Canada Pays More For Monarchy Than UK

[SirJosephPorter]

God save The Queen.

FiveParadox, a gentleman, when informed by his doctor friend that he (the friend) had been appointed the Royal Physician, the Court Physician, replied back to him,

God save The Queen.

This is an old joke, during Queen Victoria’s reign, not the current queen.

 

[Cannuck]

First and foremost, there is the question of unity.

Under a system of monarchy, the entire population can be loyal and united under The Crown of Canada—there need not be a question of partisan association, or of the most recent budget, or of armed forces activities, or of the decisions of the government of the day. The entire nation can be united under The Crown—

Good lord 5P, stop talking like a politician and answer the question. Unity? Nonsense. Canada is no more "united" than Mexico or the US.

under a presidential republic, this is not the case. I’m sure this is obvious enough in discussions where, far too often, phrases such as “your president” are bandied about, to emphasize one’s distance from their own head of State.

That's a reason not to have an elected president. The Canadian PM could appoint a head of state without the monarchy.

Secondly, there is the question of the very constitutional structure of Canada.

We are fortunate enough to have a system where the executive authority is not vested in an elected individual—in practical terms, of course executive decisions rest with the prime minister, but the fact that the authority of those decisions does not rest with him or her is of paramount importance. Since a prime minister is accountable to both the House of Commons and The Crown, we have a system of government where the prime minister—should he ignore the express wishes of the House of Commons—can be removed for abuse of his constitutional prerogatives.

We have that already. It's called a non-confidence vote and funny that you should bring that up seeing as Liz's representative allowed our PM to duck one when he lost the support of the H of C.

We are blessed with a system where the Governor General or The Queen can exercise such a vast range of constitutional powers, under emergency or exigent circumstances, as the case requires.

Which she gets simply because she didn't have an older brother...kind of an odd reason to give somebody power.

A prime minister that abuses his constitutional powers (knock on wood) can be dismissed with the entire authority of The Crown, and a Government thrown out of power—a Government can be commissioned in a mere moment, and it would have the entire authority of The Crown, and the law. These powers do, of course, sound radical—and they are. This is why these powers are not used, but rather exist as a safeguard against threats to Canada’s democracy. Such emergency powers could not be used with any semblence of legitimacy by an elected representative.

It's very odd that you would be more concerned with an abuse of power by an elected representative of the people but not by an unelected monarch. Seems to me in the history of mankind, unelected monarch have wreaked havoc on more people than the democratically elected.

And of course, there is the issue of honours, and of the command-in-chief of the Canadian Forces. It is inappropriate for the members of the Canadian armed forces to have to be united under the leader of a political party—

Says who? The US military is inappropriate? That's just plain laughable. You are really grasping at straws to feebly support your position.

The same concept stands for honours and decorations—awards and such should be awarded by someone who is non-partisan, just as justice should be administered in the name of a non-partisan authority, again The Queen.

Or some other head of state appointed by the PM

And once again, I’m not worried about the monarchy losing its status for Canadians—I cannot foresee the Senate, Commons and the ten provincial legislatures coming to an agreement to toss the Governor General and Her Majesty out. We are fortunate to be governed by a system of constitutional monarchy, and I very much hope that its key characteristics are maintained and strengthened in the years to come.

I don't foresee us losing the monarchy in the near future but unless folks like you (that support it) can come up with real reasons to have it (instead of political fluff) people will eventually give them the boot. As I said, birth rite has no place in 21st century Canadian politics.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: The Queen and the Governor General

It’s a good thing then, Cannuck, that the constitutional monarchy is by nature above politics.

On the question of unity, Canada has the potential to be far more united than either the United States of America, or the United Mexican States. You may ask why? The reason is that Canada has a constitutional monarchy to which Canadians can be proud to owe allegiance to, notwithstanding their partisan associations. Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats can be loyal to The Crown without compromising their party allegiances—I would suggest that this fosters greater freedom of expression and debate. Under republican systems of government, disagreement with the head of State’s government decisions can be denounced as unpatriotic or anti-national. Under our system of constitutional monarchy, we don’t have that problem because our head of State does not make the decisions for the Government of the day.

As for the suggestion, Cannuck, that the prime minister could simply appoint someone else to be head of State, what is your issue, then, with our current system of Government? Our governors general are almost invariably always appointed by The Queen on the advice of the prime minister—where would you say The Queen, or the Governor General, has made such a grievously terrible decision so as to promote the termination of the monarchy and the destruction of our constitution? 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.

It should also be noted that The Queen’s representative didn’t let the prime minister “duck one”. As much as I hate to say it (as a member of the Liberal Party of Canada), at no time during the constitutional crisis we experienced some months ago, was the House of Commons able to expressly withdraw its support for Her Majesty’s Government for Canada. 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 (and it was a constitutionally-sound decision to do so). It would have been a very seperate and more serious issue if the Commons had withdrawn its support for the Government through a vote in the House.

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.

The powers of the monarch are kept in check by the very fact that Her Majesty is an unelected head of State, Cannuck—this fact ensures that the powers possessed by The Crown would only be exercised independently of the prime minister under very serious and unique circumstances, which is exactly how it should be. Such powers possessed by a president or some other elected, or even appointed head of State, would be exercised with frequency and without due regard to peace, order and good government. They would be exercised for personal and partisan gain, and it is one of the fundamental features of constitutional monarchy that this not be the case.

You should resist putting words in my mouth, Cannuck, at no point during our discussion have I said that the American armed forces are inappropriate. I did, however, say that it is inappropriate, in my view, for members of the armed forces to owe allegiance to someone who was elected to partisan office. It is unreasonable for the armed forces to have to swear obedience to someone elected under a particular banner, because it spits in the face of the independence and non-partisanship of the armed forces as an institution.

Let’s face it—we have only ever had advantages, as Canadians, due to our constitutional monarchy. We have never lost anything; we have never experienced any disadvantages due to our current constitutional arrangements. Members who promote abolishing the monarchy are searching for problems where none exist—it’s rather unfortunate that anyone would want to promote the end of such a stable constitutional system, when there are dozens of other nations that are also running smoothly and properly on the same general basis.

Thank you for what has been a very stimulating discussion so far, Cannuck!

 

[Cannuck]

It’s a good thing then, Cannuck, that the constitutional monarchy is by nature above politics.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

On the question of unity, Canada has the potential to be far more united than either the United States of America, or the United Mexican States. You may ask why? The reason is that Canada has a constitutional monarchy to which Canadians can be proud to owe allegiance to, notwithstanding their partisan associations.

No. If you are going to claim that the monarchy leads to unity, you should provide evidence that it does. Kweebeck, Scotland, india and Northern Ireland all indicate that you are barking up the wrong tree (and that is just off the top of my head).

Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats can be loyal to The Crown without compromising their party allegiances—I would suggest that this fosters greater freedom of expression and debate.

They could be loyal to any head of state without compromising their party allegiances.

Under republican systems of government, disagreement with the head of State’s government decisions can be denounced as unpatriotic or anti-national. Under our system of constitutional monarchy, we don’t have that problem because our head of State does not make the decisions for the Government of the day.

You are confused. The options are not between a constitutional monarchy and a US style republican system only. By implying that the only alternative to the status quo is the American government is just a tad bit dishonest.

As for the suggestion, Cannuck, that the prime minister could simply appoint someone else to be head of State, what is your issue, then, with our current system of Government?

I have a problem with birth rite. I think I've made that pretty clear. It is archaic and not acceptable in 21st century Canada. As a side issue, I disagree with the need for all the Lieutenant Governors. One single head of state is all we need.

Our governors general are almost invariably always appointed by The Queen...

Who holds her position only because she didn't have an older brother

...on the advice of the prime minister—where would you say The Queen, or the Governor General, has made such a grievously terrible decision so as to promote the termination of the monarchy and the destruction of our constitution?

It has nothing to do with what she has or hasn't done (although that is the topic for an entirely different thread as the history of the British monarchy is very interesting in deed) but has to do with her "right" to rule. I believe that all human beings are created equal and by that standard, Liz has no birth rite to rule over me.

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.

He could also be a child molester and a chain smoker.

It should also be noted that The Queen’s representative didn’t let the prime minister “duck one”. As much as I hate to say it (as a member of the Liberal Party of Canada), at no time during the constitutional crisis we experienced some months ago, was the House of Commons able to expressly withdraw its support for Her Majesty’s Government for Canada. 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 don't care who you are that's funny. If you need to resort to twisting technicalities in order to defend your position, your position ultimately becomes indefensible. The simple fact is that that the H of C lost confidence in the government and were going to vote it down. The GG prevented this in your words allowed the PM to "ignore the express wishes of the House of Commons", technical language twisting aside.

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 (and it was a constitutionally-sound decision to do so).

Of course it was constitutionally sound. It just wasn't the least bit democratic. Being a Liberal Party supporter, I'm not really surprised that you favor the undemocratic approach.

It would have been a very seperate and more serious issue if the Commons had withdrawn its support for the Government through a vote in the House.

No it wouldn't. It's happened before (can anyone say Joe who) and life went on, the birds kept singing, the sun rose in the east and the Leafs still sucked.

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.

Perhaps when you make such ludicrous statements like that, you could back them up with some type of evidence. It may also help if you could explain why any appionted head of State couldn't do the same thing.

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

Yes, because that is what we want holding ultimate authority, somebody who has no stake in the outcome.

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.

You have continually failed to show how the Queen has any relevance here. Michelle Jean could have been appointed to her current position and have the power that that position holds without having a Queen.

The powers of the monarch are kept in check by the very fact that Her Majesty is an unelected head of State, Cannuck—this fact ensures that the powers possessed by The Crown would only be exercised independently of the prime minister under very serious and unique circumstances, which is exactly how it should be.

No, it should be the people that are chosen by the people that make the decisions that affect the people.

Such powers possessed by a president or some other elected, or even appointed head of State, would be exercised with frequency and without due regard to peace, order and good government. They would be exercised for personal and partisan gain, and it is one of the fundamental features of constitutional monarchy that this not be the case.

You do not know that. You are a fear mongerer.

You should resist putting words in my mouth, Cannuck, at no point during our discussion have I said that the American armed forces are inappropriate. I did, however, say that it is inappropriate, in my view, for members of the armed forces to owe allegiance to someone who was elected to partisan office. It is unreasonable for the armed forces to have to swear obedience to someone elected under a particular banner, because it spits in the face of the independence and non-partisanship of the armed forces as an institution.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You have more than suggested that it is innappropriate for the military to not serve a monarch. The US military does not serve a monarch. I'm sorry if you don't like having your arguments carried to their natural extensions. I find that ususally helps in highlight flaws (a common problem with your monarchy views).

Let’s face it—we have only ever had advantages, as Canadians, due to our constitutional monarchy. We have never lost anything; we have never experienced any disadvantages due to our current constitutional arrangements.

Again, you do not know that. You do not have a crystal ball. You can not possibly say where Canada would be today if we punted the royals 142 years ago.

Members who promote abolishing the monarchy are searching for problems where none exist—it’s rather unfortunate that anyone would want to promote the end of such a stable constitutional system, when there are dozens of other nations that are also running smoothly and properly on the same general basis.

I'm not promoting the abolishment of the Monarchy. If you go back to my original post you will see that I have a problem with the concept of birth rite but I also believe that Canadians will most likely not be able to agree (right now anyway) on how to change the system. I do, however, find discussing the issue with monarchist amusing. Like you, they usually supply incredibly weak argument to support the unsupportable. When the time comes (and it will come) the monarchy will be dumped precisely because of the lack of credible reasons to keep it.

Thank you for what has been a very stimulating discussion so far, Cannuck!

Hope you stick around this time.

 

[TenPenny]

The real issue is whether or not birth rite has a place in the 21st century.

I have no objection to change, if it's for a good reason, and if there is a good alternative.

I haven't heard any argument against the monarchy that qualifies as a good reason.
Your quote above isn't a good reason.

 

[s_lone]

Ya know...... if it wasn't sooooooooo sad, the lack of knowledge concerning the Queen, the GG, and Canada, it would be funny.

All right smarty pants... tell me exactly what I said that is wrong in what you quoted from me.

 

[s_lone]

I have no objection to change, if it's for a good reason, and if there is a good alternative.

I haven't heard any argument against the monarchy that qualifies as a good reason.
Your quote above isn't a good reason.

If you agree with the ludicrous idea that the Head of State should be appointed by birth right, then face it, no amount of reasoning will ever change your view.

 

[TenPenny]

If you agree with the ludicrous idea that the Head of State should be appointed by birth right, then face it, no amount of reasoning will ever change your view.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'd be interested to know why people think the monarchy is some crime against Canadians, and would ask you to provide some concrete evidence of harm that has occurred to you personally as a result.

 

[s_lone]

No, because originally I said it wouldn't be as simple just penciling in another title. The need currently is that we need a Head of State. When you suggest it is that simple, and we just replace the Monarch with the Monarch's representative, I don't think most people who would be favorable to replacing the Monarch would even go for that, without substantial changes to how the GG is selected, and this is where it is no longer simple.

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. Perhaps this stems from my ''Quebecitude'' and the fact that, like many other Quebecers, I long to see Canada evolve into something different. Or perhaps this stems from the fact that as an individual, I would cherish the opportunity to participate in the process of redefining Canada.

I understand your point. Why change anything if things are working fine the way they are. Things are working pretty good. And there are much, much more pressing matters to tackle.

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.

It's no secret that Quebecers are overwhelmingly anti-monarchist. Many cynics might respond that Quebecers ought to move on and stop being in the victim (colonized) mode. That they lost the battle on the Plains of Abraham... We do need to move on (Quebecers)... but so does Canada as a whole. Monarchy is a symbol of the old world. It is fundamentally undemocratic and we owe it to ourselves to find something better. I am certain that putting an end to monarchy in Canada would be a significant step forward in uniting the solitudes. I do not suggest now would be a time to do it. But when Queen Elizabeth dies, I sure hope Canada will be ready to consider the option.

A real debate on the validity of the monarchic system when it comes to appointing our Head of State could only be a wake-up call for Canadians to be

1. more informed about how our country works
2. more involved in its process of change

Do you recall how the debate raged about our flag? How do you suppose Canadians would reach consensus now, on what our new Head of State would be, and what would be different from the status quo now?

The flag issue was settled right? We would also settle the monarchy issue, would it be tackled once and for all.

One could argue that the color of flag is hardly of importance when put into perspective to the real challenges our country faces. But a flag is such an important symbol that it needs to be treated as something important. We are dealing with the soul of the country.

It is the same with monarchy. Our system represents who we are as a people. It cannot be taken lightly. I am at peace with our flag (although a bit of blue on it would've been nice :wink but am not at peace with our monarchic system. I don't think I am alone.

The role of the Head of State is much more than that. But sticking to your assertion, an office selected by a government could destroy our democracy if that was what they wished, under this new arrangement. The Monarch can to some degree prevent laws which rip the fabric apart.

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.

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?

Here's the rub, we've never needed the Monarch to intervene, because there hasn't really been a time that called for it. But our system works the way it does because of conventions, and other unwritten rules. Surely you can see the slippery slope with removing those traditions, giving power to a figure head, and not making necessary safeguards?

I've got no problem with thinking of new safeguards. My problem is that I hardly view a system as arbitrary monarchy as being an appropriate safeguard.

Just penciling in a new name would require Articles like those in the US constitution which places limits on power.

And that would be a bad thing? Limiting power?

Honestly, I don't feel that it matters. Our Government is here, and they are elected regularly. It's pretty much an unwritten rule that the Prime Minister is the head of state.

Most people are lethargic (not you of course) when it comes to the nuts and bolts of how our country works... Too bad...

 

[s_lone]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'd be interested to know why people think the monarchy is some crime against Canadians, and would ask you to provide some concrete evidence of harm that has occurred to you personally as a result.

I think my previous post says enough... But no, I have never been harmed by the system.

To me this is a question of principle. I simply view monarchy as being ludicrous.

 

[TenPenny]

I think my previous post says enough... But no I have never been harmed by the system.

To me this is a question of principle. I simply view monarchy as being ludicrous.

So, you want a change simply because you do not like it, not for any particular reason, and so far, you cannot point to any harm done by the existing system, nor any benefit to a different system.

You should work for our provincial dept of education - this is the way they approach the curriculum. Change, simply for the sake of change.

 

[gerryh]

I think my previous post says enough... But no, I have never been harmed by the system.

To me this is a question of principle. I simply view monarchy as being ludicrous.

There's a hell of an idea, we'll change our entire form of government, throw out hundreds of years of tradition, spend millions, all on a matter of principal.

 

[s_lone]

So, you want a change simply because you do not like it, not for any particular reason, and so far, you cannot point to any harm done by the existing system, nor any benefit to a different system.

You should work for our provincial dept of education - this is the way they approach the curriculum. Change, simply for the sake of change.

I don't agree with monarchy. It is outdated, undemocratic, arbitrary and flawed. I think that is a good enough reason to be anti-monarchist don't you think?

As I already mentioned, I believe we should consider the option when Queen Elizabeth dies and the issue raises itself naturally. Not now.

As I said, I do not judge the system on any harm it could have done to Canada. Clearly, it hasn't for the obvious reason that we've never had a situation where the monarch had to intervene. The GG has taken this responsibility. I don't see why we couldn't have the GG without the monarch.

 

[s_lone]

There's a hell of an idea, we'll change our entire form of government, throw out hundreds of years of tradition, spend millions, all on a matter of principal.

Here's another hell of an idea, ... stay exactly the way you are! Never change! Don't even consider it! Do not ever question the way things works!

Do not in any circumstance question the validity of a tradition.

oh and especially, don't have any principles...

oh yeah, make sure you rely on prince Williams' sex life to appoint a future Head of State.

 

[gerryh]

I can see another "threat" coming from the quebecois.

 

[s_lone]

I can see another "threat" coming from the quebecois.

I can see a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[TenPenny]

I don't agree with monarchy. It is outdated, undemocratic, arbitrary and flawed. I think that is a good enough reason to be anti-monarchist don't you think?

Those are opinions, based on nothing. The only one that has any semblance of truth is that it's undemocratic. So what? One of the alternatives discussed is to appoint the head of state. Isn't that undemocratic?

The other reasons you give are purely opinions. You don't like it, so you want it changed.

 

[s_lone]

Those are opinions, based on nothing.

Monarchy is outdated specifically because it is undemocratic. It is arbitrary because no matter what happens, nothing can change the fact the future Head of State will be from the British Royal Family. It would be logical for this function to be occupied by a Canadian. Monarchy is flawed because there is no guarantee a monarch would have the required wisdom to hold their position.

The only one that has any semblance of truth is that it's undemocratic. So what? One of the alternatives discussed is to appoint the head of state. Isn't that undemocratic?

Not if it is required that the GG be approved by the House of Commons.

The other reasons you give are purely opinions. You don't like it, so you want it changed.

No really? I want monarchy abolished because I don't support it? Thank you for being so informative!!!

Of course these are my opinions. Your opinion seems to be that monarchy is appropriate and should be maintained. How is your opinion better than mine?

 

[TenPenny]

Of course these are my opinions. Your opinion seems to be that monarchy is appropriate and should be maintained. How is your opinion better than mine?

I can see that you're having trouble with your reading, so I'll summarize for you:

My opinion is that, if someone can point out a concrete reason for change, and some harm done by the existing system, along with a benefit to a new system, I'd be in favour of a change.

You've utterly failed to provide any reason for a change, and therefore, the change should not be made.

 

[TenPenny]

Monarchy is outdated specifically because it is undemocratic.

Well, that's an opinion, but it's certainly not a hard fact.