Canadian Flag Pledge

[g_bambino]

Were British, now we ain't. So why not remove some of the easily removable brit legacies and replace them with uniquely identifiable ones created by Canadians, for Canadians.

Some? Which ones? And why? For some sanitised, manufactured Canadiana?

I wonder, do you wish to also erradicate any sign of our French heritage?

[sp]

Edited May 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

I agree, is it outdated and unnecessary.

People make these kinds of flippant comments all the time but then fail utterly to come up with some alternative that's better; ideas like having the opposition elect the president don't cut it just because they're hip because they've never been tried before. Politicising the head of state isn't an improvement - the referee shouldn't be one of the players - and guaranteeing he will always be at odds with the prime minister who's supposed to be advising him makes it even worse.

The inability to agree on what would be better than constitutional monarchy was what led to republicans' failure in Australia and has dogged them for the more than ten years since their referendum on the matter, and it's the exact same problem Canada's miniscule republican "movement" faces now.

[Smallc]

The only way to change and keep what we have would be to have the GG be our head of state and be selected by a committee (as was done this time, as is done with the Order of Canada, and as could be done with senators, btw). They could be voted out the same way the monarch can be voted out if necessary. I don't see much of an alternative to keep a non partisan head of state system in tact.

That said, I don't see a a reason to get rid of the monarchy...though I very much favour the above while keeping them.

[Wilber]

You can recognize your history without keeping an essentially British flag, with a few edits, as your own. History is great, blah blah blah, but time to move ahead. I recognize the fact that I came out of my mother's vagina, but i don't wear a patch of my mother's vagina on my jacket sleeve.

Were British, now we ain't. So why not remove some of the easily removable brit legacies and replace them with uniquely identifiable ones created by Canadians, for Canadians.

I'm not saying we should keep an essentially British flag but some people don't feel the need to dispense with their past in order to be grownups. You are your history whether you like it or not.

[Wilber]

WMaybe "'victimized" is too harsh a word, since we kept Brit ties post-confederation because we also benefited from them (ie: military protection). But we were greatly dependent and subservient to Britain on a great many political functions following Confederation until 1982. I've mentioned some in this thread already not long ago (ie: Statute of Westminster, JCPC, constitutional amendments etc.) too lazy to repeat.

We weren't greatly dependent or subservient but some things did have to go through Westminster and some would say that was often a good thing as it removed partisanship from the equation. Regardless, we are no longer.

[Guest American Woman]

I agree, is it outdated and unnecessary. I don't see much of a problem with appointing a GG, and they becoming our highest official head of state. I just don't want the GG appointed by the PM, since the PM already has too much power and the GG is supposed to act as a check on the PM/government's power. How about letting the official opposition choose the appointment of the GG, and keep it non-partisan?

I would agree that a GG independent of the crown should not be chosen by the PM. From what I've read, your PM has a lot of power for one individual, so at first thought, having the opposition chose the GG actually sounds like a pretty good idea - unless the new system, free of the monarchy, would have a different balance of power.

An elected GG, or "president", causes its own problems with partisan gridlock and whatnot. The GG seems to have done a fine job in recent history.

Is the role of the GG totally a non-political role? I really don't understand the objection to the GG being the actual head of state, and thus removing the religious discrimination attached to the position - as well as the favoring of males over females. The system is rather archaic, at best. At worst, it would seem the discrimination against Catholics in the Constitution would be at odds with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But it will still be a few decades before this will likely happen, as older Canadians still have fond attachments to the monarchy that many younger people do not.

Do you think it's older Canadians in general, or do you think it's that the older generation has a higher percentage of British roots? With all of the immigrants settling in Canada, I can't imagine the younger generation having any particular attachment to the British monarchy. It sounds as if the majority of Canadians polled already think there should be an end to it. I also read that in a poll that took place in 2002, only 5% of Canadians could correctly identify Queen Elizabeth as Canada's head of state.

[Moonlight Graham]

People make these kinds of flippant comments all the time but then fail utterly to come up with some alternative that's better; ideas like having the opposition elect the president don't cut it just because they're hip because they've never been tried before. Politicising the head of state isn't an improvement - the referee shouldn't be one of the players - and guaranteeing he will always be at odds with the prime minister who's supposed to be advising him makes it even worse.

Simply make the GG our head of state. Replace the Queen with the GG, with the GG selection process the same as now. That would be the easiest alternative i can think of.

[Moonlight Graham]

WMaybe "'victimized" is too harsh a word, since we kept Brit ties post-confederation because we also benefited from them (ie: military protection). But we were greatly dependent and subservient to Britain on a great many political functions following Confederation until 1982. I've mentioned some in this thread already not long ago (ie: Statute of Westminster, JCPC, constitutional amendments etc.) too lazy to repeat.

Oh, and here's my favorite: there was no such legal entity called a "Canadian citizen" until the 1947 Canadian Citizenship Act. Before then, we were all British subjects.

For someone like me who didn't live through most of these events, it's amazing to me how long it took Canada to become legally independent from Britain.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

Is the role of the GG totally a non-political role?

Certainly not. The GG has certain "reserve powers", which by convention they rarely use but it provides a check on abuse of power by the PM/government. For example, the GG can refuse the PM's recommendation of proroguing parliament or calling an election, can refuse appointments, refuse to ascent bills, and dismiss the PM if they refuse to step down after an election (which actually did occur in the late 19th century).

[g_bambino]

Simply make the GG our head of state. Replace the Queen with the GG, with the GG selection process the same as now. That would be the easiest alternative i can think of.

It's nonsensical. As it is now, the prime minister recommends to the Queen a person she should appoint as governor general; eliminate the Queen, and who, exactly, does the prime minister make the recommendation to? Himself? So we'd have a head of state who's subject to the prime minister. Why bother, then? The prime minister would really become head of state, with one of the main checks against his abuse of executive power entirely jettisoned. Nobody should want that.

And the suggestion doesn't at all take the provinces into account. I don't think they'd take kindly at all to their chief executives - and thus governments - being subject to the whims of the prime minister.

[+]

Edited May 29, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The only way to change and keep what we have would be to have the GG be our head of state and be selected by a committee (as was done this time, as is done with the Order of Canada, and as could be done with senators, btw).

The question is: Who chooses this committee? Who is it accountable to? How often must it choose a president? And, how does it keep from becoming politicised?

[Guest American Woman]

Certainly not. The GG has certain "reserve powers", which by convention they rarely use but it provides a check on abuse of power by the PM/government. For example, the GG can refuse the PM's recommendation of proroguing parliament or calling an election, can refuse appointments, refuse to ascent bills, and dismiss the PM if they refuse to step down after an election (which actually did occur in the late 19th century).

I didn't think it was non-political, so that being the case, how does one keep it non-partisan? Seems to me by the opposition making the selection, it would be partisan - but a check on whatever party was in the office of PM. Yet as I think about it, it might be unwelcome to have the opposition make the choice if a vast majority supports the party in office. Which brings me to - Why couldn't the people elect the GG? And since the queen has no power and simply approves whoever the PM nominates, how would anything be any different if the PM just continued to appoint the GG? And since the PM does appoint the PM since the queen's approval is a given, seems to me that makes the position political and partisan since the PM isn't going to nominate anyone that he thinks is going to go against him.

[g_bambino]

Why couldn't the people elect the GG?

We don't want a partisan politician as head of state. This makes the office divisive, since it must be fought over by candidates put forward or supported by parties and the winner will always alienate a large chunk of the population. It also creates potential for difficulties in governance: There is the issue of cohabitation that Russia, France, Italy, India and other parliamentary republics suffer from, wherein the president and prime minister are politically opposed to one another but both claim to have the mandate to push their preference.

And since the queen has no power and simply approves whoever the PM nominates...

The key fact is: the Queen does not have to approve everything and anything the prime minister recommends she do. She retains very important reserve powers to prevent the prime minister from abusing for his own benefit the constitution and the executive power lent to him. It's that power that nobody knows what to do with should the monarch be eliminated; giving it to a partisan, political president who must factor into his decision making what the Queen need not - i.e. what he thinks either voters and/or his party will find most appealing, rather than focusing on the constitutional requirements - is not an improvement on the current situation. As I keep saying, the referee shouldn't be a player on one of the teams.

[c/e]

Edited May 29, 2011 by g_bambino

[Remiel]

The key fact is: the Queen does not have to approve everything and anything the prime minister recommends she do. She retains very important reserve powers to prevent the prime minister from abusing for his own benefit the constitution and the executive power lent to him. It's that power that nobody knows what to do with should the monarch be eliminated; giving it to a partisan, political president who must factor into his decision making what the Queen need not - i.e. what he thinks either voters and/or his party will find most appealing, rather than focusing on the constitutional requirements - is not an improvement on the current situation. As I keep saying, the referee shouldn't be a player on one of the teams.

This could actually become more problematic, at least in the UK if not here, when Charles likely eventually succeeds his mother. There was an article I read not so long ago that he very much engages in political activities unbecoming of a monarch, though I suppose it may be hasty too judge that he would continue to abuse his position once he was on the throne.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Remiel

[g_bambino]

This could actually become more problematic, at least in the UK if not here, when Charles likely eventually succeeds his mother. There was an article I read not so long ago that he very much engages in political activities unbecoming of a monarch, though I suppose it may be hasty too judge that he would continue to abuse his position once he was on the throne.

The media that loves to attack Charles rarely takes account of the fact that, despite being heir to the thrones of 16 countries, the Prince is still a subject of the crowns like all others. As heir, he is, of course, also not like all others and, yes, he can be quite opinionated on certain matters. However, as he is either the founder or patron of many charities, I'm not sure how he could avoid speaking in favour of their various causes. I've yet to ever hear of him wading into politics, i.e. giving support to one party or another.

When he becomes king, I doubt he'll have much option other than to curtail these activities of his, lest he end up with the same fate as his great uncle Edward. But, he will still, as sovereign, be entitled to advise, encourage, and warn his ministers, though he'd best keep it private and act on their advice, regardless (unless it is unconstitutional), as is essential.

[sp]

Edited May 29, 2011 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

The question is: Who chooses this committee? Who is it accountable to? How often must it choose a president? And, how does it keep from becoming politicised?

The committee could be chosen at random from say, all of the university professors in the country. Just throwing ideas. Like I said, I don't see a reason for change.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Smallc

[Moonlight Graham]

It's nonsensical. As it is now, the prime minister recommends to the Queen a person she should appoint as governor general; eliminate the Queen, and who, exactly, does the prime minister make the recommendation to? Himself? So we'd have a head of state who's subject to the prime minister. Why bother, then? The prime minister would really become head of state, with one of the main checks against his abuse of executive power entirely jettisoned. Nobody should want that.

And the suggestion doesn't at all take the provinces into account. I don't think they'd take kindly at all to their chief executives - and thus governments - being subject to the whims of the prime minister.

[+]

That's why i suggest the official opposition do it. That doesn't make it partisan, it simply removes the PM's power to appoint his/her own power check.

If you don't like either of those, then what about selection by a multi-party committee? Or let the Senate appoint it, or a multiparty senate committee? Or let the provincial premiers choose. Or throw some alphabet soup on the floor and see whose name it most resembles. Or elect a president.

The main point is, we have many options beyond having the monarch as our head of state.

[Moonlight Graham]

The question is: Who chooses this committee? Who is it accountable to? How often must it choose a president? And, how does it keep from becoming politicised?

People have problems with appointments. But appointing non-partisan positions such as the auditor general and the GG shows that the can and often do stay non-partisan and can function very well. 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?

[Smallc]

That's why i suggest the official opposition do it. That doesn't make it partisan,

How in the world does that not make it partisan?

[Moonlight Graham]

How in the world does that not make it partisan?

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

I mean that just because the opposition chose the GG, that doesn't mean the GG will act in a partisan way if their role is to be bipartisan, like GG is now, or the auditor general, or speaker of the house.

[Smallc]

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

It could be partisan right now, and sometimes is. The difference is that the GG isn't the head of state right now. Under your scenario they would be. Of course, it would work most of the time, but if this is ever done, the decision should be taken out of the hands of Parliament.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Smallc

[Wilber]

It could be partisan right now, and sometimes is. The difference is that the GG isn't the head of state right now. Under your scenario they would be. Of course, it would work most of the time, but if this is ever done, the decision should be taken out of the hands of Parliament.

Interesting point. The position of the Monarch is a check on possible abuse when it comes to the PM recommending a GG. While it is unlikely, if public opinion was adamant against the appointment of a particular person as GG, the Monarch could veto it. 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.

Politicians are always considering optics. The optics in such a case would be really bad. In our present system, because the potential consequences cannot be foreseen, it is in the governments best interest to pick the most qualified person possible. Subject of course to language, gender and other politically correct considerations.

[Remiel]

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

I mean that just because the opposition chose the GG, that doesn't mean the GG will act in a partisan way if their role is to be bipartisan, like GG is now, or the auditor general, or speaker of the house.

I think I must agree with Smallc here that what you are suggesting is, at best, kind of pointless. Allowing the future-Prime Minister to appoint the position is only neglibly better that allowing the current-Prime Minister.

I also think, however, that your suggestion for the Premiers selecting could be workable (and a somewhat appropriate throwback to the federal nature of the country). I would suggest under such a system it must, however, be unanimous consensus, and perhaps with the additional provision that nominations for consideration be in some way public.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Remiel

[Smallc]

I also think, however, that your suggestion for the Premiers selecting could be workable

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

[g_bambino]

That's why i suggest the official opposition do it. That doesn't make it partisan...

Having the president elected by the opposition most certainly does make the winner partisan; not only will he likely be favourable to the largest party in opposition, he'd be beholden to the majorty who voted for him within that party.

If you don't like either of those, then what about selection by a multi-party committee? Or let the Senate appoint it, or a multiparty senate committee? Or let the provincial premiers choose. Or throw some alphabet soup on the floor and see whose name it most resembles. Or elect a president.

None of those avoid politicising the office. They're technically feasible, but, they all have drawbacks and, the question is: are they outweighed by the benefits? Given that I can't see one benefit that would come from any of those proposed alternatives, the answer then seems to be: no.