Bring Back the Queen

[FiveParadox]

FP - I'm not trying to start a fight or get all bent out of shape about this, but isn't it true that the prime minister is the one who appoints the (new) senators? I'm wondering about the "relative independence" of the senators, based on some of the politically-motivated actions I've seen in that house. Am I reading this all wrong?

You are correct, countryboy, in that our honourable senators are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the prime minister. However, once appointed, the prime minister does not have the authority to dismiss those senators — so, they can vote with or against Her Majesty’s Government for Canada, and there is nothing that the prime minister can do to silence those senators. They are not at the beck and call of the prime minister, as the present Government would have us believe.

Our true issues have started with appointments under the present prime minister, because he has made his most recent senators sign agreements swearing to always support the program of the Conservative Party of Canada, which is a clear attempt to meddle with the Senate’s ability to properly debate the bills that come before it. Senators have previously been free to vote however they’d like on legislation, so that they can make the best decisions possible without the consequences that so often accompany Commons members who do the same (multi-partisan co-operation is much more frequent in the Senate, where the senators, rather than the party leaders, decide which party they sit for).

Let us not forget that traditionally, the Senate has always exercised a voice completely independent of the prime minister — in fact, Her Majesty’s Government in the Senate attempted to throw out its own prime minister’s tax legislation during the debate on the goods and services tax. Honourable senators sitting for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had absolutely no issue voting against a Progressive Conservative prime minister, because they were free to make what they thought was the best possible decision without losing their offices.

In fact, the Senate has been so much less partisan than in the House of Commons that The Right Honourable Paul Martin P.C., the 21st Prime Minister, even made a habit of appointing honourable senators to the Opposition during his short term in office. This is not something that we could expect to see under the current prime minister, who will by the end of Spring be the prime minister to have made the most appointments to the Senate in Canada’s history (every single on of whom will be Conservative, and dozens will have had to swear allegiance to the prime minister and the Conservative Party, rather than to proper debate).

Canada does not have an issue with the Senate: Canada has an issue with the prime minister’s über-partisan, “take no prisoners“, “vote with me or you’ll regret it”, “pass it without reading”, “say yes or you’re abolished”, ineffective and highly regrettable version of an Upper House. We’re talking about a prime minister here who granted the Senate the power to defeat the Government, something which has never been done before; something which threatens to create a new aristocracy that the Nickle Resolution was meant to prevent, crushing the principles of responsible government.

 

[taxslave]

If you want to be ruled by some inbred poodle go move to england. Canada does not need or want a monarch.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

And how many of them are going to be going to bed in a palace tonight.:lol: .

Well let's see, there's the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bill Gates, the Sultan of Brunei, Pat Robertson... :lol:

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

I think you'll find that it was the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, not Canadians, that led to the creation of the democratic Constitutional Monarchy that we see today, the modern world's best form of governance.

Yes, the English had their own monarchy and decided it wasn't fit for the times. But Canada inherited a monarchy system without a made in Canada monarchy. It is just an abstraction here because there is no actual monarch here. Canada does not have a system just like England, it is a variation, based on local circumstances.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

dumpthemonarchy, once yet again, Canada’s Crown is a completely distinct legal entity from the Crown of the United Kingdom. There is no valid reason for us to jetison a unique and entirely-Canadian institution, that we are lucky enough to share with fifteen other Realms of the Commonwealth, each with their own distinct legal take on the Crown. Her Majesty the Queen is a Canadian subject, as are all members of The Royal Family — their roles elsewhere are irrelevant to our own constitutional arrangements.

Canada's crown cannot be a distinct legal entity from what they have in the UK because without a monarch you have no crown. It's just not all abstractions. Or perhaps some Canadians would think it fine to have a constittutional monarchy without a monarch. That would be too funny.

You need the body somewhere. At base, the body is symbolic, not the symbol. Like when people believed the monarch was the pipeline to the g/God entity.

Plus, people think in extreme circumstances the queen could actually do something in a superweird constitutional crisis in Canada. The body must do something.

And how the queen can be a subject is beyond me.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Well let's see, there's the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bill Gates, the Sultan of Brunei, Pat Robertson... :lol:

Yes fine company for our PM... not much in the way of democratic inclinations there however:lol:

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

The Constitution Act, 1982 stipulates that it is a democratic right of Canadians to have the House of Commons meet on at least one occasion per year. It would be nice to have the House of Commons running at all times, of course, but that would also be unrealistic in a nation where much of a Commons member’s time should also be spent in their respective electoral districts so that we have the opportunity to have a truly representative democracy. The issue here is not that Parliament has been prorogued — as prorogations do nothing to harm democracy and nothing to harm the integrity of the Commons. Rather, the issue here is the reasons for having prorogued Parliament.

Agreed, the whole point of the latest prorogation was to end important debate that has a direct bearing on the interests of the nation... basically what is really going on in the costliest military operation since korea. Even if the facts reflect poorly on the sitting government they deserve the official forum provided by the body that represents our democracy. We don't elect a PM and a party to govern Canada, we elect a Parliment and by disrespecting that body our PM disrespects all of us.

I don’t feel that Her Majesty the Queen of Canada has ever endeavoured to seem ‘superior’ to the rest of us — perhaps you have an example I’ve missed that you’d like to post for the rest of us. The Queen lives on a very modest personal income, with only Her Majesty’s official State functions funded by Her Majesty’s Government. On the domestic side of things, Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean C.C., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada, earns an income considerably less than either honourable senators or members of the House of Commons, while nonetheless carrying out a packed vice-regal agenda every single day.

Considering the significant effort that the Queen and Her Majesty’s vice-regal representatives have made to reduce the costs of our constitutional monarchy, and to avoid the excesses that would be so possible were their Offices abused, I think that this is reason enough to trust in the sincerity and wisdom of both the Queen and our present Governor General, and to trust in this fabulous system that has evolved to provide for the most stable and effective system of governance available to any nation today. Luckily, considering statements of support from both The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, and Mr. Michael Ignatieff M.P. (Etobicoke Lakeshore), the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, not to mention a rather monarchist membership in the Senate, I don’t think that the monarchy is an immediate concern for any parties on the federal stage.

I'm probaly being harsher to the Queen than she deserves, I come from a long line of Scots who still resent the loss of independence in that country. I understand that there are many who value her role both in Britain and the Commonwealth... it's always seemed a little overblown to me though.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

I'm probaly being harsher to the Queen than she deserves, I come from a long line of Scots who still resent the loss of independence in that country. I understand that there are many who value her role both in Britain and the Commonwealth... it's always seemed a little overblown to me though.[/quote]

You can't be too harsh on the queen, she represents position without merit. She represents wealth without work.

The royal family are a bunch of ingrown bumpkins who have seen their best days long ago. On a show about the monarchy, I heard a reporter say that Charles "doesn't sound like anyone in England." He is now an oddity, a sad spectacle. Rot on the body politics. If only England would do the right thing and bump off these dried out twigs.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

My intention wasn't to attack the Queen with this thread, merely to show that our PM was acting in an undemocratic way.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

My intention wasn't to attack the Queen with this thread, merely to show that our PM was acting in an undemocratic way.

And our system, called a constititional monarchy, seems to permit him any PM to gather too much power for himself. Another good reason to do some serious reform of our system of governance. Takes time, women have been able to vote for less than 100 years.

 

[Blackleaf]

You can't be too harsh on the queen, she represents position without merit. She represents wealth without work.

The royal family are a bunch of ingrown bumpkins who have seen their best days long ago. On a show about the monarchy, I heard a reporter say that Charles "doesn't sound like anyone in England." He is now an oddity, a sad spectacle. Rot on the body politics. If only England would do the right thing and bump off these dried out twigs.

It's hardly the Queen's fault she is Queen. It's the way she was born. If she had a choice she would rather have become Head of State at a much older age rather than at the age of just 25. And I'd rather have a Head of State who wasn't looking to be Head of State but merely had to be because of the position she was born into rather than a Head of State such as a President who deliberately wanted to become Head of State because he loves being in a position of power and lording it over people.

And the statement that a war veteran "represents wealth without work" is one of the stupidest I've ever heard, as the Queen - the world's only surviving Head of State to take part in WWII - is a very hard working woman, always makes sure she performs the duties of State that are asked of her every day and works harder than most people in this world do at the age of 83. By that age, most people are retired.

And I've already explained that Britain's monarchy - which makes its own money rather than living off the taxpayer - puts more money into the Treasury than it gets out. That's not something an expensive republic would do.

It is highly unlikely that the British will get rid of the Monarchy anytime soon. A 2008 Mori poll showed just 9% of the British public wish Britain to become a republic. Our Monarchy is safe for at least the next 100 years. Canada, though, can do what it likes, and if it ever gets a George Bush-type figure as its Head of State you'd be wishing you never dropped that harmless little old lady.

 

[Spade]

IIt is highly unlikely that the British will get rid of the Monarchy anytime soon. A 2008 Mori poll showed just 9% of the British public wish Britain to become a republic. Our Monarchy is safe for at least the next 100 years.

If that be Britain's choice, who are we, as Canadians, to comment on or ridicule that choice? If an hereditary monarch rather than a democratically elected term-specific head of state is the will of the British people, we may think that charmingly archaic but at least it's part of an historical tradition of wave after wave of people who contributed to Britain's gene pool and autocratic institutions.

And, as you rightly point out, Canada's choice is just that - up to Canadians alone!

 

[VanIsle]

If you want to be ruled by some inbred poodle go move to england. Canada does not need or want a monarch.

Taxslave, you, amongst others, speak as though you are speaking for Canada as a whole. It would be different if you said "as a Canadian I prefer not to have a monarch". I too am a Canadian and I prefer that we keep the Queen along with the rest of the Royal Family. I liked the days where we said The Lord's Prayer daily in school and sang Oh Canada before each event and ended with God Save Our Queen.

 

[Spade]

Hi Cousin VI,
Why "God Save the Queen"? I recall, in the late 50s, on the wind-swept steppes of Western Canada, when movies ended, they'd play "God Save the Queen." The only ones standing at their seats were the few elderly who were afraid of being trampled by the crowds rushing to the exits!
Spade

 

[JLM]

Taxslave, you, amongst others, speak as though you are speaking for Canada as a whole. It would be different if you said "as a Canadian I prefer not to have a monarch". I too am a Canadian and I prefer that we keep the Queen along with the rest of the Royal Family. I liked the days where we said The Lord's Prayer daily in school and sang Oh Canada before each event and ended with God Save Our Queen.

I don't think the Queen has done Canada any harm, so I don't really feel it's a big deal either way, I never had any problem with the Lord's Prayer in school either but if you tried to reinstate it today you'd be looked upon as Politically incorrect for stepping oin some immigrant's toes. I just love politically incorrect people.

 

[Spade]

British immigrants' toes? In Canada? Pity!

 

[VanIsle]

Hi Cousin VI,
Why "God Save the Queen"? I recall, in the late 50s, on the wind-swept steppes of Western Canada, when movies ended, they'd play "God Save the Queen." The only ones standing at their seats were the few elderly who were afraid of being trampled by the crowds rushing to the exits!
Spade

Cousin,
Didn't you ever have to sing that in school at the end of an assembly? We always had to start the day with someone reading a verse from the bible and then the class saying the Lord's Prayer. Then for pretty much everything that ever took place in the gym, we started with Oh Canada and ended with God Save the Queen. You and I are the same years (how time flies. I recall you writing that you were 59).
We were never rushing because for the most part - all we were doing was going to class! Sometimes it was all done at once. We would sing Oh Canada (the old words) and then sing God Save the Queen. Maybe that was to be sure we hung around long enough to sing it. While we thought they were old ladies and old men, all there was around were teachers who were probably in their late 20's. lol

 

[Cliffy]

Bring back the queen.

How To Dress Like A Drag Queen (Beauty & Style: Style For Men)

 

[Spade]

Cousin,
Didn't you ever have to sing that in school at the end of an assembly? We always had to start the day with someone reading a verse from the bible and then the class saying the Lord's Prayer. Then for pretty much everything that ever took place in the gym, we started with Oh Canada and ended with God Save the Queen. You and I are the same years (how time flies. I recall you writing that you were 59).
We were never rushing because for the most part - all we were doing was going to class! Sometimes it was all done at once. We would sing Oh Canada (the old words) and then sing God Save the Queen. Maybe that was to be sure we hung around long enough to sing it. While we thought they were old ladies and old men, all there was around were teachers who were probably in their late 20's. lol

The schools I went to were public. O Canada, yes; but, no Lord's Prayer. I disagree with the Lord's Prayer in public schools as many children are non Christian. And, as far as God Save the Queen - great for Britain!

 

[countryboy]

The schools I went to were public. O Canada, yes; but, no Lord's Prayer. I disagree with the Lord's Prayer in public schools as many children are non Christian. And, as far as God Save the Queen - great for Britain!

Same age bracket here...I used to like the tune of God Save the Queen better than the O Canada one. Besides, it meant that "school's done for the day!" which was always a positive thing! :lol: