Canada Pays More For Monarchy Than UK

[SirJosephPorter]

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

Are you serious Anna? Do you really want to scrap the constitution and build another? Do you think that is an easy task? There is no way the provinces are going to agree on another constitution (they may perhaps agree on scrapping the present one, even that is extremely unlikely). The country will break up before we agree on another constitution.

Trudeau was a mental giant. He had charisma, people management skills, mastery of the art of negotiations. He was a consummate politician and a skilled diplomat. Only a Trudeau can get all the provinces to agree to a constitution (and even he couldn’t get Quebec on board).

If any of the current pygmies try to come up with a new constitution, they will probably end up breaking up the country.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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?

It is true that Québec was not on board regarding the constitution. However, to get rid of it, approval will be needed from all provinces, including Quebec.

 

[taxslave]

And here all I wanted to do was save us a few million bucks and the embarrassment on the world stage of having a foreigner as the head of our country.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Québec’s Objections to the Canadian State

I am aware of Québec’s previous concerns about the Constitution Act, 1982, s_lone. Nonetheless, the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Parliament of Canada, passed and enacted the constitution—section 41 of which prevents such radical changes without the unanimous support of the provinces (including Québec).

 

[FiveParadox]

Her Majesty The Queen of Canada, and members of The Royal Family of Canada, are Canadian subjects. They are absolutely not ‘foreigners’.

 

[Cannuck]

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.

You sure are going to make a great politician some day. That is unfortunate.

This isn't that HofC so, perhaps you could try and address some of the comments of others, instead of dancing (poorly) around them.

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 ....

Nonsense. Once a party hack, always a party hack.

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

You certainly must take this stuff more seriously than I do. Even if I did take it seriously, I could hardly hate you. You talk like a politician and that is a horrible affliction for such a young man as yourself.

 

[s_lone]

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'd say a mix of both... it's complex. The issue has subsided somehow because there are so many other problems. In the years following the 1995 referendum, the PQ was in power until 2003 and it was plagued by inner quarrels as to how to deal with the results of 1995. When and how should they do another referendum? Should they do it in the first place without any assurance of victory? Meanwhile the party tried its best to govern and improve the bleak financial situation of Canadian. A zero deficit law was passed by the péquistes (PQ). This was probably a good thing but it forced them to take some very tough decisions to cut government spending. Health care and education both suffered from it and a lot of people were unhappy.

After 9/11, I think the separatist cause went down significantly and that is quite understandable. Nobody knew where that would lead the world and we all figured it'd be best to stick with the devil you know in these volatile times.

Then in 2003 Jean Charest and his Liberals won under the promise that they would solve the health care issue. Six years later, they haven't and things haven't really improved. All they did was open the door a little more to private health care while the public system is still crumbling.

Meanwhile the PQ has quarreled incessantly within itself, not too sure of where it is going. They've stabilized a bit under Pauline Marois, who decided that while not forgetting their ''raison d'être'' (their ultimate objective), their focus should be put on good governance. But... she also plans to demand more powers from Ottawa. This is important because if she ever gets elected this is a win-win situation for the separatists... If Ottawa says yes, Quebec has more independence. If Ottawa says no, Quebecers get angry and become separatists again. (It's not that simple but I'm sure you get the idea...)

So today we are left with a very cynic population. People are mostly fed up with politics and are losing their trust more and more. Whether or not the PQ can make a real comeback remains to be seen. The next election will be sometime around 2012-13 and by then, you can be sure Quebecers will be fed up with the Liberals...

But there is definitely an identity crisis that has not been resolved and that is certainly festering under the surface. If we stick to the anatomical analogies, I'd say the Quebec identity crisis is like Canada having a bad heart condition. It's just a question of time before there is another heart attack.

But who knows... In the end, things will probably unfold in unexpected ways...

 

[SirJosephPorter]

s_lone, what happened to ‘Action demcoratique’ and Mario Dumont? Why did they implode?

 

[L Gilbert]

Who gives a hoot if we have a monachy or not? It's almost all cosmetic. It's a waste of money, IMO, but we have it. Might as well live with it.

 

[s_lone]

s_lone, what happened to ‘Action demcoratique’ and Mario Dumont? Why did they implode?

There was an election in 2007 where the Liberals won a minority government. This was a relatively historical vote because the Liberal-PQ duel had finally been broken by a third party. The ADQ was the official opposition while the PQ was pushed back to 2nd opposition... This was quite a lesson for the PQ...

The ADQ had been around for quite a while but had never managed to get more than 4 or 5 seats... Basically they could be described as some sort of Quebec version of the federal Conservatives... A lot of people were fed up of the Liberals but were even more fed up with the PQ and its constant push for sovereignty.

The ADQ had an ''autonomist'' platform... Basically what it means is that it fully accepted the fact that Quebec was part of Canada but wanted to rule the province as ''independently'' as possible...

The ADQ pretty much surfed on a wave of apprehension towards accomodations that were being made towards minorities. You can read more on the ''reasonable accomodations'' crisis here...

Reasonable accommodation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So to sum it up, the 2007 Quebec election had these results...

Liberals : 48 seats ( 28 seats lost)
ADQ: 41 seats (37 seats gained)
PQ: 36 seats (9 seats lost)

While the Liberals won the election, it's not hard to see how the ADQ was the real winner with all the seats it had gained.

The problem with the ADQ is that a hell of a lot of the them were newbies and didn't expect such a victory. They lacked experience and it showed in the following year and a half or so... They often tried to trigger elections over issues that were not serious enough to trigger one...

To make a long story short, they quickly became a some sort of joke...

In the following election in fall 2008, these were the results...

Liberals : 66 seats (18 gained)
PQ: 51 seats (15 gained)
ADQ : 7 seats (34 lost)
Québec Solidaire: 1 seat

Everything is pretty much back to ''normal'' except that Québec Solidaire, a leftist party managed to get one seat.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

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!)

Yes, this is a great discussion. But I don't hate anyone here.

Hmm, constitutional safeguards. They will likely go out the window real fast if there actually was an insurrection in the country. Look at Trudeau with the War Measures Act in 1970. Which was supported by 87% of the public. Constitutional scholars do what Bismarck said, paraphrasing, "It is my job to do it, and your job (academics) to analyse why."

Govts do not look to the ivory tower when they need to act, and the public does not expect them to. Who is elected? Who is responsible after the mess? Sure, we need scholars to lay out the rules, but they do not govern, and governing is what this is all about. There is a quiet demand for change, we're not a revolutionary people but we don't expect things to stagnate.

I don't like it that an unelected dilletante had an influence over fed politics last winter. Her job is political, whether she or anyone else feels that way or not. She got involved in the dirty but necessary work of politics. She is no longer above politics. So this position must be elected to openly reveal her agenda.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

s_lone, I am not all that familiar with Quebec politics, but wasn’t ADQ similar to the Reform Party? They had many similar views.

And if that is true, could that be one reason why they imploded? People voted for them in 2007 because they were disgusted with the two mainstream parties. However, after people became familiar with what ADQ stood for, they realized that ADQ was totally out of Quebec mainstream.

Liberals and PQ are parties of left and centre left, ADQ was party of the right (At least that is my impression). Could that be one of the reasons of its demise?

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

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.

This is so absurd but every country is different. Belgium is an old small country, everybody knows everybody. So stretches like this can be done. It could happen in many countries I imagine.

In Canada, royal assent is merely a nod for crying out loud. Even more absurd. Canadians don't go for tradition, we want progress and leave fusty old ways behind for a better life.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

This is so absurd but every country is different. Belgium is an old small country, everybody knows everybody. So stretches like this can be done. It could happen in many countries I imagine.

In Canada, royal assent is merely a nod for crying out loud. Even more absurd. Canadians don't go for tradition, we want progress and leave fusty old ways behind for a better life.

It is a nod, sure , but the monarch does have the power to block the legislation. By tradition, of course, the monarch never interferes with Parliamentary democracy. If she did, that really will lead to the abolition of monarchy.

 

[s_lone]

s_lone, I am not all that familiar with Quebec politics, but wasn’t ADQ similar to the Reform Party? They had many similar views.

And if that is true, could that be one reason why they imploded? People voted for them in 2007 because they were disgusted with the two mainstream parties. However, after people became familiar with what ADQ stood for, they realized that ADQ was totally out of Quebec mainstream.

Liberals and PQ are parties of left and centre left, ADQ was party of the right (At least that is my impression). Could that be one of the reasons of its demise?

It's interesting to have your point of view...

I can't say I'm very familiar with what the reform party stood for (I'm 28) but yes, there are definitely some similarities between them and the ADQ...

And yes, you could say that a lot of those that voted for the ADQ wanted to try something new, being tired of the same old-same old of the Liberals and the PQ. But The ADQ quickly showed its lack of experience and didn't manage to keep the enthusiasm going.

I'd say that from the point of view of most Quebecers, PQ is center-left while the Liberals are center leaning to the right (because they are opening doors to private health care)...

Both parties have moved over to the right if you compare them to what they used to be... At least that is how I understand it... The PQ used to be leftist and moved over to center left... While the Liberals used to be center-left and moved over to the center...

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

It is a nod, sure , but the monarch does have the power to block the legislation. By tradition, of course, the monarch never interferes with Parliamentary democracy. If she did, that really will lead to the abolition of monarchy.

It seems odd how there can be "tradition" to do nothing, that is, not block legislation. This is a redundancy.

The monarch in Britain did have the power to stop legislation because that is what monarchs did in those days, or got parliament to pass what it wanted as the monarch was actively involved in governing. No monarch has ever been actively involved in governing Canada. We have the crown, a concept in place of a person. As a result, the crown in Canada is a different concept from the crown in Britain.

Britain had and has a crown, royal family, aristocracy, dukes, princesses, serfs, castles and lots of other stuff that just didn't make it across the ocean.

 

[GernB]

Has anyone here actually read the Constitution Act (1982)? Any amendment to the office of the Queen, Governor General or Lieutenant Governor of a province requires the consent of the Senate, House of Commons and the legislatures of all the provinces. So it would not be "relatively easy" to replace the GG with an elected president.

The Law Reform Commission recommended in 1978 that appointments of GG's be affirmed by Parliament. This could be institutionalized by having the Queen issue new letters patent regarding the office of GG, and the name of the office could be changed in this way as well. Having a directly elected GG would simply be a blueprint for conflict with the Prime Minister, as both would claim the support of the electorate.

Btw, the last time a parliamentary democracy combined the offices of the head of state and the head of government was in 1933. The new office was called Fuhrer.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Has anyone here actually read the Constitution Act (1982)? Any amendment to the office of the Queen, Governor General or Lieutenant Governor of a province requires the consent of the Senate, House of Commons and the legislatures of all the provinces. So it would not be "relatively easy" to replace the GG with an elected president.

The Law Reform Commission recommended in 1978 that appointments of GG's be affirmed by Parliament. This could be institutionalized by having the Queen issue new letters patent regarding the office of GG, and the name of the office could be changed in this way as well. Having a directly elected GG would simply be a blueprint for conflict with the Prime Minister, as both would claim the support of the electorate.

Btw, the last time a parliamentary democracy combined the offices of the head of state and the head of government was in 1933. The new office was called Fuhrer.

The foreigner queen from England should never ever sign anything relating to Canada. The country she loafs in, we must get a passport to go there.

 

[FiveParadox]

Way to completely fail to respond to the post.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Way to completely fail to respond to the post.

The post states, "the Queen issue new letters patent regarding the office of GG".

No, never, forget it. She can no longer do anything for Canada. And why?
Canadians tell themselves they live in an independent country. If a foreigner, that resides in a country we need a passport to get into, can alter our constitution, how independent are we? We are not an independent nation if we allow this.

I carry no British passport, I am not British, I want no British person, or person from any other country altering our constitution. Foreign monarchies and their aristocratic stink are done in Canada.