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

[taxslave]

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]

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?":roll:

 

[gerryh]

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?":roll:

Then petition parliment to change the constitution.

 

[AnnaG]

Then petition parliment to change the constitution.

Why would I? It's a source of amusement for me. :lol:

 

[taxslave]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I'm really not surprised you agree with Gerry considering you haven't the foggiest idea what you are agreeing to.

I don't often agree with gerryh, but he's right on this one. On the contrary, I have a perfectly clear idea what I'm agreeing to, that letting the GG position go vacant or simply abolishing it to see what happens is a stupid and unworkable idea that indicates a gigantic ignorance of how our system works. I'm not surprised that you'd make such an unsubstantiated criticism though. Still haven't forgiven me for being right about the Monty Hall problem?

 

[Cannuck]

On the contrary, I have a perfectly clear idea what I'm agreeing to,

No you don't. If you bothered to watch the clip you would see that. Like the Monty Hall thread, you've started typing before you've switched your brain on. It seems to be a nagging problem with you.

 

[Avro]

This all comes down to whether you are a monarchist or not, I am, so I say appoint a new one.

 

[gerryh]

No you don't. If you bothered to watch the clip you would see that. Like the Monty Hall thread, you've started typing before you've switched your brain on. It seems to be a nagging problem with you.

What I was commenting on was the OP.... the fact that, once again, dumpthemonarchy got it wrong as to who said what, is irrelevant to the discussion as a whole.

and dtg..it was Allan Gregg that brought up the "don't appoint anyone" comment.

 

[JLM]

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.

I haven't had a problem with the present GG or at least it hasn't been brought to my attention that her spending is out of control, but some of them in the past were just criminal- Jean Sauve in particular comes to mind, spent money like it fell off the back of a truck.........very arrogant, thought she was a different phylum than the average person.

 

[Cannuck]

What I was commenting on was the OP.... the fact that, once again, dumpthemonarchy got it wrong as to who said what....

...as did you. You, like Dexter, have a tendency to blather on before you bother to get facts.

 

[s_lone]

Whether the monarchy survives in Britain is irrelevant. We need an apolitical head of state to work in conjunction with the elected government.

The Canadian monarch is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. You call that apolitical?

''We acknowledge that the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil''

You call that apolitical?

It's all a big joke. Canada is supposed to be a secular country and if the position of Head of State truly was representative of who we are, it would be open to people of ANY religion, not exclusively Anglicans from one single family in a foreign country.

You want an apolitical Head of State? Sure. I agree. But let this Head of State be Canadian and let the position be open to anybody that has the qualifications and merit to do so.

 

[Kreskin]

Their role is to ensure our government functions within the constitution and the country isn't hijacked by an elected dictator. What problems have this system caused?

 

[s_lone]

Their role is to ensure our government functions within the constitution and the country isn't hijacked by an elected dictator. What problems have this system caused?

Oh please... So let's say we DID elect a dictator... The Queen would suddenly strike with all her might to save Canada from a dictator WE elected?

The simple truth is that we don't need an foreign monarch to safeguard our democracy. This task can very well be achieved by one or many Canadians. It doesn't take much imagination to imagine different options than monarchy.

I'm sure you can come up with a better system than having faith in the sex lives and genetic quality of British Royals...

I agree that there is no urgency to change the system and that when we do, it needs to be done wisely and carefully. But to say that this is the way it should be forever is rather non-progressive don't you think?

 

[FiveParadox]

Once more, s_lone, an anti-monarchist perverts terminology to further the republican agenda.

Her Majesty The Queen of Canada, and all members of The Royal Family of Canada, are Canadian subjects — our head of State is just as Canadian as our head of Government, and members of the Honourable the Senate of Canada, and the House of Commons. The legitimacy of the monarch and Her Majesty’s exercises of the royal prerogative is made even greater by the fact that the Office of the Governor General has been filled, since the appointment of the late The Right Honourable Vincent Massey P.C., C.H., C.C., C.D., F.R.S.C.(Hon.), the 18th Governor General in 1952, all of The Queen’s representatives have been Canadian residents, as well.

As much as anti-monarchists would love to confuse the issue, the fact is that our shared monarchy is, for the purposes of Canada’s constitutional arrangements, entirely and wholly Canadian. The fact is that the monarchy performs absolutely vital functions within the framework of our representative democracy — the relationship between The Queen and Canadian subjects is a special one that should be cherished and promoted, as I fear that misinformation leads the republican cause. The duty of The Queen and Her Majesty’s representatives is to ensure that there is always a prime minister pursuant to the principles of responsible government; and in this primary function, our constitutional monarchy has never let us down. Yes, the emergency powers of our ‘constitutional fire extinguisher’ are rarely ever needed, but this does not make those powers any less effective, and it does not at all compromise their necessity.