Don't Appoint A New GG After Jean's Term, Andrew Coyne


dumpthemonarchy
Free Thinker
#1
Andrew Coyne, a columnist for Macleans magazine, had a good suggestion on CBC the other night when discussing the relevancy of the monarchy. When the current GG's term expires next Sept 2010, just don't appoint a new GG. Many companies do this, let the position go empty for a while and see what happens. If the job is not missed, then it is eliminated and money is saved.

But not just money, needless bureaucracy is shed and a new way of doing things can emerge. Which is the whole idea of us in the New World and getting a new take on the world. The fake British traditions in Parliament and our legislatures needs a few tests. I like this one. Shake it up.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#2
Not quite.
Royals vs. Republic - At Issue - The National

But, the idea's a good one. Let the non-democratic institution wither.
 
Kreskin
#3
You can't delete the constitution as a cost saving measure. Perhaps we could stop having elections too.
 
gerryh
#4
you CAN't just not appoint a replacement. Under our present form of government and constitution, if there was no GG then all laws passed by Parliment and the Senate would then have to be sent off to Buckingham for the Queens consent. Parlimentary sessions could NOT be opened, nor could they be closed. Elections could not be called, and that's just the begining.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

you CAN't just not appoint a replacement. Under our present form of government and constitution, if there was no GG then all laws passed by Parliment and the Senate would then have to be sent off to Buckingham for the Queens consent. Parlimentary sessions could NOT be opened, nor could they be closed. Elections could not be called, and that's just the begining.

Now you're talking!
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#6
Andrew is Establishment and Old Money - His father (James Coyne) used to sign all the paper currency.
 
Kreskin
#7
Andrew drank too much scotch and thought he was outsmarting the country. Little details like constitutional law and elections were overlooked.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

Andrew drank too much scotch and thought he was outsmarting the country. Little details like constitutional law and elections were overlooked.

His proposition that Canada have our own resident king, albeit cadged from the Brits, was a howler!
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#9
Let's get rid of the Governor General and the prime minister....Hell let's make Canada a republic. Then we could have a president and everything. I think I'm going to throw up.
 
aman12
Liberal
#10
How about the PM appoint himself? Should make a lot of people on here happy.
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

You have to forgive Gerry. He has a habit of putting the mouth in gear....you know...

Andrew made a lot of sense.

So did gerryh, far more than Andrew Coyne did if the comments here on his article are accurate (I don't subscribe to the magazine, so I haven't read the piece). The GG has some vital constitutional functions, and if there's nobody holding that office, they won't get done. Can't just leave the office vacant and hope for the best, no act of Parliament can become law without the GG's signature, elections cannot be called, Parliament cannot be constituted or dissolved, a government cannot be formed, it'd all have to go to the Queen or we'd have to abandon the core principle of the rule of law, and having it all go to the Queen is exactly what anti-monarchists want to avoid. Not appointing a GG is a totally stupid and ignorant idea in isolation, the position's constitutional functions would have to be assigned to some other office. We'd either have to assign them to the PM as head of state, and I really don't think I want that much power concentrated in one person, or create a new Head of State position, like the French president perhaps, to do the same things the GG does. It's a zero sum game, the only difference might be that the position could be elected rather than appointed, but then we'd have a Head of State who by definition was politically partisan, and that creates a whole new set of issues. Simply abolishing our constitutional monarchy is staggeringly short sighted, an issue like this requires a lot of careful thought. This is a very major constitutional change.
 
s_lone
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Simply abolishing our constitutional monarchy is staggeringly short sighted, an issue like this requires a lot of careful thought. This is a very major constitutional change.

A major constitutional change indeed which isn't to be taken lightly. But we'll have to face that change one day or another. It's just a question of time before silver spoon monarchy gets the boot and we find something better and more worthy of Canada.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone View Post

A major constitutional change indeed which isn't to be taken lightly. But we'll have to face that change one day or another. It's just a question of time before silver spoon monarchy gets the boot and we find something better and more worthy of Canada.

Whether the monarchy survives in Britain is irrelevant. We need an apolitical head of state to work in conjunction with the elected government.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#14
We need a whole new constitution and form of government. Our present one is full of flaws and only serves the interests of the ruling class and corporations. But politically, Canadians are pansies. If we should suddenly stop getting screwed, we would think the sky is falling.
 
Mowich
Conservative
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

We need a whole new constitution and form of government. Our present one is full of flaws and only serves the interests of the ruling class and corporations. But politically, Canadians are pansies. If we should suddenly stop getting screwed, we would think the sky is falling.

I have many relatives in the U.S. and it's rather funny that when political discussions come up many of them also think that there form of government doesn't work either. Maybe it is a generational thing.
 
Mowich
Conservative
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

Andrew Coyne, a columnist for Macleans magazine, had a good suggestion on CBC the other night when discussing the relevancy of the monarchy. When the current GG's term expires next Sept 2010, just don't appoint a new GG. Many companies do this, let the position go empty for a while and see what happens. If the job is not missed, then it is eliminated and money is saved.

But not just money, needless bureaucracy is shed and a new way of doing things can emerge. Which is the whole idea of us in the New World and getting a new take on the world. The fake British traditions in Parliament and our legislatures needs a few tests. I like this one. Shake it up.

Politics and the expense to taxpayers aside, I happen to like and admire our current GG. She has way more class than the former one - who shall remain nameless. I was really happy to see her turn up in full military regalia for the Rememberance Day ceremonies in Ottawa.

As has been posted elsewhere here, we can't simply get rid of the GG so my vote would be to keep her on. She is doing a far better job than that former CBC hack did. And, she isn't spending our money as if she was the Queen and not simply a GG.

But then, that's just my opinion.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#17
There is no requirement for wholesale change. These are many parliamentary democracies around the world without hereditary heads of state. The cry, "O we can't change lest we become like America" is frankly nonsense.
 
Kreskin
#18
Why is the grass greener in a different system? The only time we bitch about the GG is when we have nothing else to bitch about, and it's generally for no particular reason (like this).
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

Why is the grass greener in a different system? The only time we bitch about the GG is when we have nothing else to bitch about, and it's generally for no particular reason (like this).

O, I agree! The monarchy and its trappings are way down on everyone's list of what is important.
 
AnnaG
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Spade View Post

O, I agree! The monarchy and its trappings are way down on everyone's list of what is important.

lol Yup. It's right up there in importance like the Gliberals idea of art.

They only spent $1.8 million on this:
Voice of Fire by Barnett Newman, 1967
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

you CAN't just not appoint a replacement. Under our present form of government and constitution, if there was no GG then all laws passed by Parliment and the Senate would then have to be sent off to Buckingham for the Queens consent. Parlimentary sessions could NOT be opened, nor could they be closed. Elections could not be called, and that's just the begining.

This is the part we find so offensive. Having to ask permission from an unelected foreigner permission to make a law in Canada. Whether it is signed by the queen or here unelected representative here makes no difference. It is just embarrassing and a waste of money.
 
AnnaG
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

This is the part we find so offensive. Having to ask permission from an unelected foreigner permission to make a law in Canada. Whether it is signed by the queen or here unelected representative here makes no difference. It is just embarrassing and a waste of money.

... and just plain silly. "Daddy, is it ok with you if we do this? Mommy, can we do that?"
 
gerryh
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

This is the part we find so offensive. Having to ask permission from an unelected foreigner permission to make a law in Canada. Whether it is signed by the queen or here unelected representative here makes no difference. It is just embarrassing and a waste of money.

Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

... and just plain silly. "Daddy, is it ok with you if we do this? Mommy, can we do that?"


Then petition parliment to change the constitution.
 
AnnaG
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Then petition parliment to change the constitution.

Why would I? It's a source of amusement for me.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

lol Yup. It's right up there in importance like the Gliberals idea of art.

They only spent $1.8 million on this:
Voice of Fire by Barnett Newman, 1967

Yup. Free is too much. Still looks like a flag.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#26
Reasons to retain the British monarch as our head of state.
1. To remind us that we have not outgrown our colonial past, either French or English.
2. To confirm that we do not have the self confidence to become independent.
3. To mask the undemocratic structures in our government.
4. To remind us that inherited position is more valued than merit.
5. To renounce domestic for foreign symbols.
6. To have two sides to our coins.
7. To keep the curtsy in vogue.
8. To fight for king and country.
Etc.
 
AnnaG
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Spade View Post

Reasons to retain the British monarch as our head of state.
1. To remind us that we have not outgrown our colonial past, either French or English.
2. To confirm that we do not have the self confidence to become independent.
3. To mask the undemocratic structures in our government.
4. To remind us that inherited position is more valued than merit.
5. To renounce domestic for foreign symbols.
6. To have two sides to our coins.
7. To keep the curtsy in vogue.
8. To fight for king and country.
Etc.

lmao That pretty much sums it up, I'd say.
 
wulfie68
No Party Affiliation
#28
First of all, Allan Gregg, the head of Harris/Decima polls, was the one who made the comment about letting the office remain vacant...

But when you get to the real issue, GerryH and others are right: if we do away with the office of Governor General we need to replace it with something else. That means a complete constitutional overhaul and honestly, with the regional divisions in this country, I don't think it will happen and I don't know if the country would survive more rounds of polarizing discussion that would result from it. I think there is more appetite for senate reform than an abolishment of the Monarchy but it too is stalled for the same reason.

Also, if you listen to the discussion linked, its not just a wave of the pen: the costs would be huge, from reprinting of things like stamps and currency, replacing emblems on every gov't institution (from the RCMP to the post office to park wardens)and including a re-writing of the entire legal system. We complain about the tax dollars spent on royal visits, etc. but they are miniscule to the costs of eliminating the Crown.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

So did gerryh, far more than Andrew Coyne did if the comments here on his article are accurate (I don't subscribe to the magazine, so I haven't read the piece).

The OP is about Andrew's comments on CBC. I'm really not surprised you agree with Gerry considering you haven't the foggiest idea what you are agreeing to. Thanks for your input anyway.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#30
The Office of the Governor General of Canada performs vital constitutional functions for Canadians; the Office cannot simply be allowed to lapse, without a constitutional amendment consented to by Her Majesty The Queen of Canada , passed by the Honourable the Senate of Canada and the House of Commons , and supported by all ten of the Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces (as is required for any amendment that changes the Offices of The Queen or the Governor General, or the authority of the Lieutenant Governors). Our system of government works the most effectively when there is a non-partisan head of State, and representatives thereof, to work in concert with our representative democracy.

There are no ‘work-around’ solutions to such serious constitutional amendments.
 

Similar Threads

84
Harper poised to appoint 18 Senators
by Ron in Regina | Sep 27th, 2015
0
Jean's Tour Continues: Saskatchewan
by FiveParadox | May 1st, 2006
0
Jean's Address at Toonik Tyme
by FiveParadox | Apr 18th, 2006
17
Nunavut Next on Jean's Cross-country Tour
by FiveParadox | Apr 13th, 2006
4
Open hearings to appoint judges in Canada
by dumpthemonarchy | Nov 4th, 2005