Both copies of the treaty were lost, so Pres. Wilson wrote to Lloyd George and told him, never mind, it wasn't worth the trouble of re-negotiating. Flash forward to 1980s, and Quebec is seceding from Canada (the movement was agitated/instigated by the KGB of course) and there was an energy crisis in the midst, and Canada eventually breaks up once the treaty's original copy is found. Quebec becomes its own republic. It was a great read but I find it doubtful it would ever happen. I would never want to see Canada sacrifice its uniqueness and cease to be Canada just to suit a long-dead ambition of absorbing our separated brothers to the north. Canada would most likely become like Pakistan after the independence of the Indian Empire. (Remember how there was an East Pakistan, now Bangladesh?)

https://www.amazon.com/Night-Probe-Dirk-Pitt-Adventure/dp/0553394924/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539062984&sr=8-1&keywords=night+probe&dpID=51K%2Bo8GixaL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

I read about the 1970 crisis, a UK diplomat was killed as well as Quebec's deputy premier. (It was actually a random article on Wikipedia "on this day in....")

[Queenmandy85]

13 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I read about the 1970 crisis, a UK diplomat was killed as well as Quebec's deputy premier. (It was actually a random article on Wikipedia "on this day in....")

Actually, Jasper Cross, the UK diplomat was released in a deal that sent the kidnappers to Cuba. They hated Cuba so much that they chose prison in Canada and came home. Pierre Laporte was Quebec's Labour Minister and ended up being strangled in an attempt to escape. I think one of the kidnappers ended up working for the Federal Government after he got out of jail. We are a strange people.

[JamesHackerMP]

Ah, I stand corrected. That is rather strange....

[SpankyMcFarland]

The best ‘consultation process’ would be a non-binding plebiscite for the post of GG. That way, perhaps, we could circumvent the need for constitutional change and still get a popular GG as de facto head of state whose appointment would have nothing to do with the PM. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by SpankyMcFarland

[Hates politicians]

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The best ‘consultation process’ would be a non-binding plebiscite for the post of GG. That way, perhaps, we could circumvent the need for constitutional change and still get a popular GG as de facto head of state whose appointment would have nothing to do with the PM. 

Still a huge waste of money. They do nothing of value.

[Hates politicians]

On 10/6/2018 at 10:04 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

Canada, I read, pays nothing to maintain the royal family, if that's what you were talking about. I also read no Canadian taxes go to the UK. (I guess the poms learned their lesson the hard way with the Americans, lol). I take it then that you would rather have a mostly-ceremonial president of Canada, than a GG? One you elect rather than is appointed by the PM's fiat? Many commonwealth countries have gone this route. T&T springs to mind.

Also, if you need the 7/50 requirement, couldn't that theoretically be done without Quebec's consent? Like, if the rest of the country met the requirement, couldn't they just tell Quebec to suck it up and live with it?

When the royal welfare bums come here on vacation we pay for it. I say pay your own way you lazy good for nothing moochers. Get a job

[SpankyMcFarland]

18 hours ago, Hates politicians said:

Still a huge waste of money. They do nothing of value.

We should have a de facto head of state who is independent of the head of government, as many European countries do.