The Federal Republic of Canada

[bleeding heart]

Your response was simply to denigrate the Queen's work, implying the Queen has no work ethic, since she has no work to do.

No, it wasn't.

And don't get me wrong; I don't care if you think this, and I wonder at your monumental oversensitivity about the Monarch.

But you're factually incorrect about my intent (based on your psychic powers, no doubt derived from the monarchy in some special Canadian way), and so I'm correcting you.

[Tilter]

I wish the young in this country had the work ethic of a 86 year old queen of canada. That is probably why they hate her so much. But yet they hate the american style of goverment, so get rid of the queen and we hate america so that leaves what ........socialism?

Yes, she works a 40 hour year and none of it at Rotten Ronnies

[Tilter]

You are right on, those are the choices. And hey if it ain't broken why change it, that is progressives for ya, keep changing until the whole works is fucked up. And of course change history to hide thier failings.

Because it IS broken and, in your words "fucked up". When Canadian citizens who can't afford a vacation have to support a vacation for Big Ears & his horsey wife the situation is SNAFU.

[Smallc]

Yes, she works a 40 hour year and none of it at Rotten Ronnies

[TheNewTeddy]

These are comments from my old account that I'll respond to.

we need to kick the queen out on her a@@

This is a sign of my problem at the time: I did not know much about the monarchy.

I dislike the monarchy

we should be a republic.

Each province and the federal government should elect its governors (drop the lieutennant and general crap) on a piggy-back election with the general election. Party lines should be banned. I would also support term limits in this case. While I am strongly opposed to term limits on positions of power (if we adopt them, I'll move, no one can tell me who I cant vote for) I think that for powerless positions it does not matter. this would help to prevent patronage.

Part of the problem with this system is that we'd still politicize the office. Look at Ireland, where Presidential elections are sometimes political, sometimes not. Our current system is made for emergencies. What if every MP dies? Well we do have provinces and senators... but what if some disaster kills all of them too? In a system where everyone is elected, government can break down, but with a hereditary monarchy, there is always someone who has power.

There is also the fact that the Queen and the entire monarchy pretty well does indeed dedicate their life to public service.

[g_bambino]

In a system where everyone is elected, government can break down, but with a hereditary monarchy, there is always someone who has power.

Constitutional monarchy adds another subtle but important element to that: the someone who always has power almost never uses it while the person who almost always uses it doesn't actually have it. Only in crises - when there's a question about who the latter person should be, or when the latter figure is abusing the power lent to them - does the monarch use the power he or she possesses.

[eyeball]

Constitutional monarchy adds another subtle but important element to that: the someone who always has power almost never uses it while the person who almost always uses it doesn't actually have it. Only in crises - when there's a question about who the latter person should be, or when the latter figure is abusing the power lent to them - does the monarch use the power he or she possesses.

Given how jaded the times are it seems like it would have to be pretty heinous case of abuse to raise of eyebrow of...whoever's in charge or not, as the case may be.

How would anyone even know?

[cybercoma]

Given how jaded the times are it seems like it would have to be pretty heinous case of abuse to raise of eyebrow of...whoever's in charge or not, as the case may be.

How would anyone even know?

That's the point. Contrary to popular belief, Harper's Conservatives were duly elected to a majority government. They can pass whatever legislation they want as a result. This isn't a dictatorship. Canadians voted them in, so you can't say this isn't what Canadians wanted. Interference in that by the monarch would create a Constitutional crisis. I'm almost certain the only time the monarch will step in is when there is already a Constitutional crisis that needs to be resolved, ie, refusing to call an election.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm almost certain the only time the monarch will step in is when there is already a Constitutional crisis that needs to be resolved, ie, refusing to call an election.

The monarch would also step in if the PM went crazy and enacted clearly ridiculous/abusive laws under public pressure to do so.

[Moonlight Graham]

Symbolically, being a constitutional monarchy stinks because power via bloodlines is pretty ridiculous, and all the ties to being a former imperial colony of Britain isn't really that appealing for me. I'm not pleased to still have Union Jacks etc. on our flags. I'm not sentimental of things British.

Practically though, our constitutional monarchy system works fairly well (though far from perfect) and instituting a republic would be a massive headache for this country while raising numerous other problems to replace the old. Canada will never be a republic, at least not in my lifetime. Even if we wanted it the constitutional mess would be insane & very likely unresolvable.

[g_bambino]

Given how jaded the times are it seems like it would have to be pretty heinous case of abuse to raise of eyebrow of...whoever's in charge or not, as the case may be.

It would have to be unconstitutional.

[g_bambino]

The monarch would also step in if the PM went crazy and enacted clearly ridiculous/abusive laws under public pressure to do so.

It would take quite a coincidental set of circumstances to see ridiculous/abusive laws passed, in the federal sphere, anyway. The Prime Minister's party would have to have a majority in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister would have to convince at least a majority of them to follow his ridiculous/abusive ideas, and a majority in the Senate would have to be on board and allow the same bill(s) to pass before it reached Rideau Hall for Royal Assent. It's unknown what would happen if it reached that point; Royal Assent hasn't been denied in the federal parliament, ever. It has been in the provinces, though; the last time in the 1960s. I'd imagine if a contemporary governor general or lieutenant governor found a blatatntly unconsitutional bill before him or herself, they'd get the supreme/superior court involved right away.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited June 13, 2012 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

That's the point. Contrary to popular belief, Harper's Conservatives were duly elected to a majority government. They can pass whatever legislation they want as a result. This isn't a dictatorship. Canadians voted them in, so you can't say this isn't what Canadians wanted. Interference in that by the monarch would create a Constitutional crisis. I'm almost certain the only time the monarch will step in is when there is already a Constitutional crisis that needs to be resolved, ie, refusing to call an election.

Well, as I did say earlier I think we have a crisis of governance not politics and it's been getting worse not better. Harper is just the latest in a string of power hungry rulers leaders who seem to have availed themselves of the previously concentrated power their precursors left behind while carrying on the fine tradition on enclosing even more into that fold.

This process has always been bigger than one person, party or government and at this point I seriously doubt if the Queen alone could step in and do much if anything about it. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it's hard to imagine she even gives a damn.

[g_bambino]

Symbolically, being a constitutional monarchy stinks because power via bloodlines is pretty ridiculous...

I'm baffled how you can, in one breath, say constitutional monarchy works and then, in another, almost misequate it with absolute monarchy and deem it ridiculous.

[A]ll the ties to being a former imperial colony of Britain isn't really that appealing for me.

Those would remain even if Canada ceased being a kingdom.

[eyeball]

Symbolically, being a constitutional monarchy stinks because power via bloodlines is pretty ridiculous, and all the ties to being a former imperial colony of Britain isn't really that appealing for me. I'm not pleased to still have Union Jacks etc. on our flags. I'm not sentimental of things British.

Practically though, our constitutional monarchy system works fairly well (though far from perfect) and instituting a republic would be a massive headache for this country while raising numerous other problems to replace the old. Canada will never be a republic, at least not in my lifetime. Even if we wanted it the constitutional mess would be insane & very likely unresolvable.

It's almost redundant given how unsustainable things are. There's not much more than baling wire and paperclips holding this wheezy old contraption called the global economy together now. Whatever the point of confederation used to be it's obviously subsumed under the economy's paradigm and it's moral imperatives to be solvent above all else and no matter what.

Are we supposed to believe the Crown is going to be there to catch us if we fall? And fall on what, cushions of cake or platitudes and jubilees?

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm baffled how you can, in one breath, say constitutional monarchy works and then, in another, almost misequate it with absolute monarchy and deem it ridiculous.

How is what I said having to do with an absolute monarchy? I said the monarchy has power, not absolute power, via bloodlines. It's still stupid.

[bleeding heart]

Constitutional monarchy adds another subtle but important element to that: the someone who always has power almost never uses it while the person who almost always uses it doesn't actually have it.

I know what you're saying (and to clarify in light of our previous, if petty, argument, I mostly agree with you about the Monarchy, and voted "keep it" on this very thread).

However, it's not entirely accurate to say that the person who "actually uses power...doesn't really have it."

I get what you mean, but no: the fact of using power means you have it.

By definition.

Power is what power does.

Rules, laws, Parliamentary principles, constitutions, charters...all of these things are irrelevant to the fact itself.

To say the PM doesn't "really have power" is completely false. Completely.

If, as some have opined, the PM's office has been powerful over the past forty years in a way it wasn't meant to...fine. I believe that's correct.

But a misuse of power doesn't mean the power doesn't exist. It objectively exists, and only theoretically doesn't.

And reality trumps theory every time, when the two contradict.

Edited June 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

The monarch would also step in if the PM went crazy and enacted clearly ridiculous/abusive laws under public pressure to do so.

Absolutely. I wasn't trying to give a comprehensive list. However, it seems more likely that if a PM was to try and pass laws that were clearly ridiculous/abusive then his/her MPs would vote against the legislation. That's the hope anyway. The cabinet would vote with the PM, but it's supposed to be the backbenchers responsibility to hold the cabinet accountable.

On a side note, it would be nice if they remembered this fact going into the vote for C38.

[cybercoma]

Symbolically, being a constitutional monarchy stinks because power via bloodlines is pretty ridiculous

While I don't disagree, I can't think of any other system that isn't equally as ridiculous if not worse. A democratically elected president quickly devolves into partisan bickering and childish popularity contests.

[cybercoma]

Well, as I did say earlier I think we have a crisis of governance not politics and it's been getting worse not better. Harper is just the latest in a string of power hungry rulers leaders who seem to have availed themselves of the previously concentrated power their precursors left behind while carrying on the fine tradition on enclosing even more into that fold.

This process has always been bigger than one person, party or government and at this point I seriously doubt if the Queen alone could step in and do much if anything about it. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it's hard to imagine she even gives a damn.

I believe there are some steps that should be taken to limit the amount of power that the PM has. Jeffrey Simpson in the title of his book called Chretien a dictator, albeit friendly.

Moreover, I think we need to give parliamentarians more power too. Bambino here has said that caucus should have more power to hold the party leader accountable. That's one suggestion that would work towards the aim of ensuring parliament is supreme.

[cybercoma]

Those would remain even if Canada ceased being a kingdom.

Although we're a de facto kingdom, being that we have a monarch, Canada never adopted that term because it was feared it would sour relations with America. I may be wrong, but I believe we have always been a dominion for that reason.

[g_bambino]

Although we're a de facto kingdom, being that we have a monarch, Canada never adopted that term because it was feared it would sour relations with America. I may be wrong, but I believe we have always been a dominion for that reason.

The name "Kingdom of Canada" was rejected, yes. (Though there may have been some truth to it, I wonder how much the "upsetting the Americans" story was used as a cover by diplomatic but pompous British officials who didn't think an upstart corner of the Empire should be calling itself a kingdom, akin to the mother country.) But the country is, by definition, a kingdom, regardless of the lack of the word "Kingdom" in our country's name.

The whole "dominion" thing is too complicated to get into right now. Suffice to say Canada is no longer a Dominion, in the sense of a self-governing jurisdiction of the British Empire.

[ed: +, c/e]

Edited June 13, 2012 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

I get what you mean, but no: the fact of using power means you have it.

Okay, let's look at it this way: the prime minister "has" it, but does not own it. It is "lent" to him, so long as he or she follows the rules. When the prime minister doesn't, power can be, depending on the circumstances, taken away from that figure by the person who actually owns it: the monarch (either via the viceroy or not). The power of government is always the sovereign's; so long as S.III.9 of the Constitution Act 1867 remains in force, that is.

[g_bambino]

I think we need to give parliamentarians more power too... ensuring parliament is supreme.

I am steadfastly convinced that the solution to Canada's so-called democratic deficit lies in, not even reforming parliament, but regressing, in a sense, back to when the institution had more influence over Cabinet. Responsible government is dying; eliminating the monarchy or other drastic changes won't solve that.

[bleeding heart]

Okay, let's look at it this way: the prime minister "has" it, but does not own it. It is "lent" to him, so long as he or she follows the rules. When the prime minister doesn't, power can be, depending on the circumstances, taken away from that figure by the person who actually owns it: the monarch (either via the viceroy or not). The power of government is always the sovereign's; so long as S.III.9 of the Constitution Act 1867 remains in force, that is.

Oh yes, I understood this immediately, in part because of things I've learned from you about the Parliamentary system and the PMO on this site.

My point was that he (the PM, not Harper specifically) has power, by the very definition that he contantly uses it.

And if and when PM's misuse power...they are misusing power. Period.

I don't think you're disputing the tautology! I just wanted to clarify.

Look at it this way: we have two definitions of what a Canadian government "does." One is a statement of principle, the other an assessment of objective, occurring reality.

There is "does" in how it's supposed to be; and then there is the "does" which they do. The second overrides the first, in immediacy at least, as in a man beating his child is more crucial than proposing that, as principle, "a man doesn't beat his child."

Edited June 13, 2012 by bleeding heart