Queenmandy85

That is a valid point. How should we address that?

You've never watched the speech from the throne? That is where the policy and direction of the Government is set.

First, that would depend on what leverage a party leader would have and whether they were appointed to cabinet. Would there be any point in having party leaders? MP's could spend more time serving their ridings and less time on politics. They would have to demostrate merit to be in cabinet, not their position in Parliament. The composition of cabinet, besides merit, would still need to represent regions etc. but not necessarily party affiliation. The requirement that each minister would have to have the confidence of Parliament.

The Cabinet makes the day to day decisions. We already have the Governor General who would oversee the Cabinet deliberations and make those decisions that require urgent attention. The PM is redundant. Why do we need a PM? Nobody seems to like or respect whomever in in that role. It's existance tempts challengers to spent time fighting their way up the ladder rather an devoting their energies to doing what we elect them to do. For those who crave the extra prestige, there is still the cabinet positions, but their appointments will be based more on merit than partisan politics.

I have lived under a number of Canadian Prime Ministers. None of them have been popular. Some, like Prime Ministers Harper and Trudeau were actively disliked. Prime ministers Diefenbaker and Mulroney, inspite of having the largest majorities in history, were very unpopular. Mike Pearson lead the most scandal ridden government sice the Customs scandal of 1925-6. Why do we have this position if nobody likes the incumbent? No matter who they recommend for the Governor Generalship, the Senate, the Supreme Court or an investigation into foreign interference in elections, accusations of partisanship and cronyism abound. I propose that when the incumbent retires or, after the next federal election, a Prime Minister not be appointed. We appoint a ministry but no first minister. Myata would be pleased at the savings. MP's would be free to serve their constituants without the bother of toxic ambition to get into 24 Sussex. In fact, we could let that wreck go and not put any more money into it. Appointments to the Court and the Senate can be given to eminent persons regardless of political affiliations. There is no Constitutional requirement to have a PM. No amendments are needed. The advantages are great. The disadvantages...I cannot think of any.

I have great affection for Blackbird. His posts are always interesting. Where we really differ in this thread is the old cup half empty vs, our cup runneth over in Canada. We are blessed beyond our imagination.

Isn’t it interesting that a couple of dozen men and women who were, basically Neolithic shepherds, still have a significant influence on US and Canadian politics 3500 years later.

I don't share your negative outlook. When I was a child, living in British Columbia, racism was accepted. First Nations people did not have the right to vote. People of African, Japanese and Chinese descent were decriminated against and that was seen as okay. Jews were denied entry to many clubs, restaurants and businesses. In the area I lived in in the west Kootenays, Doukhobors were shunned. Can you imagine that a community like that who are devoted to peace and devotion were looked down on by their neighbours. In 1975, a student at the U of S came out as gay and the Faculty Association executive met to have him expelled. Fortunately, the President of the Faculty Association spoke up and explained if the student was forced to leave for being a homosexual, so would he, for the same reason. Crime is down. Racism still exists but it has undergone a dramatic decline since I was a kid. We are living in a country that is blessed with the bounty God gave us. We live in peace. Our standard of living is incredible, compared to any other country. Our spiritual life is evolving, but God doesn't give a rat's pajamas how you lable yourself. It only cares that you treat others in the manner you would wish to be treated.

Even President Trump supports getting vaccinated.

RFK is not only anti vax but he is a convicted drug dealer. His attitude towards the invasion of Ukrainian reminds me of Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” policy of appeasement. You can’t negotiate with bullies. If we don’t stop Putin now, we will have WW3.

Just to clarify the historical record. Prince Charles and Camila Shand fell in love in 1971. She was deemed "unsuitable" and he was forbidden to marry her. When he persisted, he was shipped over seas to force them apart. Ms. Shand was told she would never be allowed to marry the Prince of Wales, so she married Andrew Parker Bowles. Eventually, Prince Charles was told to marry Lady Diana Spencer. He did his duty and resigned himself to the marriage. When the Princess of Wales said there were three in the marriage, she failed to note that she was the third party. It was Diana's infidelities that led Charles to resume his relationship with Camila. If it were not for the intrigues of the Queen Mother and her friends, Charles and Camila would have married and Lady Diana Spencer would be alive and well, living as an aristocratic countess. King Charles would be more popular. It was Diana who was the one having affairs. Other than the state arranged marriage to Diana, Charles has always been faithful to Camila. Theirs is a true love story with.

One factor that is ignored in this thread is that King Charles' approval rating is significantly higher than Prime Minister Trudeau, Pierre Polilievre, President Biden, or President Macron.

Then we would be no different from the Americans. What do you propose should happen to all of the conservatives in Canada. The American rebels expelled all the conservatives in the US. Where do conservatives go if Canada goes leftist.

Why not save all the bother and keep the King. If we had a President, we would have to pay her. How would a President be chosen? If she is elected, we get a Trump or worse. Remember Austria's President Waldheim? Former SS officer. A president receives no pre-election training. Our late Queen began her apprenticeship when her Father ascended the throne. She was mentored by her father as well as Churchill and Eden for over 15 years. Our new King has been training for the role for over sixty years, with the best of mentors. He knows more about this country than most. How could a president or a Governor General get that kind of training?

Michael is correct.

Care to elaborate with evidence? (Not mythology)

The ironic fact is, our Canadian King is more popular in Canada than Prime Minister Trudeau, Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Singh, and Mr. Blanchet. He is certainly more popular than any American President in my memory. But, as I said, popularity is not a factor in monarchy.

The moment the individual ascends to the throne, a life time of training takes effect. Part of that training is learning to remove ones self from politics. In this case, we have a head of state who has trained for office for over 60 years. No other head of state has been so well trained. As King, two of his royal perogatives are to advise and to be advised. When, exactly did the monarchy become an anachronism? Was it when Cuthwine was crowned in 565? The institution was already over 600 years old. Or maybe it was in 1167 - Henry II, over 1000years of service, or 1952 - Queen Elizabeth II, 2000 years of service. Why was the Monarchy important in the 1920's but not now? A thousand years ago, the monarchy was a thousand years old. Since Edward the Confessor, we have had 43 monarchs. Stephen, Edward II, Richard the Lionheart, Richard II, James II, George IV and Edward VIII were not up to the best. Seven out of 43 is a lot better record than US presidents. Even looking a republics around the world, good presidents like Zelenskyy or FDR stand out as exceptions. In our system, it is the rule. Why is it anachronistic?

We will never know. The King is above politics and his conversations with his Prime Minister are secret.

Thank you Blackbird. The King does not cost Canadians anything except for security when he is touring. Canada has a blended heritage. We have the French language, the great circle of our First Nations heritage, cultural heritage of the Ukraine, Germany, Norway, the Philippines, India and Pakistan, Syria etc. We embrace and support all of these cultural gifts that make up Canada. The only part of this cultural blend that is under threat, is our British heritage. Why is my heritage under threat when all of the others are supported. Most of the free, democratic nations in the world are constitutional monarchies. Norway, New Zealand, the Netherlands, England, Denmark, Japan, Sweden, and more. What is the alternative? A republic with a Politician personifying the country like Putin, Xi, Trump (and Biden) or Macron? The King of Canada is the symbol of Canada. He is Canada. However, on the bright side, the position of being King of Canada does not depend on popularity. The position is double locked into the constitution and cannot be changed.

Where does it advocate pimping and pedophilia? What it advocates is not making criminals out of sex workers. It does not legalize procuring or sex with minors. If I am incorrect, please show me.

Z, did you actually read the purpose of the proposal? "The ‘8 March principles’ as they are called lay out a human rights-based approach to laws criminalising conduct in relation to sex, drug use, HIV, sexual and reproductive health, homelessness and poverty." https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2023/march/20230308_new-legal-principles-decriminalization It makes no mention of pimping or pedophilia. It's main aim is to combat the spread of HIV and to end the use of making having HIV a crime, making sex work a criminal offence, persecution of transgender people and making same sex relations illegal. Your OP has no relation to what is actually proposed. Surely, you cannot be in favour of poverty, and/ or homelessness, or the spread of HIV.

It seems we are at an impasse. I did not take physics beyond grade 12, so I listen to people who know more than I do. The over whelming number of leading physicists and climatologists say the climate is beginning to warm faster than previous warming periods. They point to the recent rapid increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and they can tie that to human activity. They say we are at the beginning of the acceleration of warming and the major effects will be felt in just a few centuries. You say it is all a scam, but that relies on thousands of physicists and climatologists participating in a conspiracy. That just doesn't work. However, neither you or I appear to be at a point where we will change our views. But thank you again for this debate. Stimulating as always. ?

Mr. Kennedy has other issues in his past. The problem is, why can't the DNC put up someone who ticks all the boxes that no one can find fault with? There has to be at least one Democrat who has a clean criminal record, middle aged, with intelligence, and experience. The prejudice against colour, sexual orientation, age and gender disqualify several great candidates. Are there no middle of the spectrum candidates that can draw enough votes away from President Trump?

Of course, it depends on what you are referring to as "private property." Your vehicle, your house or your rifle, are private property. The land your house sits on is not your private property. You lease the land in a freehold lease, but you do not own it. All land in Canada is owned by the Crown.