33 replies to this topic

[Chris J]

edit by mod: This discussion split from Lynn Hunter thread.

Jacques brought up a point that made me think.
Who is the Queen is relation to the 'Crown', exactly? Is she the Crown? Is the the leader of the Crown? Is she a representative of the Crown? Is she the Crown personified?
If the monarchy is symbolic in this country, then why is it that we go before the Crown every time we go to court? Seems to me they still rule over us in a very important way.

[Rob Randall]

There are mechanisms in place for people that will not or can not swear an oath of allegiance. There are options available.

In my case, because of my faith, I can not swear an oath for any reason. I am a Quaker and we do not do oaths because an oath assumes that is the only time you are being truthful and our faith has truthfulness at the core. We affirm instead of swearing.

When I was campaigning and knocking on doors last month, an elderly Jehovah's Witness gentleman answered the door but told me his religion didn't allow voting. I apologized for bothering him. Believe me, the irony was no lost on me.

I'm not sure if this swearing allegiance to the queen was always part of the City Hall ceremony or if it was only recently re-introduced.

BTW, here is a Globe Q & A about the Governor General's potential options in the Federal crisis going on now. The Queen's representative is more than just a mere symbol although I don't see them interfering in municipal matters except in the most grave of circumstances.

[Chris J]

I think one of the interesting things about the GG is being appointed by the Canadian government. (which I assume is more of a non-partisan kind of process than choosing supreme court judges)
You'd assume maybe the Queen could choose her own representative.

[mat]

I think one of the interesting things about the GG is being appointed by the Canadian government. (which I assume is more of a non-partisan kind of process than choosing supreme court judges)
You'd assume maybe the Queen could choose her own representative.

It's an interesting question Chris - and would take a session on constitutional reform and law to answer. However - this thread should be about Lynn Hunter.

If you cannot find a relevant thread to post a new topic into - send a PM to one of the mods, we would be happy to help out.

[Caramia]

Sometimes I think the criteria by which they are chosen is the criteria we should demand of all our politicians.

Some of my favourite speeches were given by our lieutenant governors.

The first was just recently when our Aboriginal Lieutenant governor Stephen LePoint was called on to give a speech ceremonially blessing the establishment of the Spring Ridge Well in Fernwood - a well that "belongs" to all the Victoria public, as it was never included in Canadian Confederation. He got about two sentences in and started to laugh, a huge belly laugh that set off the crowd. Yeah, the irony of the situation was well worth a giggle.

The second speech was years ago... I will never forget Iona Campenola. She was speaking at an AVIM meeting with all the politicans gathered together to bicker and backstab. She told a story about smoking under the docks with her native friends in Alert Bay as a teenager talking about how they would change the world. Then she talked about the changes that one tiny group of scruffy teenagers made. Looking at her (she had a dignity about her that I always found impressive) Myself being a scruffy teenager at the time, I was struck suddenly by this incredible sense of possibility.

She then proceeded to talk about an Iranian philosopher who gave us the 10 rules of dialogue. I've never forgotten that either. She was scolding the politicians as if they were a bunch of kids who had forgotten how to share their candy. My eyes were never wider.

1. The purpose of dialogue is to understand and learn from one another. (You cannot "win" a dialogue.)

2. All dialogue participants speak for themselves, not as representatives of groups or special interests.

3. Treat everyone in a dialogue as an equal: leave role, status and stereotypes at the door.

4. Be open and listen to others even when you disagree, and suspend judgment. (Try not to rush to judgment).

5. Search for assumptions (especially your own).

6. Listen with empathy to the views of others: acknowledge you have heard the other especially when you disagree.

7. Look for common ground.

8. Express disagreement in terms of ideas, not personality or motives.

9. Keep dialogue and decision-making as separate activities. (Dialogue should always come before decision-making.)

10. All points of view deserve respect and all will be recorded (without attribution).

[jklymak]

here is a Globe Q & A about the Governor General's potential options in the Federal crisis going on now. The Queen's representative is more than just a mere symbol although I don't see them interfering in municipal matters except in the most grave of circumstances.

The Queen is our head of state, just as the President is the head of state in the US. If you did away with the queen you'd need another way of choosing the head of state. It can't easily be the prime minister, as the current situation here makes clear.

If you elect the head of state, then the position becomes political. When it becomes political the head of state naturally acquires power. I think the interesting democratic experiment is how the US enshrined the powers of the head of state in their constitution, such that the president had a lot of power. In Britain (and Canada) the power in the head of state has atrophied in the intervening 225 years.

I personally think our system is better - the system in the states leads to confusion of responsibility: president can't do things, he blames congress. Congress can't pass things if they know the president will veto it. Our system, the person with veto power (the Queen) rarely exercises it, so you know who is running things. Conservatives of course tend to prefer the American system, as its conservative by nature...

[D.L.]

Some countries have their President as head of state, while also having a Prime Minister.

The "crown" is the crown of Christ. Correct me if I am wrong here, but the thone that the Queen sits on and the crown that she wears are literally those of Christ. If and when the second-coming happens the throne will be moved to Jerusalem and rule the world. The Queen is head of the Church of England, which considers itself to be Catholic - the true unbroken church that Jesus Christ established. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church thinks that as well, so they'll be involved somehow. Anyways, that's what the throne and the crown are, they represent the Kingdom of God on Earth, and the Queen is the current placeholder for Christ.

[mat]

Cara - beautifully written post, the points on dialogue should be the credo for any open/democratic discussion board, like VV.

I am personally a great admirer of Michaëlle Jean, a person who has grown through adversity and is a true Canadian example of intellectual and social triumph. She, and previous GG's, have been chosen out of a need to project the symbolism of the 'Canadian Way' - multiculturalism; solidifying links between diverse communities while respecting individualism. No one grows up in the belief there is a path to the job - it is a great honour to be selected, and a difficult job to complete without political scars (Clarkson is a prime example of that)

Our current GG will likely make precedence, if not history, tomorrow, when she receives Stephen Harper - and makes her ruling. The Privy Council will be offering advice, and standing by the phones - and guaranteed, constitutional lawyers from all sides.

There is really no set rule under the Canadian Constitution for this situation - (there should be). Ultimately the PM is the final decision maker on when Parliament should sit, when elections should be called, and which votes appear when on the calendar. In this case Harper has either had bad advice, or ignored good advice - without the confidence of parliament he has abrogated responsibility to the crown, and while the GG, as the crown's representative, has only symbolic powers under our constitution, knowing a vote would bring down the current government, and with no real precedent, or rule, to guide her, she has a very difficult choice.

I will not make any predictions - except to say tomorrow is going to be very interesting. Make a note of this for you and your children. History is being made.

[G-Man]

The US does have a Prime Minister except that they call it the House Majority Leader.

I like the Monarchy, keeps us out of trouble and makes for very pretty ceremonies.

Ladies & Gentlemen! The Queen!
(stands, downs the rest of his rum and eggnog, sits)

[G-Man]

God I hope she keeps the house sitting. Few things get me excited but a liberal-NDP coalition is one of them.

[mat]

The US does have a Prime Minister except that they call it the House Majority Leader.

I like the Monarchy, keeps us out of trouble and makes for very pretty ceremonies.

Ladies & Gentlemen! The Queen!
(stands, downs the rest of his rum and eggnog, sits)

G-Man, in my case it is Isle of Skye single malt - hear, hear!!

(brings tears to my eyes)

[jklymak]

There is really no set rule under the Canadian Constitution for this situation - (there should be). Ultimately the PM is the final decision maker on when Parliament should sit, when elections should be called, and which votes appear when on the calendar.

Are you sure about that (or did you make a typo)? I am no constitutional lawyer, but I was under the distinct impression the Queen has the final decision on all those matters, but tends to defer to the GG, who tends to defer to the PM.

[mat]

Ultimately it is up to the GG, under guidance from the Privy Council. Canada selects a GG as the ultimate arbitror so our dominion is not directly affected by royal selection. This from the Globe and Mail.

"Constitutional experts say in that situation the most minimal use of the Royal Prerogative would be to let the House get on with its work and let a new prime minister test the confidence of the House.

"Accepting the prime minister's advice for dissolution and an election in the present situation is also a possible, and proper, use of the prerogative. But that would establish a precedent, so far unknown, of the Crown interfering in the work of a newly elected House when it seems possible a new prime minister might be able to command the confidence of the House.

"The current Prime Minister could ask the Governor-General to prorogue this session of Parliament, to delay the work of the House until the New Year, an exercise of the Crown's reserve powers. That request would raise questions that have never been raised before. It seems a murkier situation than a request for dissolution would be.

"The Governor-General could refuse a prorogation request on the same grounds as refusing a dissolution request, that the refusal would represent the most minimal use of the Crown's powers and the least Crown interference with the work of the House. This session has hardly begun, and a confidence vote is scheduled within days.

"Proroguing the House with the current government facing a confidence vote and a proposed new government waiting in the wings would set an interesting precedent. That could be interpreted as meaning that future prime ministers could avoid defeat on confidence votes simply by proroguing Parliament and continuing to govern as usual. That would have potential effects not only in minority government situations."

This from Wikipedia on the role of the Crown.

Governmental role
Main: Monarchy of Canada: Constitutional role
The Governor General is the representative of the Canadian monarch, and may exercise most powers vested in the Crown. The Queen does retain all executive power and her Royal Prerogative, but she has never personally intervened in Canadian politics; most of her duties being exercised by the Governor General, though she does alone hold the power to appoint a governor general, and, as required by the Canadian constitution, to add seats to the Senate, but does so only on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister. Although the person who is monarch of Canada is also monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada being a sovereign nation, the British government cannot advise the Queen or her Governor General on Canadian matters, or otherwise interfere in Canadian affairs.

[mat]

Are you sure about that (or did you make a typo)? I am no constitutional lawyer, but I was under the distinct impression the Queen has the final decision on all those matters, but tends to defer to the GG, who tends to defer to the PM.

in reply to my post

There is really no set rule under the Canadian Constitution for this situation - (there should be). Ultimately the PM is the final decision maker on when Parliament should sit, when elections should be called, and which votes appear when on the calendar.

You are correct, although a Supreme Court Ruling on the intent of Dominion responsibility, of the Canadian Constitution, would likely dissolve Her Majesty's advice or commands, if offered (under Meach Lake the Provinces would have to agree). The Monarch will not openly interfere in this - and it places the GG in a very difficult position, as she is setting precedence.

Media right now is getting weird on this - no commentator is offering a prediction.

[Chris J]

Not to offend any religious beliefs here, but the whole Crown belonging to Jesus thing is yet another reason to revamp our whole system of governance. What it says to me is that we have a society filled with every imaginable religion, yet they are all ruled by a representative of Christ? So much for the pluralistic society.
I also have issue with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms stating that Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God. So much for the secular society. But that's another thread and I have no intention of further annoying Mat by steering threads way off topic, as I have been doing.

[Caramia]

The "crown" is the crown of Christ. Correct me if I am wrong here, but the thone that the Queen sits on and the crown that she wears are literally those of Christ. If and when the second-coming happens the throne will be moved to Jerusalem and rule the world. The Queen is head of the Church of England, which considers itself to be Catholic - the true unbroken church that Jesus Christ established. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church thinks that as well, so they'll be involved somehow. Anyways, that's what the throne and the crown are, they represent the Kingdom of God on Earth, and the Queen is the current placeholder for Christ.

I don't know where you are getting that Dylan but it is not correct. In fact the British Monarchy has in past years been responsible for persecuting Catholics. The Queen is not Catholic and has no authority within Catholicism.

She holds a religious office as well as a secular one - but they are two very separate offices. She's the head of the Anglican Church of England - which was created when the Pope tried to tell Henry the 8th he couldn't get a divorce, at which point Henry the 8th told the pope to shove it, and started his own rebel religion. Anglicans don't claim to be the true catholic church, they are a rebel church that defy the power of the pope and are very proud of that. In her capacity as our monarch the queen has absolutely no religious authority or connection.

In the Middle ages the church and state were very intertwined, but the idea of crown and throne are older than the Christian faith. If you wanted to really label them with a religious twist, you'd have to go for pagan.

[jklymak]

The US does have a Prime Minister except that they call it the House Majority Leader.

I think there are two fundamental differences between the US system and ours 1) the chief executive is elected in the states, and 2) the legislative branch has no executive duties in the US. In Canada the Prime Minister is, well the Prime Minister, and the other ministers are MPs, and they all have extensive executive duties. In fact they run the country. It couldn't be more different in the states where the cabinet secretaries are appointed by the President, and do not normally sit in the legislative branches.

The advantage, in my mind, to the US system is that experts can be tapped to be in the cabinet. The advantage of the Canadian system, and it is a huge one in my mind, is that the cabinet is directly accountable in the legislature for their decisions. Also the same people who draft the laws execute them, so there is a more direct responsibility.

[groundlevel]

The Church of England is both Catholic and Reformed -- catholic and protestant.

weird, eh?

The official position of the Anglican Communion is they are "a full and distinct branch of the 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church' ".

They are also a 16th Century protestant creation -- Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII.

Wikepedia has all the ins and outs of Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion and the Church of England.

Its the most protean of the Christian sects -- you get to be high church anglican with latin and incense; or evangelical with ecstatic shout and response; or (I'm not kidding)-- agnostic. And that's just the priests.

Women can be ordained priests within most of the Anglican Communion -- full out catholic priests dispensing communion. (38 branches -- different rules)

[arfenarf]

...it's a very big tent. I hope we don't tear ourselves apart at the seams in the next little bit. (But we're here to talk about the GG, sorry)

[groundlevel]

I'm just heartsick this morning about the editorial cartoon published in the Times Colonist, courtesy of the Calgary Herald.

The cartoon depicts GG Michaelle Jean -- with mop, in front of the rubble of a destroyed Parliament.

I have no problem with the satirical point -- the Governor General cleans up after the mess made by squabbling parliamentarians.

But Governor General Jean is depicted as a Haitian immigrant domestic -- complete with do-rag.

Whoa! Sorry, this strays into no-go territory. Black Woman as domestic servant is a painful stereotype. Right up there with a political cartoon that, since the political figure depicted is Jewish, gratuitously adds a nice big Jewish nose to a face. Gratuiously in this case means that the nose isn't legitimate caricture (like Steven Harpers skislope of a honker) but underlines racial identification.

I'm going to go whine to the Times Colonist but I just had to get this off my chest.