[DrCaleb]

Tman1 Tman1:

I may have missed a few points but I am far from 'incorrect'.

The bills pass royal assent after it has been read several times, passed through motions and voted on. I doubt anything would be passed in the house of commons making the PM a 'defacto' dictator.

Your statement that "The opposition parties and the senate of Canada, not the queen veto bad bills do they not?" was incorrect. Whipped votes happen, and will sail right through both houses if the PM directs it to. The GG is not bound by party, therefore is the last line of reason to one man's ambition.

Not to mention things like 'NAFTA' and the Softwood Lumber agreement. What bill numbers were those? Ahh yes - "Orders in Council" they never saw the floor of Parliament.

Tman1 Tman1:

Example being the President of the United States. He is the head of state but can't simply 'pass bills' unless it goes through congress. It's the same thing. Poor example of giving the queen her 'veto' rarely used power but you are certainly right about the semantics of power towards the queen or the GG.

Yes, he can propose bills, and they must pass the Senate and Congress. They pass bills and he must sign them. The Queen and the GG do not have reciprocal powers.

Tman1 Tman1:

Lester B Pearson made a state visit as a Canadian Prime Minister. When the PM travels to another country on a matter of 'state business' (it may or may not be called state visit in name) he is awarded an honour guard or given permission to give addresses to another governing body. Your definition of 'de facto' may differ for some reason but that is what it is. The GG flies to other countries supposedly promoting Canadian culture and that is it.

You should look into the GGs recent overseas tour. She was greeted with the same or more pomp than a PM.

Tman1 Tman1:

The latest 'crisis' was made because of governmental issues concerning a non-confidence vote or the potential of one due to lack of confidence in the government. The GG does have the power to implement certain actions but face it, the PM does the talking and she does the doing because she is told to do it or the Candian people will do it for her.

You're making it sound like the PM can simply bypass the process of legislation simply because the GG isn't there. Ceremony and procedure.

I know the PM does the talking, and the GG cannot ignore a legal request. But she still has absolute say over certain things, and through that whole crisis her attitude was to follow what was best for Canadians. If the government were defeated, I think she would have called an election to let the people decide.

If the GG isn't there, what is to stop the PM from becoming dictator? You make it sound like every dictator in the last 100 years hasn't come to power because of legal loopholes and the lack of political will to restrain them.

[Yogi]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If the GG isn't there, what is to stop the PM from becoming dictator? You make it sound like every dictator in the last 100 years hasn't come to power because of legal loopholes and the lack of political will to restrain them.

The U.S. doesn't have a 'G.G.' and I don't think that anyone could consider the Presidents (past and present) as dictators. But to address your concern about 'who' would then have veto powers in issues such as were recently dealt with, such issues would be dealt with by an elected senate.

[EyeBrock]

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Tman1 Tman1:

Not having a Queen doesn't make us slaves to a class system either. In fact, the whole concept of 'class system' comes from the monarchy.

The monarchy did not create the concept of a 'class system', nor is it the origin. It is only a feature of a certain type of class structure. However, even in republics, class systems exist and always will. Therefore, if getting rid of the monarchy does nothing to change or improve the class structure of this country, if it doesn't improve our lives or the efficiency of our government in any way, then why go to all the trouble?

There is no point in asking why we should keep it if it is already there, harms nothing. The onus is on those who would drag us through all the expense and constitutional battles in order to change it, to show us reasonably why we ought to. Thus far from the republicans, I have only heard meaningless rhetoric about democracy, colonialism etc. Yet none of those arguments hold their ground when put up against the reality of the situation, which is that we are not a colony of Great Britain (we are an entirely independent Dominion) and that we are one of the greatest democracies on earth and we are freer than most (I would say any) of the world's republics.

When the republicans are able to demonstrate that Canada would be freer, healthier and more prosperous as a result of becoming a republic, that it is something that is actually necessary and not just something they think would be cool, then I will seriously consider supporting their cause. Until then, they're just another special interest group looking to force their ideology on the rest of us.

Very well said. I'd rep you on that but it won't let me. I think it's worth at least +3.

[Thanos]

Ditto. Most republican talk comes from those who have some inexplicable grudge against the British. I'll be damned if I'd ever give my support to something that pleases separatists or any other anti-British demagogues.

[DrCaleb]

Yogi Yogi:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If the GG isn't there, what is to stop the PM from becoming dictator? You make it sound like every dictator in the last 100 years hasn't come to power because of legal loopholes and the lack of political will to restrain them.

The U.S. doesn't have a 'G.G.' and I don't think that anyone could consider the Presidents (past and present) as dictators. But to address your concern about 'who' would then have veto powers in issues such as were recently dealt with, such issues would be dealt with by an elected senate.

The 'GG' or Head of State in the US is the President. In the US, the President cannot veto a bill that has passed with a 2/3 majority. This checks the powers of the President. That includes a bill to 'fire' the President.

No such provision exists to fire a Prime Minister, except to lose an election.

Even with a unanimous vote, a GG can still refuse sign a bill. That checks the power of the PM.

But then again, why fix what isn't broke?

[Tman1]

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

The monarchy did not create the concept of a 'class system', nor is it the origin.

Might want to expand on that if you want it to be credible. In that case, who is? Who created the monarchy? The people? Hardly. One person on top, the second in the middle and the insignificant at the bottom. That's a class system or structure. Perhaps you could clarify what your definition of 'class system' is would shed some light.

[Tman1]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Your statement that "The opposition parties and the senate of Canada, not the queen veto bad bills do they not?" was incorrect. Whipped votes happen, and will sail right through both houses if the PM directs it to. The GG is not bound by party, therefore is the last line of reason to one man's ambition.

Give me an example of the Queen of England vetoing any bill in Canada whether she thinks it's wrong or not. Didn't think so.

Wrong. The PM can't 'direct' anything to pass through the house of commons as is. He might try to force it but he can't without support. Something missing in your thesis here is support in the houses. One mans ambition? PM Harper wanted to take away donations for parties. Did the GG, Queen have anything to do with that? No, that is called the opposition. When the opposition presses, he backs off or at least supposed to. I don't see dictatorial powers here. The PM needs the support to do anything.

$1:

Not to mention things like 'NAFTA' and the Softwood Lumber agreement. What bill numbers were those? Ahh yes - "Orders in Council" they never saw the floor of Parliament.

What does NAFTA being law in the constitution of Canada have to do with anything? We are talking about who makes the law in Canada right?

$1:

Yes, he can propose bills, and they must pass the Senate and Congress. They pass bills and he must sign them. The Queen and the GG do not have reciprocal powers.

So you're saying the PM simply cannot pass a law being a dictator and bills must pass through legislature which has nothing to do with being a head of state. Ok then.

$1:

You should look into the GGs recent overseas tour. She was greeted with the same or more pomp than a PM.

Such as.....her greeting of Obama at the airport as a head of state or her talking over matters of state business with Obama which she didn't do.

$1:

I know the PM does the talking, and the GG cannot ignore a legal request. But she still has absolute say over certain things, and through that whole crisis her attitude was to follow what was best for Canadians. If the government were defeated, I think she would have called an election to let the people decide.

I think Canadians follow what is best for Canadians, not the GG. If Canada was an ignorant, corrupt nation with a history of political violence, perhaps the GG might make a great check and balance for it but alas, we are not. The whole coaliton operation was blown way out of proportion.

$1:

If the GG isn't there, what is to stop the PM from becoming dictator? You make it sound like every dictator in the last 100 years hasn't come to power because of legal loopholes and the lack of political will to restrain them.

The PM needs the support. If he didn't, we wouldn't even have the coalition frothing at the mouth at the prospect of creating a new government. You haven't provided any concrete evidence the GG is needed in order to contain a PM to be a dictator of the state. Which dictators are you providing examples of? Every country has its own rules of law and legislature. The United States was built upon not wanting a 'monarch' as its ruler but you might reciprocate a monarch as a dictator.

[Tman1]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The 'GG' or Head of State in the US is the President. In the US, the President cannot veto a bill that has passed with a 2/3 majority. This checks the powers of the President. That includes a bill to 'fire' the President.

No such provision exists to fire a Prime Minister, except to lose an election.

Even with a unanimous vote, a GG can still refuse sign a bill. That checks the power of the PM.

But then again, why fix what isn't broke?

The PM almost lost his job because the house of commons lost 'confidence' in him. You deem that as not a 'check'? The President can be impeached. President Bush did a lot more harm than Clinton yet he almost was impeached.

You're saying the house of commons has a unanimous vote to pass a bill and the GG can refuse to sign it? I think you pass the powers of the GG a little too much and in reality she/he wouldn't do it. Dominion status of Canada has long gone.

[bootlegga]

stokes stokes:

I swore an oath to the Queen when I joined the CF, but I would rather have sworn an oath to Canada and ONLY Canada. Canada is my home and always will be, I feel no connection with England, The Commonwealth, or the Queen.

I questioned that oath and was told to stop being a lawyer.

If we're set on keeping a monarch, I'd rather see a Canadian monarchy than the British one. Lord knows I can't stomach having to deal with 'King Charles' after Elizabeth passes on.

[DrCaleb]

Tman1 Tman1:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Your statement that "The opposition parties and the senate of Canada, not the queen veto bad bills do they not?" was incorrect. Whipped votes happen, and will sail right through both houses if the PM directs it to. The GG is not bound by party, therefore is the last line of reason to one man's ambition.

Give me an example of the Queen of England vetoing any bill in Canada whether she thinks it's wrong or not. Didn't think so.

So, because she never has had cause to use this right, we should take it away?

Tman1 Tman1:

Wrong. The PM can't 'direct' anything to pass through the house of commons as is.

Rrrrreally? NAFTA? GST? The Gun Registry? Bill C-24, Softwood Lumber (2006) just to name a few. A majority government and dominated Senate can do just that.

Tman1 Tman1:

He might try to force it but he can't without support. Something missing in your thesis here is support in the houses. One mans ambition? PM Harper wanted to take away donations for parties. Did the GG, Queen have anything to do with that? No, that is called the opposition. When the opposition presses, he backs off or at least supposed to. I don't see dictatorial powers here. The PM needs the support to do anything.

Like I said, it has happened in the past to other countries though perfectly legal means.

Tman1 Tman1:

$1:

Not to mention things like 'NAFTA' and the Softwood Lumber agreement. What bill numbers were those? Ahh yes - "Orders in Council" they never saw the floor of Parliament.

What does NAFTA being law in the constitution of Canada have to do with anything? We are talking about who makes the law in Canada right?

Correct. And Orders in Council subvert Parliament.

Tman1 Tman1:

$1:

Yes, he can propose bills, and they must pass the Senate and Congress. They pass bills and he must sign them. The Queen and the GG do not have reciprocal powers.

So you're saying the PM simply cannot pass a law being a dictator and bills must pass through legislature which has nothing to do with being a head of state. Ok then.

So, English isn't your first language? Of do you like to intentionally misread things?

Tman1 Tman1:

$1:

You should look into the GGs recent overseas tour. She was greeted with the same or more pomp than a PM.

Such as.....her greeting of Obama at the airport as a head of state or her talking over matters of state business with Obama which she didn't do.

Shall I provide a definition of 'overseas'?

Tman1 Tman1:

$1:

I know the PM does the talking, and the GG cannot ignore a legal request. But she still has absolute say over certain things, and through that whole crisis her attitude was to follow what was best for Canadians. If the government were defeated, I think she would have called an election to let the people decide.

I think Canadians follow what is best for Canadians, not the GG. If Canada was an ignorant, corrupt nation with a history of political violence, perhaps the GG might make a great check and balance for it but alas, we are not. The whole coaliton operation was blown way out of proportion.

So, because the GG has never been seen as 'useful' we should risk giving sweeping power to one person? You have a lot of faith in human nature.

Tman1 Tman1:

$1:

If the GG isn't there, what is to stop the PM from becoming dictator? You make it sound like every dictator in the last 100 years hasn't come to power because of legal loopholes and the lack of political will to restrain them.

The PM needs the support. If he didn't, we wouldn't even have the coalition frothing at the mouth at the prospect of creating a new government. You haven't provided any concrete evidence the GG is needed in order to contain a PM to be a dictator of the state. Which dictators are you providing examples of? Every country has its own rules of law and legislature. The United States was built upon not wanting a 'monarch' as its ruler but you might reciprocate a monarch as a dictator.

That's the beauty of my position, I don't have to justify why we need a GG - we already have one. It seems to be an arrangement that works well. And you haven't provided either a reason why we don't need a GG, or what the Head of State would be replaced with. I've simply said that making the Head of Government responsible for the State (and also the Military) is a bad idea as it concentrates too much power in one person. Which is why the every democracy has these positions as two separate people with checks and balances between them. The Democracies that have consolidated these positions invariable turn to dictatorships.