The Queen's reserve Powers

tango · August 19, 2009

You have your legalities wrong. Canada is a Dominion, not a colony. We happen to SHARE the same Queen as Britain! We have complete and utter independence from Britain.
By definition, the Queen is as Canadian as you or I!

Any Brit could use your arguments as a reason to consider the Queen as a "Canadian foreigner"!

I hate to shatter your naive illusions, Bill, but ... remember when Harper had to go and ask the Governor General when he wanted to prorogue parliament?

The GG represents the Queen, and royal assent is required for damned near everything.

Smallc · August 19, 2009

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that. We have to have bills signed by our head of state (actually, her representative). That's no different than any other country.

tango · August 19, 2009

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that. We have to have bills signed by our head of state (actually, her representative). That's no different than any other country.

Just replying to this:

We have complete and utter independence from Britain.

(not so)

Smallc · August 19, 2009

No, you're wrong. We do have complete independence from Britain. We are simply in a personal union with them in regards to our head of state (she's the same person). Her offices are completely separate.

tango · August 19, 2009

No, you're wrong. We do have complete independence from Britain. We are simply in a personal union with them in regards to our head of state (she's the same person). Her offices are completely separate.

Royal assent is required for all legislation.

How is that "complete independence"?

I don't really care, but I think it's wrong for people to mislead themselves on this.

If Canada tried to pass legislation to get rid of royal assent and all royal connections, you can bet the Queen would have something to say about it.

In fact she did when Trudeau tried, and she won and the constitution has royal assent.

Edited August 19, 2009 by tango

bush_cheney2004 · August 19, 2009

No, you're wrong. We do have complete independence from Britain. We are simply in a personal union with them in regards to our head of state (she's the same person). Her offices are completely separate.

Correct...it's like the Holy Trinity....gotta have faith. God save the Queen.

Bryan · August 19, 2009

Sadly, they are NOT a new party!
They WERE a new party, as Reform/Alliance! When they merged with the tiny remnant of the old Progressive Conservative Party, they promptly began a process of becoming a clone of the PC party that existed before Reform was ever created.

What do you think is going to happen under your scenario anyway? People who are interested in/driven to politics are still going to be the ones joining/funding/volunteering for the new parties. The current left people will just go to the new left party, currently right people will go to the new right party, etc. Same difference.

g_bambino · August 19, 2009

Queen Elizabeth II may be our Head of State and leader of the Commonwealth for which we are a part of, but she's still a foreigner in my eyes.

Ooohh... In your eyes. Well, it must be true, then.

And yes, her power comes from who her parents were (or more specifically, her father), rather than any will of the power, making her power undemocratic and (in my opinion) illegitimate.

Ah, more opinion-fact. Perhaps you've forgotten about what we call a constitution? It's a very interesting thing, you see; it was created over time by representatives of the populace, and it now includes provisions that dictate how the sovereign is chosen. It's also been moulded to grant the voting public the primary place in recommending whom they want in government. It's for these reasons that those knowledgeable in governmental and/or international affairs disagree with you on the point that constitutional monarchies are undemocratic. Ever heard of sanctions placed against Sweden?

"The Crown today primarily functions as a guarantor of continuous and stable governance, and a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power, the sovereign acting as a custodian of the Crown's democratic powers, and representing the "power of the people above government and political parties.""

Wikipedia: Monarchy of Canada

_{[ed. to add]}

Edited August 19, 2009 by g_bambino

Wild Bill · August 19, 2009

I hate to shatter your naive illusions, Bill, but ... remember when Harper had to go and ask the Governor General when he wanted to prorogue parliament?
The GG represents the Queen, and royal assent is required for damned near everything.

As is expected! She IS the head of our Dominion! NOT Britain!

I stated that we are completely and utterly independent from Britain, not from our own head of state.

The fact that she is also the head of state of Britain is a mere coincidence stemming from common history.

You know, there are still many of us Canadians alive today that feel strong historic loyalties to the Queen and yes, even British Culture. Over the years since the Liberal idea of multiculturalism there seems to have been a concerted effort to define being fair to all cultures as denying everything about our British culture.

If this isn't a way to encourage resentment against immigrants I don't know what is! Rather a contrary approach to harmony, if you ask me.

Some folks seem to like to kick a dog so they can act surprised if he bites them.

Please note, I have taken you off my 'ignore' list. You seem to be more civil these days. Let's hope we can keep it that way.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Wild Bill

g_bambino · August 19, 2009

Royal assent is required for all legislation.
How is that "complete independence"?

The question is farcical; it assumes royal assent equals dependence. By that logic, the royal assent required to make bills into law in any monarchy makes all those monarchies dependent on some as-of-yet unidentified power. Better tell the Brits they've been overtaken!

Moonlight Graham · August 20, 2009

Although i don't have much use for the Monarchy, it's not too difficult to swallow. In the Constitution the GG technically is quite powerful, but by convention the GG never uses most of her powers and instead allows Parliament the vast majority of governing. The system seems to work decently.

Now, if anyone would like try to ram me again on some stupid technicality on the paragraph above in order to show off their fancy knowledge of the U.K. monarch and/or Canadian Constitution, let it be known that my main point in this thread has always been to say that i disagree with the original thread creator who said they wanted the GG/Queen to use her powers to fix Parliament. She would likely never do that which was described thanks to Constitutional Conventions, and we have the Canadian voters to throw out the bums in power if we want. As it should be.

tango · August 20, 2009

Please note, I have taken you off my 'ignore' list. You seem to be more civil these days. Let's hope we can keep it that way.

DAMN! I thought it was too civilized around here lately!

tango · August 20, 2009

The question is farcical; it assumes royal assent equals dependence. By that logic, the royal assent required to make bills into law in any monarchy makes all those monarchies dependent on some as-of-yet unidentified power. Better tell the Brits they've been overtaken!

We can't make our own laws without the Queen's consent. Is that clearer?

And just to shake things up a bit ... The Queen/GG is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Canada.

These are all safeguards to protect us from ill-intentioned and corrupt politicians.

Edited August 20, 2009 by tango

Moonlight Graham · August 20, 2009

And just to shake things up a bit ... The Queen/GG is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Canada.
These are all safeguards to protect us from ill-intentioned and corrupt politicians.

A good idea for the way our Parliament works. But i personally think the U.S. system of separation of powers and checks/balances is a safer and more democratic way of protecting Canada from loony politicians. The biggest flaw in the Canada's political system, in my opinion, is that the Prime Minister has way too much power. The Queen is the most powerful thing we have from protecting us from a PM gone nutty.

But what would happen if, say, Prince Harry became King and went nutty?

g_bambino · August 20, 2009

We can't make our own laws without the Queen's consent. Is that clearer?

Not really, no. You're still inferring that any monarchy - say, Belgium, for example - is not independent because in Belgium royal assent is required for a bill to become law.

I assume what you're trying to get at is that Canada is not independent because a bill in our parliament only becomes law when it is granted royal assent by the same woman - or the representative thereof - who is also monarch of the UK. But, if I'm right, you're still making irrational postulations; using your own logic, the UK is not independent because a bill in their parliament only becomes law when it is granted royal assent by the same woman who is also monarch of Canada.

g_bambino · August 20, 2009

What would happen if, say, Prince Harry became King and went nutty?

The same that happened to Edward VIII.

bush_cheney2004 · August 20, 2009

.... But, if I'm right, you're still making irrational postulations; using your own logic, the UK is not independent because a bill in their parliament only becomes law when it is granted royal assent by the same woman who is also monarch of Canada.

Independence aside, royal assent by the "same woman" sure raises questions about conflict of interest (e.g. Canada v. United Kingdom)

g_bambino · August 20, 2009

Independence aside, royal assent by the "same woman" sure raises questions about conflict of interest (e.g. Canada v. United Kingdom)

Didn't cause a problem when India and Pakistan were at war with each other. Or when the UK was at war with Germany while the Irish Free State was neutral.

bush_cheney2004 · August 20, 2009

Didn't cause a problem when India and Pakistan were at war with each other.....

Nixon was far more important than the queen in that affair.

Wilber · August 20, 2009

But what would happen if, say, Prince Harry became King and went nutty?

When George III went nutty his son was made Regent. Some would say it wasn't a great improvement. When Edward VIII went nutty and ran off with Mrs. Simpson, his brother came in as George VI, a definite improvement in spite of his extreme shyness. Less charisma than Edward but more character to be sure. His legacy was Elizabeth II. Not too shabby. William would have to go nutty first in order for Harry to get his opportunity at regal nuttiness. If William should have a child before he goes nutty, Harry will have to go quietly nutty on his own.

g_bambino · August 20, 2009

Nixon was far more important than the queen in that affair.

Er, when those countries still shared the same person as monarch, the Queen was still a 21-year old princess and Nixon had only just been elected to Congress. Thus, neither were very important in the Indo-Pakistani conflict wherein George VI was at war with himself.

jbg · November 30, 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_powers

How about we petition the Queen to Fire the Conservatives, the Liberals and all political parties out of existence forcing New parties to be created in their place to start Canada off on a clean slate. Face it Canada is in entrenchly corrupt country where the Conservatives or Liberals use the Government for their personal benefit.

I thought from your more recent "work product" that you want less Queen, not more. Make up your mind.

Moonbox · December 2, 2009

We can't make our own laws without the Queen's consent. Is that clearer?

And just to shake things up a bit ... The Queen/GG is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Canada.

These are all safeguards to protect us from ill-intentioned and corrupt politicians.

The Queen as our head of state is merely symbolic. The idea of a dried up prune in England exercising any real authority on our nation is farcical.

If we wanted to we could have a referendum and abolish the monarchy in Canada. We 'maintain' the monarchy in Canada for symbolic reasons and because our system of government has thus far worked and there's no use messing with it. Royal Assent these days is pretty much assumed on any legislation passed in Parliament.

Don't fool yourself into thinking the Governor General/Queen could actually ACT as the head of state. Virtually ALL of the power in Canada rests with Parliament, the Senate and the Supreme Court.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Moonbox

Smallc · December 2, 2009

If we wanted to we could have a referendum and abolish the monarchy in Canada.

Sure...and then the fun would begin....fun that would probably tear Canada apart. The role of the Crown in Canada is in no way symbolic. It is at the core of the framework of our country and constitution.