Martin snubs the royal visit

[Leafless]

The coming release of the Gommery report has it seems frightened the Liberals.

According to local media Paul Martin turned down Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles request to come to Canada this fall because he fears an "ambush" by the oppositon that could force an election.

As a result of this Prince Charles and Camilla will spend their week in the U.S. visiting New York City, Washington and San Fransisco.

It seems Mr. Martin has forgotten Canada is a constitutional monarchy and the Queen is 'Queen of Canada' and the federal government has an obligation to welcome the royal familly when the situation arises.

I think the real reason could be was not the "ambush" but rather he doesn't want to be seen by Quebec as pandering to the monarchy especially when Senator David Smith was asked the likelihood of such an ambush replied "It's less than 50-50, but it's not zero."

[newbie]

deleted

[Leafless]

newbie

You wrote "deleted."

I gather you don't have much respect either how Paul Martin treats our royal family.

[Leader Circle]

Nah Newbie is a Liberal loving kinda poster. He would defend the Liberals if Martin took money right from his pocket. Blindly following a moron and his merry group of thieves.

It baffles the mind!

[newbie]

Nah Newbie is a Liberal loving kinda poster. He would defend the Liberals if Martin took money right from his pocket. Blindly following a moron and his merry group of thieves.

It baffles the mind!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice troll attempt.

[BHS]

When you say "this fall" do you mean now or 2006? Because I don't see an election happening now. The soonest it could take place would be two weeks before Christmas. If the Conservatives are too cowardly to force an election during the summer, do you really think they'd be stupid enough to force one during the run-up to the busiest social time of the year? Especially after they've let the Gomery advantage slip through their fingers?

[Leafless]

BHS

"When you say this fall"

That''s the irony of the whole situation.

I doubt also there will be a fall or winter election depending how you look at and the cancellation of the royal visit is simply a manouvre to buy Quebec votes by the Liberals by excluding the perception of pandering to the royal family which is fairly close regardless to a predicted spring election.

[BHS]

So PMPM baselessly accusing the opposition of preparing to force a Fall election is really an indication of his own plans to call a Spring election. Interesting, and entirely believable.

[Semperfi_dani]

Hi all! My name is Danielle, I am 28 and from Edmonton. I do not belong to any political party, rather I vote for the candidate that will best represent my interests and for the party that I agree with at the time. So in the time I have been able to vote, my votes have been pretty evenly split between conservative and liberal. Yes...my vote has to be earned...hahaha.

Ok..back to the topic. In all honesty, does it matter? Why should the tax payer have to foot the bill for his validation tour? Does he really need to come to Canada to validate the new wife? Do we have to pay for it? In the big scheme of life, Canada has way more important things to worry about than hurting the feelings of royalty.

It seems Mr. Martin has forgotten Canada is a constitutional monarchy and the Queen is 'Queen of Canada' and the federal government has an obligation to welcome the royal familly when the situation arises.

Hi..nice to meet you! In all due respect, the only obligation we have is to welcome the sitting monarch, which in this case is HRH Queen Elizabeth II and her spouse HRH Prince Philip. The obligation does not extend to royal family members. Its something nice we occasionally do..but until Charles becomes King we are not obligated to host him.

[Leafless]

Semperfi_dani

You wrote-"The obligation does not extend to royal family members."

Of course Canada accommodates 'The House Of Windsor' royal family on 'OFFICIAL VISITS'.

Here is a list of royal visits since 1953 both private and official.

http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cp...-rf/visit_e.cfm

[Semperfi_dani]

Canada will host anyone who comes here..of course.

But vistits, official or otherwise, need to be mutually agreed upon by both sides in order to be formerly hosted for extended members of the family.

The only actual obligation we have in regards to "non mutual" agreements is the sitting monarch, who could call tomorrow and say "I want to come to Canada next week" and we as taxpayers would be obliged to foot the bill of accomodation and security without question.

So Charles, not being a sitting monarch, needs to have his visits cleared before hand.

And yah, while it sucks from a monarchists point of view to not have the visit, I am sure the average tax payer cold care less.

[Semperfi_dani]

And also remember at the time the calls were initiated, there was a very high chance that an election could have been called. And who knows..and election could still be called.

Both the Bloc and the Conservative Party has rumbled in opposition of the Ammendent to the Official Languages Act. (Bill S-3 I think its called). The Bloc outright oppose it. The Conservatives will only agree if their ammendment of non-application to provinces goes through (which would considerably weaken the bill).

So it could be something like this that could turn the tide. You never know.

[Leafless]

Semperfi_dani

People like you make me sick to discard the monarchy as trivial.

Historically the monarchy is a historical reminder of the British conquest of Canada and who knows what Canada would be like to-day if this was not FACT.

It also sets up Prime Ministers like Paul Martin who fully takes full advantage of the dictatorial qualities of our government being both a parliamentry democract and a constitutional monarchy.

The PM and his government has the power in Canada to appoint:

1- Governor General of Canada

2- Lieutenant Governors of all provinces

3- Governors of the territories

4- Members of the Senate

5- Supreme Court Judges

6-Clerk of the Privy Council

7-Cabinet Ministers and their deputies (who control every aspect of life in Canada)

8- Ambassdors to foreign countrie and Consuls

9-Canada's representative to the United Nations

10- Chiefs of the armed forces

11.- chiefs of the RCMP and security Agencies (CSIS)

12- Heads of the Crown Corporations

13- Head of CBC ans it's directors

14- Commissioner of Official languages

15- Bilingualism Czar of Cabinet rank

16- Head of Prime ministers Office

17- Governor of the Bank of Canada

18- President of the Tresury Board

19- Heads of all government sponsered Commissions

20- Members of the Human rights Tribunal

21- His own Ethics Councilor

So you see Semperfi the ramifications of our monarchy have been of great importance but have been abused when combined with immigration and Quebec interest and Liberal ideoligies.

I to would like to see IMMEDIATE electoral reform or the transformaton to a repulic as this would reduce the dictatorial aspects Canadains have to endure in a co-called democratic country.

[Guest eureka]

And who would make the appointments in your "Golden" Republic.

[Semperfi_dani]

People like you make me sick to discard the monarchy as trivial.

So i went back in my post, which states political fact, trying to see where i discarded the monarchy as trivial. I didn't see any to warrant an immature statement as is quoted.

In fact, I am very much in support of the monarchy in so much as the way the constitutional monarchy of right now stands. So where you got that statement...I suspect out of your ass....baffles me.

All I stated was does it matter if a man who has himself changed the way the monarchy functions (divorce, remarriage) warrants a stop and drop roll out as a validation tour for the new wife. When those plans were initiated, at the time, there was a very good chance of election. If you fully respected the monarchy leafless, you would respect that in good nature, the Royal family should not visit a country during an election, as it would show bias.

I suspect i might have to type slowly for you to understand the rules. Btw..thanks for the History lesson. I will add that to my History degree credit.

[Leafless]

Semperfi_dani

Your own words- "the average taxpayer could care less".

From your posts it certaintly indicated you question the importance concerning visits from the royal family as being a burden on the tax payers purse as well as discount the fact Canada always has accommodated members of the royal family.

There are people who don't support the monarchy and you sounded like one of them.

[Semperfi_dani]

Does that change the fact that the average tax payer could care less? There have been countless times in when the question of footing the bill has come up. When there are a great number of people that would do away with the monarchy altogether.

Yes Canada has rightfully so accomodated the royal family in the past. But the conditions have to be there. When the governing party could fall at any opportunity, especially after next week with the release of the Gomery report, would the conditions be right to have them over? No.

Who knows, maybe next year they will be hosted. But now is not the time. And when government spending these days is under such scrutiny, it does not make sense to accomodate a royal couple at the nations expense right at this very moment.

It would be one thing if there was a major event going on that would warrent an invitation. But nothing is coming up and for a royal to call and invite themselves over...

So I am not slamming the monarchy. I am not saying...boo monarchy, lets become a republic. I am saying however that there is a time and a place for a royal visit.

[Leafless]

eureka

You wrote- "And who would make the appointments in your "Golden" Republic.

Many of these appointments could be qualified individuals provincially nominated for the positon and voted on by MP's from all political parties combined.

There are many other ways to accomplish this and no process is perfect but almost anything would beat the unilateral biased way this is accomplished now.

[Semperfi_dani]

Hey..for the record..if there was a vote to make Canada into a republic..i would vote a sound no..unless I became queen in lieu of. I would than make you Leafless my advisor on all things monarchy. I would insist on a four day work week. hahahaa.

Now, all i ask in return is that they change the 20 to a picture of moi! I think i will opt for a image of Anne of Green Gables house on the back!

Hehehe. Just kidding.

[g_bambino]

The only actual obligation we have in regards to "non mutual" agreements is the sitting monarch, who could call tomorrow and say "I want to come to Canada next week" and we as taxpayers would be obliged to foot the bill of accomodation and security without question.

So Charles, not being a sitting monarch, needs to have his visits cleared before hand.

This is incorrect.

The reigning monarch cannot simply call and say "I'm coming over, get the canapés ready!" Rather, as the Queen always follows the advice of her ministers, a Royal Visit by HM will be instigated by a request from the federal government, and is organised between Ottawa and Buckingham Palace (note: not the British government, though any engagements in HM's schedule involving her role in the Westminster Parliament -- Throne Speech -- would have to be taken into account).

This is the same for any other member of the Royal Family coming on an Official Visit (as opposed to a working visit), including the heir to our throne, except that for him the itinerary is worked out between Ottawa and Clarence House.

And yah, while it sucks from a monarchists point of view to not have the visit, I am sure the average tax payer cold care less.

Condoleeza Rice just visited Canada, with expense to the Canadian taxpayer -- do you think many of them could "care less"? Or, because she is from the US administration, she is more important?

The future King of Canada would have stopped in Ottawa before heading to the US. I believe his request to visit here first was to show his commitment to Canada above the US, as well as to simply meet with Canadians, as our Liberal government hasn't invited him for so long (of course, to make us dumb voters believe he doesn't have anything to do with this country). Had he come, he would have arrived in the US directly from Canada, and our government could have asked him, in advance, to diplomatically raise the softwood lumber issue, or some other pressing matter like passports at the border, at one of his two meals with George W. It, by no means, would bring about an immediate resolution, but the heir to the Canadian throne would be an important voice for our side.

Would that not be worth some Canadian tax dollars? He is, after all, one of our top public servants.

The rejection of HRH's request would all have been decided months ago, when maybe the Liberals thought there would be an election around now. But, I doubt it, as the date of the release of Gomery's report was fixed, and even if there had been an election, Prince Charles currently has no constitutional role, and his presence here would mean nothing to political matters. After all, the Royal Family isn't forced out of the UK during an election there.

Rather, I think the politicians merely don't want Charles taking away any of their media coverage. And heaven forbid he should speak with Bush on behalf of Canada -- that might make people think Charles will actually be our king one day. President Martin does not like that...

[g_bambino]

I to would like to see IMMEDIATE electoral reform or the transformaton to a repulic as this would reduce the dictatorial aspects Canadains have to endure in a co-called democratic country.

I fail to see how a republic would immediately bring an end to all of Canada's governmental problems. Republics do not automatically equal democracy.

Canada functioned for over a century as a constitutional monarchy and never suffered from the "democratic deficit" before. As well, other countries like Australia, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, New Zealand, and many others are constitutional monarchies like Canada and don't have a "dictatorial" prime minister.

All the mess we face now started with Trudeau's reforms of the 1960s and 70s, where he tried to graft republican aspects onto a monarchical system, sucking more and more power into the PMO, making the position more and more the de-facto president of Canada. Trudeau wanted a socialist republic, and in many ways the Liberals today continue to work towards that, though surreptitiously so as to avoid the near impossible task of constitutional change as well as maintaining power uncontested by any monarch, governor general, or real president.

Electoral reform, changes to the appointment process, maybe even an elected Senate (like Australia) could be beneficial, but becoming a republic is not the answer.

[g_bambino]

Many of these appointments could be qualified individuals provincially nominated for the positon and voted on by MP's from all political parties combined.

By having the Members of Parliament vote for the occupant of the aforementioned offices means the post would cease to be an appointed one and would become an elected one.

Many of the positions are also supposed to be apolitical (Governor General, Lieutenant Governors, Commissioners of the territories, Supreme Court Judges, Ambassadors and High Commissioners, Chiefs of the armed forces, chiefs of the RCMP and security Agencies (CSIS), etc.), hence they are supposed to be appointed by, and owe their allegiance to, the Crown, not the political and ever-changing government. By making them elected they automatically become far more politically partisan than they have already been made today, and would be more beholden to Parliament than to the Crown.

There are many other ways to accomplish this and no process is perfect but almost anything would beat the unilateral biased way this is accomplished now.

Certainly, but becoming a republic where every office of government on the federal, provincial and municipal level, as well as within the military and judiciary, is elected would be more like the US than anything else, and most likely wouldn't function in our Westminster Parliamentary system.

[mcqueen625]

When you say "this fall" do you mean now or 2006? Because I don't see an election happening now. The soonest it could take place would be two weeks before Christmas. If the Conservatives are too cowardly to force an election during the summer, do you really think they'd be stupid enough to force one during the run-up to the busiest social time of the year? Especially after they've let the Gomery advantage slip through their fingers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What are you talking about when you say the Conservatives let it slip through their fingers? It was the NDP and the Bloc who kept the Liberals afloat as long as this, not the Conservatives. God help Canada if the people of Ontario put this bunch of thieves back into office, and God help the NDP who think they have deals in place with the Liberal's, because if the Liberal's achieve a clear majority, those promises could turn out to be nothing but smoke, and Layton, the NDP and the Bloc will look like what they are, fools.