Project Alberta

Our Queen is fictional, does not exist outside of a few traditions so does not need a representative. The British royalty made it very clear that they were not our King or Queen in 1926 and for those few particularly thick Canadians that didn't get it then they made it crystal clear in 1982.

The few roles of the GG that seem to be of some value could be assigned to the speaker of the house.

I would like to see Michaelle Jean reappointed for another term. She has done an excellent job and Stephen reappointing a Liberal nominee would take a lot of wind out of the sails of those who criticize his "partisan" appointments.

Our system is partisan. The Liberals, more so than any other party, made it that way. Though I am sure they would like to change the rules but it would only be temporary. They would be quick to change them back should they ever get the chance.

But she is an interesting choice. Historically Canadians often complained that the GGs and LGs were not Canadian born and didn't understand Canada, and/or were always chosen from the elite, now we seem to like that. I guess it must be part nostalgia.

If abolishing the Governor-General's position is the way to go, you might as well just officially vest those powers the Prime Minister's office; the Prime Minister already exerts the most influence over the Governor-General, anyway... so much so that Rideau Hall could be considered just an extension of the PMO.

Just combining the head of government and the head of state into a single office would drop the pretense and save a lot of time, money and messing around.

And it'd be a step closer to making the country a parliamentary republic.

Rideau Hall's grounds would make a nice public park.

What's to lose?

Fully agree.

The Role of a GG has no place in a system in which the ultimate authority rests with the people, no role in a truly democratic system.

Would Canadians really want an unelected person telling them who they will select as Prime Minister?

That was fine when the Prime Minister was selected by the Monarch, and when every decision made by parliament was done so as long as it did not interest the Monarch. If the Monarch should decide an issue is of interest then the word of the GG becomes law and the wishes of the voters be damned, that is our history, our past, not our present.

That Canadians wish for such a role to be anything other than ceremonial, other than to put on a costume and read the script given to him or her, is disturbing on many levels. It is clearly a cry to be dominated, ruled by a benevolent maybe malevolent ruler rather than the results of any process in which they are given a role.

They may have a case, those wishing for a GG. Maybe they do not have the willingness or intelligence to select representatives or to have an opinion or to have the fortitude to accept the consequences of their own opinions and decisions.

My response to that, to them is to shut up and sit down. If they are so weak as to not want the right to vote, the right to have a say in their own governance fine, accept ours.

For what is the difference if one individual is selected to rule over them or they are ruled over by a Parliament selected by others? Either way they have no say and I would say deserve no say.


That said I think we should keep these ceremonial roles. Such pomp and circumstance are an important part of acknowledging our past, creating our national myths and pride.

But any desire that such dictatorial roles have real power should be called out as cowardly, weak and ignorant. Ignorant of history, and fearful of the responsibility that democracy forces upon them.

What's to lose?

What is to lose is that which makes Canada different from Mexico; what makes New Zealand different from Indonesia; what makes Australia different from Cambodia. That is what is to lose.

It's already lost.

It was lost in the mid 1800's when the British made it clear we would have to defend ourselves, then in 1867 when they gave us the boot and said don't let the door hit ya on the why out, then again in 1926 when some whinny Canadians wanted them to make a decision for us.

On that occasion they made it very very clear that the GG does not represent the Queen and is not going to get involved in our politics. It could not have been clearer when they told Canada that we were "autonomous.... within the British Empire" No role for the GG, no role for the Queen and keep your petty political problems to yourself.

That is why Britain got an ambassador, called High Commissioner, in 1928 because the GG was no more. Our political relationship with Britain is officially no different than with South Africa or the United States or Russia.

And if 1926 wasn't a big enough hint that the British Queen has no representative, no role whatsoever in our political system 1982 should have been a HUGE wake up call for the few remaining Canadians that thought we were British. At that point it should have been very clear that the British part of our history was just that history.

That none of that history is understood by the Canadian population suggests the GG and all other Queen and Crown references need to be removed.

It is unfortunate that Canadians can be so ignorant of their own history, their own system. They should have pride in the myths, pomp and circumstance that makes our system, our system. This lack of education, of national pride is a major failure of the school system and the political system. A system in which anti-Canadian forces, namely but not exclusively from Quebec, has had much too large a role in.

But that is where we are today, with ignorant Canadians looking to a ceremonial figure to rule over us.

What other solution is there? To take power and force Canadian education on those minorities who do not wish it?

Better to remove the GG position completely, maybe Canadians will learn from that and we can keep the other references to our great past.

Either way we will still be the best country in the world and we will still be unique. There should be no fear of losing that provided we begin to teach Canadians some of their history.

Ok clearly someone has a chip on their shoulder about the GG.

I blame it on the prorogation hype. It was frustrating to watch Canadians get excited about something that is normal procedure. A procedure that was used as a political procedure by the Liberals more so than any other party.

That people wanted the GG to do something other than what our chosen party and leader wanted, the leader we returned with 22 more seats, was and still is offensive to those of us who prefer democracy.

That's why I refer to history. Confederation was based on the idea that the people should decide such matters, not some unelected appointee with powerful connections.

So that likely fuels my posts on this topic, that and the idea that many of the same people believe the people voted wrong and needed to be corrected even if it meant handing power over to a party that is openly anti-Canadian.

Having a King or Queen who lives in a castle, across the ocean, and who visits for a few days every couple of years is not what makes Canada the country that it is. The people who live here - I mean, actually live here - are what make Canada, Canada. Always have.

But you can remove the Crown and evolve into a parliamentary republic (merging the Governor-General fully into the PMO, or Speaker, or whatever), or an apartisan, elected head-of-state (like Iceland), and respect the history of the Crown in Canada. I'm certainly not suggesting that the Queen and references to the Crown be entirely scrubbed from memory; just that we create something wholly Canadian.

Every kid has to leave the nest, eventually.

Australia's actually a great example. The GG there, in 1975, saved the country from an aspiring Fidel Castro in the person of Gough Whitlam (go here for a remarkably complete and balanced summary of those events).

That is an excellent example of why there should not be a GG position in governments like Canada and Australia.

Like Canada, Australia does not have a Queen except in a ceremonial role and neither do they require the GG position to be anything other than ceremonial. The position is not accountable to even the Supreme Court (because a GG is above any such colonial courts).

Of course a big difference in Canada is the role of the Court in deciding questions of a Constitutional nature. We have decided to use the Court for such issues rather than the people or parliament which gives us an easy out when faced with such questions.

Not that I wouldn't like to change that but it is what we already have. Which is why we could hire actors for the very few ceremonial roles which need a warm body to say a few predetermined words.

To get back to the topic.

Manning deserves every award Canada could give him. As the editorial says, if he had started Reform with the slogan that the west wants out (my preference) instead of in, Canada would look completely different today. At a minimum, at least part of the west would be semi-autonoumous and at the other possibility end there might be a province or two independent. Preston saved Canada.

That said, he still has too much talent to offer to waste it reading speeches from the throne. He is doing good work at his foundation. Pick a loser not a winner.

This just reaffirms my belief that Michelle jean should be re-appointed for another term.


http://www.globalmontreal.com/world/Gov ... story.html

How so?