Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I feel the role of the monarchy in Canada and elsewhere in the commonwealth is an anachronism. When Queen Elizabeth passes away, I would like to see Canada have a directly elected Governor General but keep the current Westminster style of government mostly in tact.
I'm finding myself leaning towards your p.o.v - QEII has sort of elevated herself over decades of service as our H.O.S. in a sort of manner in which she is entitled to be it. Not because of lineage, but because of experience, stature, length of service as our H.O.S and her temperament. However, i'm struggling in a post QEII world to find any further relevance in having a foreign H.O.S. I think there are enough great Canadians who can fill that role nicely. I admire the current one very much and surely we could elect another of our own who we can be proud of. I nominate Chevy!
I'm finding myself leaning towards your p.o.v - QEII has sort of elevated herself over decades of service as our H.O.S. in a sort of manner in which she is entitled to be it. Not because of lineage, but because of experience, stature, length of service as our H.O.S and her temperament. However, i'm struggling in a post QEII world to find any further relevance in having a foreign H.O.S. I think there are enough great Canadians who can fill that role nicely. I admire the current one very much and surely we could elect another of our own who we can be proud of. I nominate Chevy!
You know, I'd accept that nomination.
I'm nonpartisan in political affairs, can speak passable French (though there is admittedly room for improvement), certainly know the constitutional role, and understand the emergency reserve powers (and how they can be used and misused); and while I've never done it, I'm pretty sure that I can bestow Orders of Canada, visit the graves of our Canadian servicemen in Commonwealth cemeteries, open a hospital, plant a tree, and show a Scout troop around Rideau Hall--once I know the way around it myself.
Thanks for the nomination, Fusion--if elected, you know that I will do my best in the position.
Well, who will fill that role as President of Canada? Will it be the Canadian government to decide who will be president or the Canadian people to decide? What will be the role of the Prime Minister if there is a president?
Well, who will fill that role as President of Canada? Will it be the Canadian government to decide who will be president or the Canadian people to decide? What will be the role of the Prime Minister if there is a president?
The Prime Minister is Head of Government, responsible for spearheading legislation through the House of Commons. The Canadian Monarch is Head of State, responsible for approving such legislation (and receiving the credentials of foreign ambassadors, among other duties). The two roles, and their respective responsibilities, are held by two distinct people, as they are in many governments around the world, in both Parliaments and Republics. The United States is a little unusual, in that it combines the two offices in one person.
If Canada was to dump the Queen, the question of "how do we replace her?" is important; and it is my understanding that this is what upset the Australian question along the same lines back in the 1990s--though many Australians wanted to dump the Queen, nobody could figure out how to replace the Monarch in a constitutional monarchy. A popular election? No, that brings in campaigning and partisan politics, contending for a position that has traditionally been non-partisan and above politics, and who absolutely must act within constitutional parameters (regardless of partisanship), according to history and custom. Having the majority Government appoint a Head of State? Partisan again. A free vote among the members of the House of Commons for one of the House Members? Sure, but again, the elected Member will still be a partisan member of a party. This might work for the Speaker of the House, but for the Head of State ... uhh, we're not sure.
At any rate, the question posed by the OP is effectively moot, unless the Parliament and all the provinces of Canada are in agreement, as per Charter s. 41(a). Unless and until that happens, we have Elizabeth II as our head of state, then Charles, then William, then ....
I'm nonpartisan in political affairs, can speak passable French (though there is admittedly room for improvement), certainly know the constitutional role, and understand the emergency reserve powers (and how they can be used and misused); and while I've never done it, I'm pretty sure that I can bestow Orders of Canada, visit the graves of our Canadian servicemen in Commonwealth cemeteries, open a hospital, plant a tree, and show a Scout troop around Rideau Hall--once I know the way around it myself.
Thanks for the nomination, Fusion--if elected, you know that I will do my best in the position.
Perfect Chevy it is all set. Don't forget to give me that plumb Crony position though, and all will be good
That is incorrect. You are confusing Canada with some other countries (like the republic to our south for example) where the head of state may also be the head of government and exercises powers of government over the state. You should learn the differences between state and government, they are not the same thing and don't mean the same thing.
Canada is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy, not a republic, and Canada's head of government is the Prime Minister.
Canada's ceremonial head of state and figurehead is the Monarch but Canada's Monarch does not exercise powers of government. Canada's Governor General is a representative and mediator on behalf of the Monarch and the Prime Minister. The Canadian head of state (the Monarch) does hold some constitutional powers known as emergency "reserve powers" but they are rarely if ever exercised.
You are correct, though it is extremely confusing to have a foreign monarch who is "Head of state" but technically not "head of government" - the state usually referring to the government.
Either way, there is no place for a monarch being involved in government in any modern civilized country. Which must be why Liz's power is largely ceremonial.
The Prime Minister is Head of Government, responsible for spearheading legislation through the House of Commons. The Canadian Monarch is Head of State, responsible for approving such legislation (and receiving the credentials of foreign ambassadors, among other duties). The two roles, and their respective responsibilities, are held by two distinct people, as they are in many governments around the world, in both Parliaments and Republics. The United States is a little unusual, in that it combines the two offices in one person.
If Canada was to dump the Queen, the question of "how do we replace her?" is important; and it is my understanding that this is what upset the Australian question along the same lines back in the 1990s--though many Australians wanted to dump the Queen, nobody could figure out how to replace the Monarch in a constitutional monarchy. A popular election? No, that brings in campaigning and partisan politics, contending for a position that has traditionally been non-partisan and above politics, and who absolutely must act within constitutional parameters (regardless of partisanship), according to history and custom. Having the majority Government appoint a Head of State? Partisan again. A free vote among the members of the House of Commons for one of the House Members? Sure, but again, the elected Member will still be a partisan member of a party. This might work for the Speaker of the House, but for the Head of State ... uhh, we're not sure.
At any rate, the question posed by the OP is effectively moot, unless the Parliament and all the provinces of Canada are in agreement, as per Charter s. 41(a). Unless and until that happens, we have Elizabeth II as our head of state, then Charles, then William, then ....
Is the U.S. really "a little unusual" in that regard? Aren't they the most copied form of government on the planet, along with France, the other most copied government, where the head of state is also the head of government?
Having a constitutional monarchy, where the head of state is not head of government, and where the government essentially operates as a republic in all but name; that is much stranger.
The Americans had the same questions you have when they shed our government, but it was back in the 1700s. It's interesting that we now are asking the same questions. A bit late, but better than never.
Is the U.S. really "a little unusual" in that regard? Aren't they the most copied form of government on the planet, along with France, the other most copied government, where the head of state is also the head of government?
Having a constitutional monarchy, where the head of state is not head of government, and where the government essentially operates as a republic in all but name; that is much stranger.
The Americans had the same questions you have when they shed our government, but it was back in the 1700s. It's interesting that we now are asking the same questions. A bit late, but better than never.
PB, you may be slightly behind the times in your characterization of Canada vs U.S. of A. vis-Ã -vis constitutional relevancy.
"Over the past several decades, the influence of the United States Constitution and Supreme Court around the
world has waned while that of the Canadian Charter and Supreme Court has increased."
"According to several authorities, the charter, which turns 30 on April 17, has been influencing not just Canadian law but jurisprudence and the drafting of constitutions around the world.
In a forthcoming study that analyzes the content of the world's constitutions, titled, "The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution," its authors observe that, "a stark contrast can be drawn between the declining attraction of the U.S. Constitution as a model for other countries and the increasing attraction of the model provided by America’s neighbour to the north, Canada."
By the same American authors as published in a number of American Law reviews:
Canada does not have to "ask the same question" because it would seem to be a redundant and irrelevant question to ask.
The only possible improvement to the current "constitutional" supremacy we already enjoy, would be installing Chevy as our de-facto head of state to replace the purely titular one we currently have.
One thing I love about the USA is we don't take a dysfunctional, inbred family and declare them royal leaders. I would never bow or show any more respect to these people than any other citizen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
