Queen? In Canada? Since when?

Post Reply New Topic

Not quite. Her official title in the UK is: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

That is not exactly correct. The Prime Minister who has a majority government is a dictator in all but name in our system. Far more power than the US president

There are certainly occasions when the sovereign travels abroad not as Queen of the United Kingdom but as Queen of Canada.

When Edward VIII dedicated the Vimy memorial in 1936, he did so as King of Canada, and when the attended the Vimy anniversary in 2007, she did so as Queen of Canada. It was her personal Canadian flag, not the Royal Standard, that was broken on her arrival.

There may even be occasions within the United Kingdom itself that she acts as Queen of Canada. When she reopened Canada House, for example, she did so as Queen of Canada, and it was (so far as I am aware) the only time that her personal Canadian flag has marked the presence of the Canadian sovereign within the territory of the United Kingdom. I don't know if she has visited any of the other High Commissions of her Commonwealth Realms, but a similar protocol could certainly be followed in those.

Not even close. Theoretically, his whole party could just cross the floor and leave him standing there holding the bag (although you'd obviously have a nonconfidence motion to topple the government long before then - another thing that simply doesn't exist in the US system). Nor does he have a veto power, signing statements, none of that. In some senses, he's basically just an MP when it comes down to it. Whatever other power he holds is simply a function of being the leader of his party, and his party holding a majority. IE he is heavily dependant on other people. He's more analogous to the Speaker of the House in the US system.

The ONLY remedy the Americans have is impeachment. The President's executive power isn't in the least bit constrained by the legislature, or anyone else, other than that.

Meh.

He has to maintain order in his cabinet and his party, both within parliement and without, he has to deal with our over-sized bureaucracy, and he has to make sure he is elected four years later.

It is difficult to compare the power of the American President and the Canadian Prime Minister. In Canada, each minister has a relative amount of indepedance, i.e. a larger capacity to backstab their leader. Of course, it would have all the appearance of a palace coup, but it is a plausible eventuality.

In theory you are correct. However, it takes a considerable act of will for others in the party to stand up to the PM, as they could be back benched. So long as there is a majority and whipped votes etc. are in effect, then in practice the PM has far more power than the US president.

i believe we have a constitutional monarchy, no? meh, it doesn't seem to be too problematic to have a queen. can't think what could be upsetting about it.

Not really - his party does. The analogy in the US would be the Speaker of the House, not the President. There is no equivalent in the Westminster system. Does the PM have a veto power? Signing statements? He doesn't even control the civil service, really - the cabinet ministers do. Ministers do their own thing all the time (not under Harper, because he's moving to a more American style, but normally they do). How exactly does he have more power?

What the President is, is not the PM ... it's the monarch, circa 1700s, with full executive power, vetoes, negotiate and sign treaties, ability to declare war more or less, etc etc. Only he's elected.

A good prime minister will not have the same power as a president. But, with sufficient control of the majority party, the PM can be extremely powerful. Harper is the first major example of this, but it shows that such things are possible.

True, but it's partially because he is perverting the Parliamentary system to a more American style to do so. Fixed elections etc. He made many sweeping changes, even when he had only a minority mandate. And he still hasn't got anything like the powers a president has. He can't veto bills or sign treaties or declare war. All that still has to go through Parliament, it's not in the hands of one man.

In theory yes, but since he exerts absolute control over how his caucus votes he can essentially decide anything he wants.

An excellent book to read on these issues, by the way, is Losing Confidence: Power, Politics, and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy. (An alternative, rather hyperbolic, title that was considered was Canada: Banana Republic Without Benefit of Fruit, which I think is hilarious.)

Harper is just the only plausible personn in all his government. His only named ministers are those known to be completely unsuitable or incompetent, the rest are just unknown placeholders. Hence, he has a very strong grip on the government.

My understanding is that, as Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II's prerogatives, as delegated to the governor-general, constitutionally derive completely separately from her role as queen over her other realms (the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) and that this has been true for some decades now. More or less, they are all independent kingdoms that happen to share a line of succession for their monarch (by law).

Still, I can point and laugh at Canada for subjecting itself to a foreign monarch.

The queen isn't foreign, she is a Canadian citizen. She just also happens to be a citizen of the UK, Australia, New Zealand etc.

Some of them are incompetent, but how would we know for most of them? They rarely talk and when they do they are saying what he tells them to. Also, a party with only one competent member has no business being in power.

Wouldn't be a bad angle to take in the next election ... it'd be pretty funny putting them on the spot over that one and seeing them forced to have to campaign on people other than Harper.

Wouldn't be too surprised if Mulcairn has already thought of this. The guy does have quite a reputation for playing hardball. But I think it'd be a dangerous angle for his party, being filled as it is with lots of placeholder MPs who were never actually supposed to get elected. And the Libs, well, they're in the same boat as the Cons except they don't even have the one competent member.