Canada Pays More For Monarchy Than UK

[SirJosephPorter]

The simple reason that the system in question would be laughed at if proposed in a modern context should be enough to change it.

Not quite, S_lone, the criteria are usually slightly different for something new and what we already have.

Let me give you an example. Suppose you have an employee who is not doing a good job, would you fire him right away? You won’t, you will give him a warning, tell him that he must improve his performance. If he does improve his performance, you keep him on. You don’t hire somebody else just excuse he can do a better job.

It is the same with monarchy. We already have it, so the question is not whether there is something better out there. There may well be. But the questions is, is monarchy working satisfactorily, are there any problems associated with it. The answers are yes, and no.

By supporting monarchy, you are supporting the concept that faith alone should be enough to assure a decent Head of State.

Not quite. We already have a head of state, and I don’t’ see any reason to get rid of her. If we want to replace something existing by something new, the bar is always very high for that something new.

For instance, look at the Senate. There are many ways Senate could be made to work better. But is anybody talking of Senate reform? Harper talked of it briefly, when he thought it would help him win the election, but dropped it as soon as he became the PM. It is the same with monarchy.

 

[Cannuck]

Sure we did. It's still here, isn't it? Most people don't even think about it very often.

Yup, most I know didn't even think to register what they got.

 

[Tonington]

You have a point. Changing the system (however minimal the attempt at change would be) would probably cause an elaborate national debate as to what Canadians really want. But unlike many of you, I do not fear this kind of debate.

I don't fear it. I know it won't be simple. I just don't see a valid point. We have vestigal organs in our body as well, and I don't intend to undergo a surgery to remove them, unless there is a valid reason.

Or perhaps this stems from the fact that as an individual, I would cherish the opportunity to participate in the process of redefining Canada.

Just define yourself, and contribute to what Canada is. You don't need to redefine the entire country. ;-)

But it is my view something as fundamental as how we appoint our Head of State cannot be constantly put in the closet. Canada has a dormant unity issue that can only get more poisonous as we constantly put our heads in the sand, refusing to see the obvious fact that we are only postponing an impending crisis.

What is the impending crisis? Quebecois separtistes? Western secessionists? A tyranny from the UK? I don't see the obvious and impending crisis.

Monarchy is a symbol of the old world. It is fundamentally undemocratic and we owe it to ourselves to find something better.

We do have something better. It's called Parliament. Orders don't come from the UK to poodles here and around the commonwealth. The laws of this country are made by Canadian lawmakers, citizens chosen to represent their constituents. Their office is democratic. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about that at all.

Your argument doesn't hold. The Monarch could also destroy our democracy if that was what it wished. Nothing guarantees us of the wisdom of monarch. Our present system relies exclusively on faith that the sex lives of a British family will create a smart and wise enough person to hold this responsibility.

Can you point me to where it is that gives the Monarch the power to make it's own laws in this country? The Monarch doesn't make or change laws (so far as I know), the Parliament does.

The position could very well be suggested by the prime minister and be voted upon by the House of Commons. How would that be worse than the system we already have?

I don't think it necessarily would be worse. This was rather my response to what you said of the role of the Monarch as our Head of State. To protect our democracy. If the government in power wishes to destroy our democracy, and they have a favourable Head of State, then it's not so difficult to do.

And that would be a bad thing? Limiting power?

Not at all. See, this is the part that isn't as easy; my point in this thread from the start is that these kinds of changes are not as easy as scratching out some words to replace them with something else. Who gets to pencil it in?

 

[Cannuck]

Her Majesty The Queen of Canada, and the Governor General of Canada, are at the constitutional core of our nation and cannot be removed or deposed without irrepairable damage to our system of government.

The exciting term so far of Her Excellency The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada—including our recent constitutional crisis—should make it evident enough to Canadians of all partisan associations that the role of The Queen, the Governor General and the monarchy as an institution must be defended.

The creation of a presidency equipped with the powers of the Governor General would only cause controversy, as I would venture to guess that a president acting with the legitimacy of election, or with the partisan backing of a prime minister, would make much too frequent use of the constitutional powers that our head of state possesses.

The Commons was unable to pass a vote condemning the Government, and that is why the Governor General had the authority and the discretion to grant the prime minister’s request to dissolve the legislature.

I can understand the heated emotions regarding the issue, however, as the Governor General’s decision—in essence—rejected the Liberal bid to form Government

It is to our tremendous advantage that The Queen and the Governor General reserve their uses of our emergency powers, because they are such powers that should only be exercised under the strangest and more extreme of circumstances.

It is best that these powers are vested in The Queen, who has no personal stake in the Government operations of the day.

It is of paramount importance that such powers are kept out of the hands of Government masters, so that they can be applied appropriately at the correct time (though I do, of course, hope that such a time never approaches).

The Governor General has sometimes been termed a ‘constitutional fire extinguisher’, and it is in this spirit that the position—and the powers inherent thereto—must be protected.

Paradox already alluded to the fact that the Monarchy is, for all intents and purposes, a figure head. If you have comprehension problems, tough sh*t. Go back to school and pay attention this time.

Somebody with your obvious lack of intelligence and comprehension skills really shouldn't be pointing the finger at others. The posts of 5P speak for themselves and it is very clear that he believes the monarch is more than just a figure head. Why don't you run along and let us adults have this conversation. You know I'll only hand you your ass again (as per usual). Mind you, I do so enjoy that so, why don't you stick around and tell me some more about what 5P does or doesn't think.

 

[gerryh]

Somebody with your obvious lack of intelligence and comprehension skills really shouldn't be pointing the finger at others. The posts of 5P speak for themselves and it is very clear that he believes the monarch is more than just a figure head. Why don't you run along and let us adults have this conversation. You know I'll only hand you your ass again (as per usual). Mind you, I do so enjoy that so, why don't you stick around and tell me some more about what 5P does or doesn't think.

I'll say it again.....you don't have a f*ckin clue.

 

[s_lone]

I don't fear it. I know it won't be simple. I just don't see a valid point. We have vestigal organs in our body as well, and I don't intend to undergo a surgery to remove them, unless there is a valid reason.

This is probably the best analogy I've heard concerning this subject... It demonstrates your point quite clearly.

Just define yourself, and contribute to what Canada is. You don't need to redefine the entire country. ;-)

Perhaps I unconsciously want to be the Monarch of the country... :wink:

What is the impending crisis? Quebecois separtistes? Western secessionists? A tyranny from the UK? I don't see the obvious and impending crisis.

I don't know about western secessionists... But living in Quebec and having been born born here, I feel safe in saying that the unity crisis is far from solved in regards to Quebec. It's just a question of time before the issue pops up again. There tends to be a very different conception of what Canada should be around here and monarchy certainly isn't part of it...

We do have something better. It's called Parliament. Orders don't come from the UK to poodles here and around the commonwealth. The laws of this country are made by Canadian lawmakers, citizens chosen to represent their constituents. Their office is democratic. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about that at all.

I agree. What is undemocratic is the fact that the Head of State is British and arbitrarily determined by who sleeps with who in the British royal family. Whether or not the monarch is a figurehead or an actual authority, I find it rather poor judgement on behalf of Canadians. But again, I understand why one would want to keep things the way they are to avoid a national crisis.

Can you point me to where it is that gives the Monarch the power to make it's own laws in this country? The Monarch doesn't make or change laws (so far as I know), the Parliament does.

You're right, the monarch doesn't make its own laws in this country. But the Queen being our sovereign, she could technically overrule any decision taken by the GG. The GGs role is quite important and doesn't need to be ''supervised'' by a foreign authority. The GG needs to be Canadian and answer to no one but Canadians...

But I'm being an idealist again...

I don't think it necessarily would be worse. This was rather my response to what you said of the role of the Monarch as our Head of State. To protect our democracy. If the government in power wishes to destroy our democracy, and they have a favourable Head of State, then it's not so difficult to do.

A monarch is not a blank slate with no opinion. Nothing guarantees a future monarch couldn't be an extremist. If that ever happened, Canadians would quickly realize how foolish it is to have a Head of State appointed by birth right.[/QUOTE]


Not at all. See, this is the part that isn't as easy; my point in this thread from the start is that these kinds of changes are not as easy as scratching out some words to replace them with something else. Who gets to pencil it in?[/QUOTE]

I fully agree. It would be complicated and it would raise many complex issues. I'm all for it but understand why one wouldn't wan to be.

 

[gerryh]

Somebody with your obvious lack of intelligence and comprehension skills really shouldn't be pointing the finger at others. The posts of 5P speak for themselves and it is very clear that he believes the monarch is more than just a figure head. Why don't you run along and let us adults have this conversation. You know I'll only hand you your ass again (as per usual). Mind you, I do so enjoy that so, why don't you stick around and tell me some more about what 5P does or doesn't think.

I'll say it again.....you don't have a f*ckin clue.

Look up the King/Byng Affair.

 

[Cannuck]

I'll say it again.....you don't have a f*ckin clue.

Is that the best you can do? Cripes, you're hardly worth the effort and it's hardly any effort.

BTW - saying it again only makes you look silly...again. You should try something different...maybe try saying something smart.

 

[Cannuck]

Look up the King/Byng Affair.

No need to. I'm well aware of it but for the life of me, I can't see the relevance (I know you think it's relevant but you don't understand the discussion at hand).

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

You mean like the juvenile anti-monarchist sentiment that spawned this thread?

When you can't think of anything intelligent to say, use insults. A good reason to be evivted from the thread.

Dumping the monarchy is no small matter in a country and it will cause some people like above to fret, "No you can't do it, it's too complicated because it involves the constitution and that constitution thingy is sacred. No, just do nothing. And even if someone has an idea, just shoot it down with little thought."

To small minds, nothing needs to change, that's great if you're a country like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, where change is shunned wherever possible. Maybe this is Asian globalization, shun all progressive change in a country. But the majority are indicating they want constituional change and it will happen.

People don't want to see a successor to the current queen of England to reign over Canada. Cdns may realize that letting an ancient institution die with dignity may be the right, proper, and entirely appropriate thing to do in our modern times.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Her Majesty The Queen of Canada, and the Governor General of Canada, are at the constitutional core of our nation and cannot be removed or deposed without irrepairable damage to our system of government. The prime minister is completely absorbed with the day-to-day operations of government—it’s important to have a head of State (de facto or de jure) with the resources and the time to dedicate to decorations, honours, awards, and the promotion and development of Canadian culture. This would not be possible were these responsibilities to be downloaded onto the head of Government (the prime minister).

I would think that our most recent constitutional crisis would have been a wake-up call for the anti-monarchists out there—the idea of an elected, partisan individual being the highest constitutional authority under such a situation is absolutely mad. The Queen has always cherished her role as the Canadian sovereign, and Her Majesty has articulated this on several occasions—we should be proud to have such a professional, wise and calm head of State. It worries me that there are Canadians who would seek to destroy the monarchy, only to replace it with a presidency that would cost as just as much funds as the Office of the Governor General.

We should be proud of the monarchy, and proud of this constitutional and historical bond that we hold with the 15 other Realms of the Commonwealth. The exciting term so far of Her Excellency The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada—including our recent constitutional crisis—should make it evident enough to Canadians of all partisan associations that the role of The Queen, the Governor General and the monarchy as an institution must be defended.

(Thanks, eh1eh! :smile

It would cause irrepairable damage to our constitution if the monarchy was removed? Even if the people want change? That sounds like democracy in action to me, just what we have in these modern times. Nothing is sacred, once you have outlived your usefulness, you're shown the door one way or another. Newsflash, the world is a changing place. You adjust, keep up, or fall behind.

You represent the idea the Cdn const. is somehow sacred and cannot be changed except in extenuating circumstances. Do we work for the const. or does it work for us? Indians think treaties are sacred too, they're not, they have to adjust to the times. Everyone has to.

 

[Cannuck]

"Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don't have time for all that ..." - George Carlin

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: The Queen and the Constitution

Cannuck, I’m discovering your use of my name to be rather disingenuous. Yes, I have brought attention to the paramount roles that the sovereign, Her Majesty The Queen of Canada, plays on the constitutional stage of Canada. However, I do trust that I have been just as clear with my emphasis that The Queen’s powers are exercised through Her Majesty’s representatives, and almost invariably on the advice of those responsible to the House of Commons. This provides a healthy insulation for The Crown of Canada, because such uses of these powers have the support of our elected representatives.

Under such circumstances where The Queen or Her Majesty’s viceregal representatives may need to make a decision contrary to the head of Government of the day, these representatives have access to the most experienced and learned constitutional scholars—we can trust that such decisions are not made without due regard to the written constitution and our unwritten constitutional conventions. By the very appointed nature of the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors, we can be absolutely comfortable in the knowledge that they truly do act as a constitutional safeguard. We can trust that such a viceregal decision is made for the country, rather than for a party, because (a) the Governor General holds higher constitutional rank than the prime minister, meaning that the pressure that a Government can place on a Governor General can be curbed; (b) the Governor General has no party, and therefore can make decisions notwithstanding the wishes of the nation’s parties, and (c) the Governor General does not need to seek re-election or approval, and therefore can make decisions based on what is constitutional and correct, rather than what is popular (and this is what we need when a constitutional crisis arises).

And dumpthemonarchy, if you are of the opinion that Indian treaties do not need to be respected, then that would be another topic on which we very much disagree—I would be happy to engage you in that conversation elsewhere, of course. As for the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982, I do consider the constitution to be somewhat of a ‘sacred’ document, because it is the foundation of Canada and the basis of our systems of government and our rights and freedoms. Canada is founded on the concepts of peace, order and good government, and these can never be truly achieved without a strong—but adaptive—constitution. We have our concrete foundation on the written document, and we have the advantage of an unwritten constitution to help us to adapt to the events of the day—and this is perhaps a good chance to remind members that the tremendous advantages of unwritten constitutions are largely a feature, exclusively, of constitutional monarchy.

I think it’s odd that you would suggest, dumpthemonarchy, that people “don’t want to see a successor to the current queen of England” reign over Canada. I am going to note here that we are not reigned over by a foreign monarch—our sovereign is Her Majesty The Queen of Canada, completely separate and individual of Her Majesty’s roles, whatever they may be, elsewhere. The Queen and members of The Royal Family of Canada are Canadian subjects. The Queen of Canada is a Canadian monarch, and not a British one, with respect to our national constitution. Let us be clear here: There are no advantages that Canada would receive as a result of ending constitutional monarchy. And fortunately, there is no credible movement or drive for such a disastrous change amongst the Canadian people. I cannot foresee the Honourable the Senate of Canada, the House of Commons, and the governments of the provinces suddenly deciding to toss out The Queen and the Governor General—and this is because it would be a terrible, regrettable and most unwise move.

(I know that you both must hate me, but Cannuck and dumpthemonarchy, this is an awesome discussion!)

 

[AnnaG]

So is there some kind of law or something that says we can't scrap a constitution and build another?

 

[FiveParadox]

To repeal the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982, AnnaG, would [I believe] require the consent of the Senate, Commons and the unanimous agreement of the provinces (because repealing the entire constitution would repeal several ‘protected’ sections of the document).

 

[s_lone]

To repeal the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982, AnnaG, would [I believe] require the consent of the Senate, Commons and the unanimous agreement of the provinces (because repealing the entire constitution would repeal several ‘protected’ sections of the document).

Unanimous agreement of the provinces? I'm sure you are aware that the constitution act of 1982 was endorsed by all provinces except Quebec.

Would full agreement from all provinces be necessary?

 

[Tonington]

This is probably the best analogy I've heard concerning this subject... It demonstrates your point quite clearly.

I have to get one right eventually ehh? :lol:

Perhaps I unconsciously want to be the Monarch of the country... :wink:

Who wouldn't? It's a pretty sweet gig!

I don't know about western secessionists... But living in Quebec and having been born born here, I feel safe in saying that the unity crisis is far from solved in regards to Quebec. It's just a question of time before the issue pops up again. There tends to be a very different conception of what Canada should be around here and monarchy certainly isn't part of it...

That's understandable I think, given the rich history and special circumstances. Though I'm not so sure it's viewed as an impending crisis in other parts of the country. would you say that the past ten years has seen the issue subside, or is it just festering under the surface?

I agree. What is undemocratic is the fact that the Head of State is British and arbitrarily determined by who sleeps with who in the British royal family. Whether or not the monarch is a figurehead or an actual authority, I find it rather poor judgement on behalf of Canadians. But again, I understand why one would want to keep things the way they are to avoid a national crisis.

Honestly, it's not something I give a great deal of thought to, though for my part I think it does no harm to respect the traditions of our country. The future will change, and has changed quite a good deal from the small beginnings here in Canada.

You're right, the monarch doesn't make its own laws in this country. But the Queen being our sovereign, she could technically overrule any decision taken by the GG. The GGs role is quite important and doesn't need to be ''supervised'' by a foreign authority. The GG needs to be Canadian and answer to no one but Canadians...

The GG is Canadian, and I don't think she takes marching orders from Buckingham.

A monarch is not a blank slate with no opinion. Nothing guarantees a future monarch couldn't be an extremist. If that ever happened, Canadians would quickly realize how foolish it is to have a Head of State appointed by birth right.

I expect if that were to happen, then we would have a valid reason to make changes, and would do so.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Can you point me to where it is that gives the Monarch the power to make it's own laws in this country? The Monarch doesn't make or change laws (so far as I know), the Parliament does.

Tonington, the Monarch may not have the power to make laws, but every law must be signed by the monarch (through her representative, GG), only then the law is considered as passed.

While the Monarch would not even dream of using the power, nevertheless, it does exist. I remember when the Commons and the Senate passed the bill legalizing gay marriage, the religious right in Canada petitioned the Queen, urging her to direct the GG to refuse to sign the bill into law. Queen ignored the petition of course. But the point is that Queen does have that power.

But the point also is that Queen never uses it, there isn’t a problem. Now if Queen uses the power and starts meddling into the laws of Canada, then there would be a very good argument to get rid of the monarchy. But if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I remember an amusing incident regarding this power of the monarch. I think this happened in Belgium.

The Belgian Parliament passed a law legalizing abortion. But the king refused to sign it. He is Catholic, abortion is against his religion. But we can’t have that in a constitutional monarchy, the King may not block a law properly passed by the Parliament.

But the King was equally adamant in not signing the bill into law. So they forged a compromise. The King abdicated, and somebody else was crowned the King. That somebody else signed the bill into law and then he in turn abdicated, the original king was crowned again and everything was right with the world.

But the point is that in a constitutional monarchy, the Monarch has the power to block any legislation, but by tradition does not do so.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't know about western secessionists... But living in Quebec and having been born born here, I feel safe in saying that the unity crisis is far from solved in regards to Quebec. It's just a question of time before the issue pops up again. There tends to be a very different conception of what Canada should be around here and monarchy certainly isn't part of it...

You are quite right, s_lone; the separatist issue will be with us for a long time. Separatists have several demands, however, getting rid of the monarchy isn’t one of them. While most of Quebecois maybe in favor of getting rid of monarchy, I don’t think the sentiment is strong on the subject. If they didn’t have other grievances, I don’t’ see them separating on the issue of monarchy.