I disagree, by offering a reasoned observation, as to why no less, so I must be somehow deficient? Hmmm, interesting.
Quite.
GG Should Decide Whether to End Term
- Thread starter FiveParadox
- Start date
Hmm, more suggestions on who should decide to appoint, extend the time of, and dismiss a Governor General:
1. The Queen herself - well it's *her* representative. Problem: The Queen may sometimes seem as if she is (unintentionally, of course) favoring a certain political party if she picks a GG who may have affiliations with one, regardless of the appointed GG being a respected Canadian.
2. The Prime Minister AND Leader of the Opposition *jointly* advise the Queen - this will ensure that the person appointed is not going be supportive of one party or easily allow the Prime Minister to get a prorogation of Parliament.
3. Members of the Order of Canada advise the Queen - this may lead to good GGs who are ensured to be non-partisan. Can anyone see any problems with this process?
4. Elect a person as Governor General designate & send results to Queen for appointment - problem is that is will result in a partisan and political GG which takes away an important principle of the office, so this is probably not a very good idea.
Which method would each of you prefer?
1. The Queen herself - well it's *her* representative. Problem: The Queen may sometimes seem as if she is (unintentionally, of course) favoring a certain political party if she picks a GG who may have affiliations with one, regardless of the appointed GG being a respected Canadian.
2. The Prime Minister AND Leader of the Opposition *jointly* advise the Queen - this will ensure that the person appointed is not going be supportive of one party or easily allow the Prime Minister to get a prorogation of Parliament.
3. Members of the Order of Canada advise the Queen - this may lead to good GGs who are ensured to be non-partisan. Can anyone see any problems with this process?
4. Elect a person as Governor General designate & send results to Queen for appointment - problem is that is will result in a partisan and political GG which takes away an important principle of the office, so this is probably not a very good idea.
Which method would each of you prefer?
And replace it with what? Have the Queen directly administrate the federal government? There'll need to be someone as Governor General or the Queen will be forced to directly administrate the national gov, as per the Constitution.
Somehow I knew you were going to say that. Why should Canada become a republic? There's hardly any reason to.
First of all, it's not as easy as it sounds. In fact the constitutional hurdles it would take to become a republic would be far harder than any of the other times the Constitution was amended. Under the current Constitution a normal amendment would take 7 out of 10 Provincial Legislatures representing at least 50% of the population as well as the House of Commons and Senate. But, to any change to Offices of the Canadian Crown (and therefore to abolish it) requires the unanimous assent of the Senate, the House of Commons, and ALL 10 Provincial Legislatures, not to mention that there will probably be referendums in each province and territory. All this will cost millions.
Secondly, why become a republic? What are the arguments for one? It is most certainly not the most democratic form of government there is. In fact ours is! Out of the top 10 democracies in the world, 7 are Constitutional Monarchies just like Canada! So, Constitutional Monarchy is the world's most democratic form of government.
Thirdly, a republican president will not provide the non-partisan and above politics leadership the Crown does now.
Fourthly, Canada has always been a monarchy, from the native chiefs, to the French, then English, then British monarchs, and finally following the Statute of Westminster 1931, Canadian monarchs.
Then, of course, there are many Canadians who support the Crown. Out of those involved in the republic vs. constitutional monarchy debate, the vast majority are constitutional monarchists, all other Canadians are not interested.
There won't be a republic for a long time, if ever even, and most certainly not in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II for sure.
Why not?
So? I said I would like a Republic, I didn't say we should run out and get one right now.
Because the notion of the Commonwealth is outdated and we should be a completely independent state.
:lol:. That doesn't mean that a Constitutional Monarchy is the best. It just means that they have formulated a system of Government that for all intents and purposes works well. Even the EIU that formulated that list doesn't clam it's measure is an absolute. Nor did they determine that a CM is the best form of Gov't.
Who said we have to adopt that form of democracy?
I have always been an asshole, that doesn't mean there isn't room to improve.
Again, many people say "CDNBear, do you ever change", while some others would love to have me changed by force. All you following along here?
I agree. And I'll tell you why. Because there are two sides. There is a balance and that is what keeps the system working fairly well as it is. So long as it does, I will hold my position.
Hmm, many republican governments, are very ineffective. Becoming a republic isn't an improvement, it's a downgrade. Nearly all of the world's Constitutional monarchies are far more effectively governed than all republics.
Furthermore, Canada is ALREADY a Democracy. Canada's system of government is fully described as being: A Constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, and a federation. A republic is not the only democratic form of government, as I said before, out of the world's 10 democracies, 7 are Constitutional Monarchies, and that fact stands.
Also, you mistakenly equate the Commonwealth with reason why Canada is a monarchy. Membership of the Commonwealth of Nations does not effect a country's system of government. The Commonwealth is an international organization like the UN, and Queen Elizabeth II, the same person who happens to be Monarch of Britain, Canada, Australia, etc, happens to also be Head of the Commonwealth. The position is entirely separate.
Lastly, Canada IS already a fully independent and sovereign nation. Sharing a Monarch with another country does not make us any less independent. That is acknowledged by nearly everyone. Canada would not for example be a member of the UN if it wasn't a fully independent country. Many countries in the past have shared a monarch as head of state, it's a called a "personal union", where two or more countries share a head of state, but neither of the countries have any power over the rest. In Canada, following the Constitution Act of 1982, Canada is completely free and independent. To show how independent Commonwealth realms are, take this situation: Sometime in 1980s, Grenada, a Caribbean realm of the Queen was invaded by the US and several other Caribbean countries, most of which also had the Queen as head of state!
As you can see, Queen Elizabeth II is separately Queen of Canada from being Queen of Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
Again, it has little to do with the Monarchy. They simply have a better form of governance. The Monarch is a state sponsored figure head.
That's awesome, and you can shout it from the roof tops, till you lose your voice. The fact that the EIU doesn't assert the same thing only tells me, that you are trying to make a case, with evidence that even the collators thereof won't even attempt...:roll:
Especially since the EIU has stated clearly that it is difficult to measure democracy. Then there is the very real fact that not all the Constitutional Monarchies, have the same Monarch, nor a Monarchical ideology. For each Monarch, subscribed to his or her own brand thereof.
A rose by any other name...is still a rose. I can change my nic to Yummybear, but I'm still CDNBear. The Commonwealth, as I used the term is the once aptly named "British Commonwealth".
I never said we weren't, and thank for highlighting the reason we should dump the Monarchy. It's out dated and of no use to us as a Nation. Again, thank you.
Cool, again, highlighting the antiquated necessity of the Monarchy.
Your point?
Again, your point?
Last edited:
Ahem, you did say Canada isn't independent: "Because the notion of the Commonwealth is outdated and we should be a completely independent state."
Do you not recognize the difference between "independent" and "completely independent"?
Or is that all you had left?
The comment that you responded to was intended as tongue-in-cheek... The point being that the GG has a defined role that is (primarily) representing the sovereign.
Oh bother. :roll:
So what are your arguments for a republic?
Or let me guess, you don't have any?
Tell me your arguments in favor of a republic and I'll rebuke the lot.
What questions? The independence one? Canada is completely independent. There, satisfied?
Canada is completely independent. There absolutely nothing now which makes Canada not completely sovereign and independent.
Not really.
Except the fact that we are a British Commonwealth. I know how you can't wrap your head around that, but it is still reality. As proven by words like "Dominion", "Semi autonomous", "nominal" and terms like "not rendered obsolete".
When you do, you'll completely understand the difference between independent and completely independent.
Oh. My. Goodness.
Are you crazy?!? We are not "a British Commonwealth". That is a mainly American term (American/US commonwealth Territory) in relation to some of their territories. Canada has never even been such as thing as "a British Commonwealth".
Canada is a *member* of the Commonwealth of Nations, which was renamed to the current name from the name British Commonwealth in 1949.
Canada WAS a accurately described as semi-autonomous Dominion of the British Commonwealth UNTIL the Statute of Westminster 1931, and the subsequent Constitution Act of 1982 which removed Canada's status as a Dominion. And as I have mentioned above, the term "British Commonwealth" perished in 1949 when in was renamed the Commonwealth of Nations.
The term Dominion has now been replaced by the word "Realm". Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, etc, are all Realms of Queen Elizabeth II.
It's you who can't wrap your head around the facts.
Last edited:
Indeed.
Yes, a little, but I hardly see how that is relevant.
I'll give you a minute to correct yourself, before I post something that will make you eat those words.
Oh, maybe I won't have to. Care to explain how we were not a member of something we are a member of?
To a Native such as myself, this looks like "white man that speaks with forked tongue".
Again with the forked tongue thing. How is we were never part of the Commonwealth you just said we weren't party to, but part of, but now were part of and still are? Woe, I think I just got whiplash. No wonder your ancestor were able to swindle my peeps.
At Confederation, Tilley suggested the term Dominion, (Before it was widely adopted by other members of the Commonwealth), to encompass the colonies that would become the Dominion of Canada.
Furthermore, Canada's legal title to date, via the Constitution of 1867 is The Dominion of Canada. The Constitution Act of 1982, does not mention Dominion, and therefore does not remove the title, and a Constitutional amendment would be required to so. And since no Constitution can grant expatriation. We are stil theoretically a Dominion of the Crown.
And a rose by any other name...is still a rose.
Not that it actually matters as Canada's legal title is still the Dominion of. This would not be unlike how Dominion replaced Colony. And in the end, the same thing, a subject of the Crown a member of the Commonwealth.
Now, if you think the Canadian Head of State, has no powers in Canada, you need to give your head a shake. If you think she has no vested interests in here home state, that outweighs those of others in her Realm. There is no hope for you.
And if you think that at some point in time Canada acts in a manner so monumentally contrary to, or egregious to the interests of the Crown's rule over other members of her Realm, including the one she calls home, think again. Therefore, we are not a completely independent state. Wikiality is not your friend. PM 5Paradox, he may set you on the right track.
I don't think so.
Last edited:
Okay, a few issues to clear up here.
On the Question of the Commonwealth of Nations
Yes, Canada is a member of the organisation that was once known as the British Commonwealth. However, in 1949, the London Declaration made two major changes to the Commonwealth: (a) Its membership would now be open to republics and other indigenous monarchies, and (a) as it now admitted members who did not recognise the Sovereign as head of State, it would now be known as the Commonwealth of Nations.
For this modernised Commonwealth of Nations, no member nation is subordinate to the others; all member nations recognise Her Majesty The Queen not as the head of State, but as the Head of the Commonwealth — the symbol of each member nation’s free association and friendship in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has evolved from a British organisation of colonies and dominions into a free association of nations with common interests and friendship. Being a member of the Commonwealth does not affect in any way whatsoever the sovereignty of any member nation.
On the Question of Canada’s Status as a Dominion
Section 3 of the Constitution Act, 1867, does not specify that Canada must be known as the ‘Dominion of Canada’, only that our nation shall “be One Dominion under the Name of Canada”. Though the term ‘dominion’ was a common one at the outset of our Confederation, its usage steadily declined. There is a bit of confusion on this because nowhere in the 1867 Act does it state that Canada is called the Dominion of Canada; s. 4 of the same Act, however, does state that the name Canada “shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act”. I read this as saying that our country is called Canada.
On the Question of Canada’s Independence
Canada is absolutely an independent Realm of the Commonwealth.
Her Majesty The Queen of Canada can exercise the royal prerogative in right of Canada only on the advice of a member of The Queen’s Privy Council for Canada; Her Majesty’s other Privy Councils and executives councils do not have the authority to advise on Canadian usages of The Queen’s power. And let us not forget, there are in any event only four powers that are now solely in The Queen’s possession, and these are (a) the appointment of the Governor General of Canada; (b) the veto of already-passed federal legislation within two years; (c) the appointment of additional senators beyond the legislated seat count; and (d) the Royal Assent of legislation to which the Governor General has reserved for the Signification of The Queen’s Pleasure.
On the Question of the Commonwealth of Nations
Yes, Canada is a member of the organisation that was once known as the British Commonwealth. However, in 1949, the London Declaration made two major changes to the Commonwealth: (a) Its membership would now be open to republics and other indigenous monarchies, and (a) as it now admitted members who did not recognise the Sovereign as head of State, it would now be known as the Commonwealth of Nations.
For this modernised Commonwealth of Nations, no member nation is subordinate to the others; all member nations recognise Her Majesty The Queen not as the head of State, but as the Head of the Commonwealth — the symbol of each member nation’s free association and friendship in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has evolved from a British organisation of colonies and dominions into a free association of nations with common interests and friendship. Being a member of the Commonwealth does not affect in any way whatsoever the sovereignty of any member nation.
On the Question of Canada’s Status as a Dominion
Section 3 of the Constitution Act, 1867, does not specify that Canada must be known as the ‘Dominion of Canada’, only that our nation shall “be One Dominion under the Name of Canada”. Though the term ‘dominion’ was a common one at the outset of our Confederation, its usage steadily declined. There is a bit of confusion on this because nowhere in the 1867 Act does it state that Canada is called the Dominion of Canada; s. 4 of the same Act, however, does state that the name Canada “shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act”. I read this as saying that our country is called Canada.
On the Question of Canada’s Independence
Canada is absolutely an independent Realm of the Commonwealth.
Her Majesty The Queen of Canada can exercise the royal prerogative in right of Canada only on the advice of a member of The Queen’s Privy Council for Canada; Her Majesty’s other Privy Councils and executives councils do not have the authority to advise on Canadian usages of The Queen’s power. And let us not forget, there are in any event only four powers that are now solely in The Queen’s possession, and these are (a) the appointment of the Governor General of Canada; (b) the veto of already-passed federal legislation within two years; (c) the appointment of additional senators beyond the legislated seat count; and (d) the Royal Assent of legislation to which the Governor General has reserved for the Signification of The Queen’s Pleasure.
I knew if anyone could prove me wrong on some of that, it was you. Once again proving that wikiality, which is where I cribbed the bulk of that from, is shyte...
You rock Paradox.
Last edited: