The Monarchy in Canada | Queen Elizabeth 1926-2022

[JHikka]

I agree with the notion that a GG's term could be bumped up to 10 years (or two five-year terms) if the position is to continue in our current structure. I think Johnston served for more than five years?

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Harper put in place a non partisan board to present a vetted selection of candidates for the PM to choose. JT tossed that idea for his choice of the space cadet. Did they not go back to the panel to pick the current GG?

From CTV:

When the vacancy was created, O'Toole had called for Trudeau to consult other parties before nominating a replacement, given the dynamics of the minority Parliament. Instead, in March the government struck an advisory panel tasked with helping select the next governor general.

The panel was co-chaired by President of the Queen's Privy Council and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic Leblanc and Janice Charette, who is filling in as Privy Council clerk. The other members included Obed, Universite de Montreal rector Daniel Jutras, former secretary to the governor general Judith LaRocque, and interim Canada Post chair Suromitra Sanatani.

Trudeau was expected to receive the shortlist of prospective candidates by mid-June, according to LeBlanc. He recently told a House committee that the advisory panel hosted 12 meetings and the list of potential appointees for Trudeau to consider was "interesting."

When the prime minister travelled to the U.K for the G7 two weeks ago, he spoke with Queen Elizabeth about the status of the process to choose a new governor general.

While at the time the vacancy was created, LeBlanc said that it would not take months to tap a replacement, the search and likely vetting process to pick the next governor general has taken half a year, after Trudeau came under fire for not properly vetting his last pick.

On Tuesday, he said that there were “close to 100 different names vetted and reflected on” before Simon rose to the top of the list.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mary...eral-1.5498146

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I agree with the notion that a GG's term could be bumped up to 10 years (or two five-year terms) if the position is to continue in our current structure. I think Johnston served for more than five years?



From CTV:



https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mary...eral-1.5498146

That was the second time around. The first time he ignored the committee or any sort of vetting process.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Acajack hasn't posted all day. He must have taken the day off to binge watch the Royal Funeral.

He's a closet monarchist, I just know he is.........

Vive le Roi!

I wonder if he crossed the river to see the parade.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Airboy

And yet the leaders of Assembly of FN, Metis Nations of Canada and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami were present. Along with our Current GG.

It's due to Crown-Indigenous relations and they are there as an important reminder about colonialism. But of the many Indigenous people I know, you'd be surprised at how many of them actually like the current Royal Family. Definitely not the past monarchs of course. AFN Chief RoseAnne Archibald is from my region and I know that she is a wonderful person to represent First Nations and is a very sincere.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That was the second time around. The first time he ignored the committee or any sort of vetting process.

That's mentioned at the end of the quoted section.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Loco101

It's due to Crown-Indigenous relations and they are there as an important reminder about colonialism. But of the many Indigenous people I know, you'd be surprised at how many of them actually like the current Royal Family. Definitely not the past monarchs of course.

I am not sure why the monarchy gets blamed for colonialism-related policies. Monarchs haven’t held executive power for centuries.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am not sure why the monarchy gets blamed for colonialism-related policies. Monarchs haven’t held executive power for centuries.

True. We’ve had over a 160 years to correct the sins of our own governments. The crown has not had a direct hand on any of our internal policies for generations.

[jigglysquishy]

My wife's family is mostly Métis and they're the most pro monarchy people I know.

As with most Indigenous issues, the community is very divided. Really, they're not a unified community but hundreds of small diverse cultures with vastly different economic realities and political opinions.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

My wife's family is mostly Métis and they're the most pro monarchy people I know.

As with most Indigenous issues, the community is very divided. Really, they're not a unified community but hundreds of small diverse cultures with vastly different economic realities and political opinions.

Like every other community in the world. There is never a monolith of opinion anywhere. Well except in oppressive dictatorships.

[Acajack]

Very touching to see all of the concern for me today.

Turns out I had a really busy day.

Completely unrelated to the Queen.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am not sure why the monarchy gets blamed for colonialism-related policies. Monarchs haven’t held executive power for centuries.

But the monarchy became very wealthy at the expense of many Indigenous peoples and slaves around the world who were in British colonies. And the Royal Family is still very wealthy today because of what happened back then. It's the same for many upper class families in the UK.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Loco101

But the monarchy became very wealthy at the expense of many Indigenous peoples and slaves around the world who were in British colonies. And the Royal Family is still very wealthy today because of what happened back then. It's the same for many upper class families in the UK.

Shocking, seeing as this doesn't exist anywhere else in the world, where all people are truly equal.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Like every other community in the world. There is never a monolith of opinion anywhere. Well except in oppressive dictatorships.

But so many people in Canada and especially right-leaning people see Indigenous people as all living off the taxpayers (and not contributing) or as SJWs. That is a big reason why very few Indigenous people vote for conservative parties even though many of them are quite conservative themselves.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Architype

Shocking, seeing as this doesn't exist anywhere else in the world, where all people are truly equal.

Of course it exists in many other places. I never said it didn't.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Loco101

But the monarchy became very wealthy at the expense of many Indigenous peoples and slaves around the world who were in British colonies. And the Royal Family is still very wealthy today because of what happened back then. It's the same for many upper class families in the UK.

That isn’t really true. The Royal Family’s wealth is almost entirely from land in the UK. Wealth from colonies mostly went to private companies (HBC, DIC, etc.)

Taxes levied in the colonies were decided by Parliament (the monarch had lost power over taxation long before Columbus sailed) and went to the British Treasury, which has always been controlled by Parliament.

Congo was a personal colony of the King of the Belgians for a while, Britain never had such an arrangement.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Loco101

But the monarchy became very wealthy at the expense of many Indigenous peoples and slaves around the world who were in British colonies. And the Royal Family is still very wealthy today because of what happened back then. It's the same for many upper class families in the UK.

Yet it was George III’s Royal proclamation in 1763 that restricted the American colonists from expanding past the Appalachians into Indigenous lands that led to the Revolutionary War. No history is black and white.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Very touching to see all of the concern for me today. Turns out I had a really busy day.

"Pussycat, pussycat, where have you been?"

Originally Posted by Acajack

Completely unrelated to the Queen.

Oh.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yet it was George III’s Royal proclamation in 1763 that restricted the American colonists from expanding past the Appalachians into Indigenous lands that led to the Revolutionary War. No history is black and white.

Yep. Not only did the British Monarchs try to prevent European settlers coming into conflict with the Indigenous people. They also guaranteed Québec linguistic, legal and religious rights. And these became specific grievances in the US Declaration of Independence. Our First Nations could have ended up a lot more like those of the US. And our Francophones could have ended up a lot more like the Cajuns.

And bizarrely for all the racism that has happened, the signing of treaties directly with the crown did recognize them as closer to equal in sovereignty over Canada. Indigenous people are probably right to be concerned that any republic may well decide that deals the Crown should no longer be honoured.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Indigenous people are probably right to be concerned that any republic may well decide that deals the Crown should no longer be honoured.

Any time there is a radical change in the form of governance, there is the real risk that any and all previous agreements will get tossed out the window (a constitutional defenestration so to speak).

[VANRIDERFAN]

This is not to say that the British Crown didn't bring more of its fair share of harm to indigenous peoples around the world.

Have a listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History Podcast about Slavery. It's very clinical about the subject.



https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR...YXQ9eG1s?ep=14