Retain the Monarchy in Canada?

[Pieman]

 will give the professor credit though - I am sure Pieman has misrepresented his idea in some basically drastic ways - he as much as admits doing so in the initial post.

In the discussion, the details of how this would happen and the legalities never came up. He would have an understanding of that, but did not express them. The basis of the entire discussion was the impact of having a monarchy and the value it would have to us. So that is why the details 'how' are not there. It is not really the point of the discussion. So I don't think I misrepresented the central idea of this topic. The idea of this topic is that through the examination of it, no matter how unrealistic, other ideas/values are exposed which are related.

 

[Garbageman]

Mechanically, this idea may be a fair bit more difficult to implement than it first appears.  As it's currently enshrined, the Queen's Representative in Canada (i.e. the GG) is the Head of State.  So a great deal of constitutional change would be required to change this to a new line of Sovereign entirely.  Constitutional change requires consensus from the provinces, and I can't see Quebec ever agreeing.  If the monarchy came up for debate, I'm quite certain that Quebec's stance would be to completely abolish it or nothing (even with Charest in power).

As for the logistical costs, well the GG's already got herself a nice little palace, so just put William's name on the lease instead.  That and a cheap membership for him at Lavalife (en francais) should just about do it.  Think Celine Dion would ever divorce for him?

 

[Torlyn]

a) what mechanism we could use to effect these changes
b) a single practical benefit of having enacted these changes
c) a single reason to even consider these changes in the first place, beyond a visceral reaction to the current GG

If you want to couch your proposal in some form of coherent presentation, perhaps there would be something to discuss.

a) Now, as Canada is a constitutional monarchy, technically all we need is the Queen to decide for us..  However, as we're looking for something a bit more practical, we would need to amend the constitution.  Monarchy Accords, anyone?  Given our historical failures at changing our constitution (by failures, I mean we have yet to institute any, whether they be good or bad) I doubt we would be able to change the constition as such.

b) PRACTICALLY speaking, we don't need a G.G...  A constitutional change to abolish the position would be practical.  (ie save money, reduce governmental bureaucracy and eliminate a figure-head position)  I mean, aren't our ambassadors supposed to be the ones representing Canada abroad?  The reigning monarch in England is still capable of stamping her seal of approval on any passed legislation, calling an election, dissolving parliament, etc.  However, I agree with Pieman that I think the Monarchy is one of the things that makes Canada what it is, so I would rather keep it than not.  Having a Canadian King/Queen could maybe allow Canadians in general to be able to better associate or define the "Canadian" character.  When the GG position was first created, it was done so because the reigning Monarch was too busy running the British Empire, and delegated the responsibilities out.  Perhaps now that the Queen isn't so busy, she'd like to (or ask her grandson to) take over that role?  Doubtful, yes, but it's an idea.

c) This one I cannot add anything...  I would like to see the change occur, but only from the standpoint that I personally like the idea.  Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson is a well educated, well spoken individual, with many merits to her name, and I applaud her for what she has achieved.  Due to personal experience however, I cannot support her position as GG.  Just my opinion, that's it.  I believe that she would be capable of serving Canada better were she to be in a different role, perhaps as an ambassador, or even an elected position.  (I think she's got the intelligence for PM, but, that isn't always a pre-requisite, is it?)

T

 

[Torlyn]

As for the logistical costs, well the GG's already got herself a nice little palace, so just put William's name on the lease instead.  That and a cheap membership for him at Lavalife (en francais) should just about do it.  Think Celine Dion would ever divorce for him?

Hmm...  Queen Celine?  I'm sure she'd be okay with it...  Hopefully King Bill can find a better catch...  Avril Lavigne?  :'(

T

 

[Garbageman]

Hey, whatever happened to Mitsu?  Remember "Bye bye, mon cowboy"?  I'm pretty sure she's looking for work.

 

[Torlyn]

Hey, whatever happened to Mitsu?  Remember "Bye bye, mon cowboy"?  I'm pretty sure she's looking for work.

Much better choice...  Hey!  WE could change the anthem to reflect that while we're at it...  "Bonjour, mon canada" sung to that tune?  Hmm...  Catchy.  ;D

T

 

[Infanteer]

Why don't we broaden the powers of the Governor General and have the position become an elected executive office and then we can avoid this whole stupid conversation.

 

[Torlyn]

Why don't we broaden the powers of the Governor General and have the position become an elected executive office and then we can avoid this whole stupid conversation.

Elected monarchy?  Alrighty then...  How would you propose we go about it?  As Michael pointed out earlier, if you're so certain that it's a dumb idea, perhaps you should explain yourself, instead of killing bandwidth.

 

[Infanteer]

Elected monarchy?  Alrighty then...  How would you propose we go about it?

I have done so on this thread a few times.  Here is an example

http://army.ca/forums/threads/17308.0.html

As Michael pointed out earlier, if you're so certain that it's a dumb idea, perhaps you should explain yourself, instead of killing bandwidth.

I believe Michael captured the essence of the thread by stating that "Fantasizing about Prince William porking some hot babe from Quebec isn't really an interesting or entertaining method of discussing governmental change."

But thanks for the advice.

 

[Pieman]

Having an elected monarchy is an idea, but I feel it lacks the allure of a real monarchy. It makes the position less meaningful to me. Sorry there are those here who feel this is not an interesting or exciting way of discussing this topic, but others seem to be having fun with it.

  If the monarchy came up for debate, I'm quite certain that Quebec's stance would be to completely abolish it or nothing (even with Charest in power).

Yes, I can certainly see that happening too. But what if further french accommodations are made to have the french population accept the idea? Having a french Canadian Queen is one thing, perhaps there are additional steps that could be made. Having the couple reside in Quebec might be another step. Any ideas? How would one alter a monarchy so that the French Canadian population would not just accept it, but embrace it?

How old would that 'mon coyboy' girl be now anyway? She might be a tad old for either of the Princes now lol.

 

[Garbageman]

Come to think of it, Alberta might present just as much a problem, if not more than Quebec in convincing that there is a need for constitutional change.  Unless of course you could tack on a rider that included an elected Senate! 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Now that we got rid of the Prince porking......etc.
I think we could totally disband the position of GG, not that this one hasn't FAR exceeded anything I expected from her, its just that the money [along with the greatly reduced Senate] that could be saved has a far better use.
....I'm thinking Olympic athletes[ameteur] but feel free to insert your choice here.
Will probably have more to say when I sober up! ;D
By the way Pieman, saw Mitsou on a talk show not long ago....not too old at all!

 

[Kirkhill]

Elected monarchy is an old idea.  The King of Scots used to be the either "last man standing" with the requisite blood line or the member or the royal family best considered suitable to lead by the Earls.  None of your poncie continental notions of primo geniture there.  That notion was introduced to Scotland by the Stewarts  - nasty folks them.

And Betty's great-great.....grandad, George I his first title was Elector of Hannover, one of a select bunch of Germans that got to elect the Holy Roman Emperor.

Kings can be elected.

 

[Infanteer]

I never advocated an elected Monarch, I advocated the position of the Governor-General, as the representative of the sovereign be elected.  By electing the GG, there would be a legitimate role for the position to perform its executive powers.

The Head of State would still be HRH Queen Elizabeth II; only her powers would be executed by an elected official responsible for Peace, Order and Good Government.

 

[Kirkhill]

I second Infanteer's motion.

Excellent idea Infanteer.

Cheers.

 

[Torlyn]

And Betty's great-great.....grandad, George I his first title was Elector of Hannover, one of a select bunch of Germans that got to elect the Holy Roman Emperor.

Kings can be elected.

Hmm...  Let's see...  Who had the ability to vote in those elections?  To me, an election includes all members of a country, not those who happen to be related to royalty..  (You do remember that votes in that particular situation could be refuted if the reigning monarch (or elected monarch) deemed fit..)

Mind you, seems to still be more fair that the florida elections, wot?

T

 

[pbi]

Being fully  mindful of my oath of service and of the source of my Commission, as well as of the genesis of my Regiment's title, and having great respect (unlike some...) for our present GG, I propose that natural political evolution, as well as the gradual change of our national demographic picture away from a plurality of WASPs, will bring us to a day upon which we will sever all formal ties with the Royal Family.

I would liken this eventual severance not to the traumatic event as experienced by our American friends to the South, but rather to the experience of a teenager who grows happily into adulthood in his parent's home, but reaches the day of reckoning and strikes out on his own. He still loves and respects his parents, and is always mindful of what they did for him, but he makes his own life under his own roof (OK-my son hasn't done this yet, but...)

The practice of having a Canadian Head of State as distinct from Head of Govt, regardless of what title we bestow upon the incumbent HOS, is a step in this evolutionary process. Inviting a non-Canadian in to do it would be, IMHO, a retrograde step.

 

[ackland]

What if we gave the GG the power and responsibility to hold the elected officials to the laws of our country and not allow them to arbitrarily change laws to suit them. If they Mess up the GG gets to hold them to the law.

 

[pbi]

TR, you said:

What if we gave the GG the power and responsibility to hold the elected officials to the laws of our country and not allow them to arbitrarily change laws to suit them. If they Mess up the GG gets to hold them to the law.

I thought that was the role of the GG now, since bills are not law unless she signs them. Elected officials cannot really "arbitrarily change laws to suit them." Are you being facetious or am I missing something here? Cheers.

 

[Kirkhill]

TR, I agree with PBI.  I thought that was the role of the GG.  In addition to being able to withhold approval on laws she can also dissolve parliament and demand a new election.

The reason she doesn't do this is because she lacks moral authority.  That is she lacks the proven support of the majority of Canadians to act in that fashion.  Historically, it was accepted by peoples around the world that a Monarch had authority by virtue of blood lines, conferred authority by  peers like other kings and popes and by force.  The GG was delegated that authority.

Under British practice, which we inherited, the powers of the Monarch (and by extension the GG) were constrained but the underlying premise was that the Monarch had powers, would make decisions, and that Parliament would limit the powers of the Monarch.

That progressed through stages of limiting the powers, to sharing the power, to superseding the power (in the British case), to denying that any power ever existed (the current Canadian case).

The reality is that the laws have not changed as fast as public perception has changed.  Many of the laws and that allowed royal prerogative are still on the books and available to be used.

The GG still has many powers which could be, and were intended to be, used to balance the authority of Parliament and the Prime Minister.  In Canada that balance was lost during the King-Byng affair and never rediscovered.  It was lost by PM W.L MacKenzie-King declaring that this appointed foreign representative of a foreign Monarch's government had no authority in Canadian affairs, he lacked legitimacy and had no moral authority.

The GG was sidelined.  However the GG's powers were never withdrawn.  No GG has ever dared to exercise them since because they continue to lack moral authority and because they are dependent on the PM of the day, the very person they are there to limit, for their job.

The solution to today's democratic deficit is just as Infanteer and others have suggested - to effectively return to the Status Quo Ante prior to the King-Byng affair by supplying the GG with the legitimacy to make the decisions he/she is empowered by law to make. 

In our modern world this legitimacy can only be conferred through an election and the democratic transfer of authority to the GG.