Canadian Flag Pledge

[g_bambino]

Hell, i (as do many Canadians) like the auditor general and GG more than pretty much all elected politicians in the House. That says a lot about our "democracy" doesn't it?

Yes, it says quite emphatically that our democracy is just fine as is. Tinkering and experimenting with unknowns is absolutely unnecessary.

[g_bambino]

While a PM could probably be able to ram it through anyway, the resulting shit storm would be a real deterrent to him appointing someone who was clearly partisan.

Responsible government at work.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes, it says quite emphatically that our democracy is just fine as is. Tinkering and experimenting with unknowns is absolutely unnecessary.

Please tell me how people liking the the auditor general and the GG more than our elected officials means our democracy is just fine as it is?

[Smallc]

Please tell me how people liking the the auditor general and the GG more than our elected officials means our democracy is just fine as it is?

Democracy isn't just about voting. Generally though, if there's a problem (based on how well we're doing in comparison to our peers, there isn't), it's the fault of the politically uneducated populace.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm thinkin that if a lot more Americans expressed their disapproval of who we have as our head of state, it might actually go a long way toward us keeping the Monarch.

And I'm thinkin it's sad that so many of you put so much stock in what Americans think or do that they make decisions regarding their country based on us.

Many Canadian nationalists harbour the bizarre fear that

should we ever reject royalty, we would instantly mutate

into Americans, as though the Canadian sense of self is so

frail and delicate a bud, that the only thing stopping it from

being swallowed whole by the U.S. is an English lady in a

funny hat.

- Will Ferguson, author Royal Flush ( )

Freda believes our southern neighbour is a major factor holding back republicanism in this country — one Australia and New Zealand didn’t face when republicanism bubbled up in those nations. Canada has a “love-hate relationship” with the U.S., he said, and many Canadians believe our constitutional monarchy sets us apart. Royal Dissent

I'd swear Canada is made up of two different types of Citizens: "Canadians" and "Not Americans."

Seems who the reigning monarch is is a factor too, meaning it's not so much belief in the system as such but more a matter of liking or disliking who's in power. Which, of course, no one has any say over.

.....same sex marriage is legal in all of Canada.

Ironic in a nation whose Constitution legalizes discrimination against Catholics, eh?

[g_bambino]

Please tell me how people liking the the auditor general and the GG more than our elected officials means our democracy is just fine as it is?

Because we have a system that keeps the selfish ambitions of the elected in check between elections. That is a key part of a stable - and thus strong - democracy.

[jbg]

How does the PM/gov picking the GG not make it partisan?

On November 10, 1975,in Australia, the GG chosen by left-wing PM Gough Whitlam turfed him, despite the fact that he was appointed on Mr. Whitlam's advice.

[TTM]

That actually could work. Now, who would select the lieutenant governors?

How about this: the GG is elected by senators, from the body of the Senate. It obviously works better if the Senate is elected, and if the Senate is reformed for equal representation from the provinces. If equal it is then (to some approximation) appointment of the GG by the provinces. This framework could likely be adapted to work provincially for the lieutenant governors as well. If the Senate is made elected, I would strip from them the power to introduce bills, to limit them to the traditional, though more active, "second sober thought" role. Elections of senators would occur in conjunction with Provincial elections, with a constant "churn" of Senators, rather than the all-at-once turnover of MPs. To help prevent abuse of the reserve powers in the GG, upon use of these powers, the GG must step down (permanently?), and a new GG elected.

On a marginally related note, suggested changes to rebalance the power away from the PM/Party Leaders and towards Parliament and their constituents:

The Prime Minister is chosen/confirmed by secret ballot on the opening of each session of Parliament (all MPs being eligible for the job). Party leaders chosen/confirmed the same way though by (elected) members of party only.

Significantly increase the number of MPs--smaller ridings = better representation (especially in small provinces), plus the greater number of "permanent backbenchers" = less incentive to tow the party line, more incentive to represent constituents.

All party candidates must be selected by an open vote, by a riding association. The candidate must have lived in the riding for at least 2 years. The party cannot reject the candidate selected. If it really does not like the candidate, it can dissolve the entire riding association (and the candidate can sit as an independent if already elected). Elected members cannot (immediately) cross the floor to another party, until they have passed the scrutiny of the riding association (via a riding association vote).

[g_bambino]

How about this: the GG is elected by senators, from the body of the Senate.

Politicises the office. Don't need that.

[Molly]

All party candidates must be selected by an open vote, by a riding association. The candidate must have lived in the riding for at least 2 years. The party cannot reject the candidate selected. If it really does not like the candidate, it can dissolve the entire riding association (and the candidate can sit as an independent if already elected). Elected members cannot (immediately) cross the floor to another party, until they have passed the scrutiny of the riding association (via a riding association vote).

There's a lot that's interesting in your post overall, but none of this part is any of our business. Political parties are private clubs. We have no more right or interest to pass legislation controlling things like this than if the club in question was 4-H, or soccer.

The parties can choose for themselves who they will or will not endorse, or the means by which they will make that decision. If you don't like the way they do it, then don't join that party (or do join, and change it from within). If you don't like the candidate and don't think they've been democratically selected, then don't vote for them.

I find it a bit scary that folks- even fairly knowledgeable folks- seem to assume a far greater government role for parties than they actually have, and that those parties are somehow mandated by and necessary to our government. Scares me,and annoys me.

[g_bambino]

I find it a bit scary that folks- even fairly knowledgeable folks- seem to assume a far greater government role for parties than they actually have, and that those parties are somehow mandated by and necessary to our government.

But the way parties work internally does have an effect on the way our system of governance operates. Regard how the mechanism for selecting party leaders leaves them barely accountable to their caucus which, in turn, makes backbencher MPs almost useless, meaning the prime minister and other ministers of the Crown are responsible not to the House of Commons, but to two or three individuals on the other side of the room. Our system of responsible government would function much better if parties selected their leaders differently.

[sp]

Edited May 31, 2011 by g_bambino

[Molly]

The Prime Minister is chosen/confirmed by secret ballot on the opening of each session of Parliament (all MPs being eligible for the job). Party leaders chosen/confirmed the same way though by (elected) members of party only.

The selection of party leaders is again, not the business of parliament, but of the parties...

and I'm creeped out by the use of secret ballots by MPs performing the business of the nation. I don't much care for secret ballot as it applies to the speaker, and I'd lead marches against it in the selection of a prime minister. There is NOTHING that an MP does on behalf of the people that should be outside the review of the folks that MP represents.

[TTM]

There's a lot that's interesting in your post overall, but none of this part is any of our business. Political parties are private clubs. We have no more right or interest to pass legislation controlling things like this than if the club in question was 4-H, or soccer.

The parties can choose for themselves who they will or will not endorse, or the means by which they will make that decision. If you don't like the way they do it, then don't join that party (or do join, and change it from within). If you don't like the candidate and don't think they've been democratically selected, then don't vote for them.

I find it a bit scary that folks- even fairly knowledgeable folks- seem to assume a far greater government role for parties than they actually have, and that those parties are somehow mandated by and necessary to our government. Scares me,and annoys me.

Parties form an integral part of our political system, and the internal workings and composition of parties has a significant impact on how our political system functions. Therefore, there can and should be rules as to how parties work. The point of this specific change is because "central" party interference in "local" party selection of candidates moves our system from a "representational" democracy, towards what is effectively a "party list" democracy, especially where seats are relatively safe, regardless of candidate. As to parties being just another other "club", 4-H membership does not get placed on a ballot beside a candidates name, parliament does not give you special rights if you have "official 4-H status", you are not named Prime Minister if you are the leader of the largest 4-H contingent, etc.

Edited May 31, 2011 by TTM

[TTM]

The selection of party leaders is again, not the business of parliament, but of the parties...

and I'm creeped out by the use of secret ballots by MPs performing the business of the nation. I don't much care for secret ballot as it applies to the speaker, and I'd lead marches against it in the selection of a prime minister. There is NOTHING that an MP does on behalf of the people that should be outside the review of the folks that MP represents.

Think of it as a redefinition of what "Party Leader" means. And these MPs are not "performing the business of the nation", they are naming officers of parliament. A secret ballot is the only way to get an unbiased selection.

[g_bambino]

A secret ballot is the only way to get an unbiased selection.

This isn't necessary. The prime minister is already selected, in essence, by the House of Commons.

[Dave_ON]

This isn't necessary. The prime minister is already selected, in essence, by the House of Commons.

Well I suppose in a sense, in as much as if the HoC doesn't expressly state there is no confidence he remains PM. I don't believe this is precisely what TTM was referring to however, as the absence of objection isn't the same as the presence of a direct mandate from parliament. Either way, would this differ in essence from our present situation? If a party leader commands a majority, how would he not become the PM? The only thing this could truly potentially affect is a minority situation.

[g_bambino]

[T]he absence of objection isn't the same as the presence of a direct mandate from parliament. Either way, would this differ in essence from our present situation?

As it is, so long as a person holds the confidence of the House of Commons, he will be retained as prime minister by the governor general. It isn't so much about the absence of objection; the confidence votes we already have are essentially what TTM suggests we need.

[c/e]

Edited May 31, 2011 by g_bambino

[TTM]

Well I suppose in a sense, in as much as if the HoC doesn't expressly state there is no confidence he remains PM. I don't believe this is precisely what TTM was referring to however, as the absence of objection isn't the same as the presence of a direct mandate from parliament. Either way, would this differ in essence from our present situation? If a party leader commands a majority, how would he not become the PM? The only thing this could truly potentially affect is a minority situation.

This suggestion does perhaps need some rethinking, but my thoughts at the time were (in order of importance):

* It moves the power to appoint and dismiss these critical positions in gov't into the hands of elected representatives, rather than the party machinery

* It shifts some of the balance of power between party leaders and regular MPs back to MPs.

* It would allow MPs the power to replace less popular/competent leaders with more popular/competent ones.

* It would allow things that are not possible under the current system: ex. an independant PM, or a PM who is not the party leader.

In practice for the most part in majorities this would not change anything. As an example of what might change, I imagine Cretien would have got the boot from Martin a little sooner, rather than leaving on his own terms. Where a party leader is not elected (ex. Ignatieff) caucus simply elects a new one from the talent present. In a minority things would get somewhat more interesting, if only because the leader of the largest party would not necessarily get first dibs.

[Molly]

Sorry Bambino- I lost your comment in x-post yesterday /would have replied directly and immediately had I seen it.

As to parties being just another other "club", 4-H membership does not get placed on a ballot beside a candidates name, parliament does not give you special rights if you have "official 4-H status", you are not named Prime Minister if you are the leader of the largest 4-H contingent, etc.

IMNSHO, party names should not appear on ballots either, and most otheracknowledgementsandpriveleges -fund raising, for instance- should only be acknowledged on a constituency/individual candidate basis. Parties are already given a far greater nod than they are due, and that standing should be trimmed, not expanded and/or firmed up. Parties are more of a parliamentary problem than a solution. The 'backbenchers are useless/all MPs are beholden to the in-crowd', while largely true, is a problem of too much acknowledgement/engagement with parties, not too little.

Someplace in all of this must come the realization that MPs are directly answerable to the people who elect them. If the people don't hold up their end by responsibily choosing who will represent them, and holding those individuals accountable (denying the parties that power by holding it themselves)then there is no amount of tinkering with party/parliamentary structure/relationship that will save them from their own neglect. The horse is already standing knee deep in the water....

[Dave_ON]

As it is, so long as a person holds the confidence of the House of Commons, he will be retained as prime minister by the governor general. It isn't so much about the absence of objection; the confidence votes we already have are essentially what TTM suggests we need.

[c/e]

I don't disagree in essence I suppose, but I do feel it is a somewhat backward means of achieving that. I suppose my central point is that, a vote of no confidence doesn't apply simply to the PM, but the government as a whole. Further, the issue is Parliament never gets to choose the PM, this is chosen on their behalf by convention, which they can then accept or deny at the throne speech or any other subsequent confidence motion. But if their objection is with the PM specifically and not the government as a whole what recourse do they truly have at present? A vote of no confidence topples the government in it's entirety.

Can parliament as a whole ask the GG to dismiss a sitting PM, yet still maintain that PM's government?

I don't think that parliament actively electing a PM from the get go is such a bad idea. Honestly, the notion of confidence of the house predates party politics, nevertheless the system still makes sense. If a party leader's party has a majority of the seats in the house, why would he not be elected PM? I suppose such a measure would be window dressing at best. About all it would affect is a minority situation, which would in turn create a number of different issues.

[Molly]

But if their objection is with the PM specifically and not the government as a whole what recourse do they truly have at present? A vote of no confidence topples the government in it's entirety.

That situation can't exist. By disapproving the PM, one is disapproving a primary/foundation decision made by that government. If they can't even be trusted to competently select their own leader, what can they trusted with? It's a little like saying you have a really great mechanic, except for the part about being incompetent at fixing/maintaining your car.

[Dave_ON]

That situation can't exist. By disapproving the PM, one is disapproving a primary/foundation decision made by that government. If they can't even be trusted to competently select their own leader, what can they trusted with? It's a little like saying you have a really great mechanic, except for the part about being incompetent at fixing/maintaining your car.

Indeed but this is a result of a convention that predates party politics in parliamentary systems. Once upon a time the PM was just the minister that commanded the confidence of the majority of parliament. There were no party leaders to become the defacto PM. All the same, the fact remains that as it stands now, even if a vote were held, we'd be in the same position regardless, with the possible exception of minority parliaments.

[Paris52]

I started school in Hamilton, Ontario, in 1969. At that time "The Pledge" recited at opening excercises was:

I promise, that I will be loyal,

to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and Canada.

That I will honour the flag,

observe the laws of my country,

and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen,

God be my helper.

Hope this helps!

[Amethyst]

Hi,

I would like to hear from anyone who can remember the pledge we used to make to the Canadian flag during "morning exercises" at school in the 60's and 70's. I distinctly remember after entering class, singing 'God Save the Queen', reciting a quick quote from the Bible, and then saluting the Flag and saying something like " I salute the flag, the emblem of my country, to which...." or something along those lines. Anyone else in the forum that remembers this and can tell me the pledge? I have checked the maple leaf web site and it states there is no recognized pledge. But we did this for years at school. I am from Alberta. Was this unique to our schools?

Hope someone can help. Regards

I work in a school in Calgary and we salute the flag at each assembly after singing O Canada. "I salute the flag, the emblem of my country, to her I pledge my love and loyalty."

[Michael Hardner]

Interesting yet uncontroversial.