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

[s_lone]

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.

I admire your passionate defense of monarchy FiveParadox. You would have been a great subject 500 years ago.

The Queen acquired her position by no other merit than birth right. It's a repulsive concept and I think Canada deserves better.

 

[FiveParadox]

I’m not sure what objections there could possibly be to how The Queen became the head of State, considering the fact that Her Majesty acts almost invariably on the advice of the prime minister, which is invariably the person who commands a majority of voices in the House of Commons. It’s quite possible that anti-monarchists forget that a great part of the effectiveness of the monarchy stems from the fact that the vast powers of the Crown are kept in check for routine use by our own representative democracy. That is, The Queen reigns, and does not rule, as most Realms of the Commonwealth decided long ago to be self-determined and self-governed. This is also the case with Canada, where it is an expectation that we determine our own future; however, we have been able to do so in concert with the monarchy, such that we have the best of both worlds. We have the tremendous advantages of stability, continuity and a head of State that is more apolitical than any other possible method of appointment, while running the nation as a representative democracy for, and by, the people.

Canada is a successful democracy, we just so happen to also have a place here for the monarchy. The two need not be mutually exclusive.

 

[s_lone]

I’m not sure what objections there could possibly be to how The Queen became the head of State, considering the fact that Her Majesty acts almost invariably on the advice of the prime minister, which is invariably the person who commands a majority of voices in the House of Commons. It’s quite possible that anti-monarchists forget that a great part of the effectiveness of the monarchy stems from the fact that the vast powers of the Crown are kept in check for routine use by our own representative democracy. That is, The Queen reigns, and does not rule, as most Realms of the Commonwealth decided long ago to be self-determined and self-governed. This is also the case with Canada, where it is an expectation that we determine our own future; however, we have been able to do so in concert with the monarchy, such that we have the best of both worlds. We have the tremendous advantages of stability, continuity and a head of State that is more apolitical than any other possible method of appointment, while running the nation as a representative democracy for, and by, the people.

Canada is a successful democracy, we just so happen to also have a place here for the monarchy. The two need not be mutually exclusive.

Hereditary monarchy stands for the idea that some humans are born better than others Paradox. There's hardly any respect I can have for this idea. Ever heard of equality? Hereditary monarchy stands for the opposite.

Hereditary monarchy is regressive in terms of social evolution. It started out in a world where religion ruled everything and where the Monarch had supposedly God-given powers and authority, a bit like the catholic pope (but even he is democratically elected).

We now live in a secular world (thank God!) and need to turn our backs on outdated systems based on religious authority and segregation.

There is no urgency because yes Canada is working fine as a democracy. But that is thanks to hard working Canadians. Not silver spoon fed foreign royals.

All your monarchical rhetoric can't change the fact that our Head of State is a foreigner. Do I need a passport or not to go the the UK? The Canadian Head of State needs to be a citizen of Canada living in Canada.

While I think we shouldn't change the system until the death of Queen Elizabeth, I hope Canada has the self-respect to do so when she does.

 

[Cannuck]

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?

Liz didn't say boo when PET started introducing enabling legislation so I seriously doubt she have to gonads to save me from a dictator.

 

[Cannuck]

I’m not sure what objections there could possibly be to how The Queen became the head of State...

Then maybe you should read people's posts instead of just skimming over them. It's actually quite clear. The "anti-monarchists" object to the idea of birth rite. They, like me, believe that all people are created equal. People like you believe that some are born superior to others. You believe that an inferior leader should be given a position of leadership based on who his/her daddy is. I, on the other hand, believe we should focus more on a persons leadership skills rather than who their daddy was.

Hope that clears things up for you.

 

[TenPenny]

I, on the other hand, believe we should focus more on a persons leadership skills rather than who their daddy was.

If you ever find that happening in any level of politics in Canada, let me know.

 

[Cannuck]

If you ever find that happening in any level of politics in Canada, let me know.

What do you know about Harper's father?

 

[Kreskin]

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?

What compelling reason is there for change? I can't think of a time when it has been a problem in the slightest. Did I miss something?

 

[Spade]

What compelling reason is there for change? I can't think of a time when it has been a problem in the slightest. Did I miss something?

After Anglicans become Catholics, then the British sovereign, who is the head of the Anglican Church, should be replaced by the Pope as Canada's head of state. After all, the Pope is elected, unlike the British monarch; we are all democracy boosters here, aren't we? And, over 40% of Canadians are Catholic - a much higher percentage than are pure British rooters.

 

[L Gilbert]

What difference does it make?
If we dump the monarchy we don't seem to be intelligent enough to replace it with something worthwhile. So we would end up with possibly a republican style oligarchy instead of a democracy style oligarchy. Either way the public loses. I don't see a big deal.

 

[Cannuck]

After Anglicans become Catholics, then the British sovereign, who is the head of the Anglican Church, should be replaced by the Pope as Canada's head of state. After all, the Pope is elected, unlike the British monarch; we are all democracy boosters here, aren't we? And, over 40% of Canadians are Catholic - a much higher percentage than are pure British rooters.

I agree, why wait. Let's make the Pope the HOS right away.

 

[Spade]

I agree, why wait. Let's make the Pope the HOS right away.

It's as logical as as the Royalists' position.

 

[Cannuck]

It's as logical as as the Royalists' position.

On the contrary. It's more logical.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

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.

Whoever had the idea, it's a great one. Usually the Issues panel is tedious, but on this issue they were a little animated and interesting.

Eliminating royal visits, the GG and provincial LGs would save us about $100 million per year. Not chump change. This can help offset the costs. There will be costs to put Charles or William's mug on our money if we can't dump the monarchy before this. Charles or a kid on our money, laughable really.

About 99% of Canadians don't give a hoot about the arcane technicalities in the constitution. Would Canadians be upset if politicians, judges, civil servants and soldiers took their oath to Canada and Canadians instead of the foreigner in England? We pay, so they ought to take an oath to us and they country they serve.