The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Canada is under a dictatorship, not a democracy!!!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,027 times Debate No: 6603
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




Canada is said to be under a democratic government elected by the people, with all power in the people. Is this legally true? Within the constitution it states in Section 3 Chapter 9, "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen," which is referred to as Executive Power. In Section 3 Chapter 12 it states that all levels of government and those subject to it are under the sovereign power of the Queen of England, through her appointed representatives of her interests. Is this not a Dictatorship?
Democracy can not be operating within a country in part or in only certain aspects of society and then classify it as a Democratic society. In the case of Canada, it is governed under the interests of one individual as having all power over it without limitation or restriction, by law.


Firstly, I'd like to offer Psalmist thanks for initiating a debate regarding the Canadian Government. It may not be as exciting as politics in the United States, but it deserves discussion nonetheless. I'm by no means a savant in this subject, but on the grounds that I'm delighted to see such a debate, I will gladly accept the challenge.

"Canada is a democratic constitutional monarchy. Every act of government is passed in the name of the Queen, but the authority for every act flows from the Canadian people." [1]

My opponent claims that because the Queen Elizabeth II holds a ceremonial seat of 'executive power', we do not classify as a democratic nation. I negate this claim and present the following:

"The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."

It is Parliament and the provincial legislature, rather than the governor general and the lieutenant-governors as representatives of the Crown, that give active expression to the political will of Canadians. Accordingly, constitutional convention plays a vital role in the form and function of the executive branch of government and its central agencies.

"While the Constitution Act, 1867 grants the political executive an advisory role in relation to the Crown, in practice that advice is expressed in legislative instruments such as orders-in-council. The spirit of Canadian political culture, and indeed the progress of Canadian history itself is illuminated by the records emanating from the executive and the centre of government in Canada. [2]

noun a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) [3]

As we do in fact self-govern and have a constitution that offers the freedom to create/amend/abolish laws of our own accord, we would not classify as a dictatorship.

n. pl. de�moc�ra�cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule. [4]

This defines great countries that allow its citizens to hold power over their own lives. I strongly believe Canada fits the title.

Every system of government has an official who acts as a symbolic embodiment of the state and who acts as head of such. In a Constitutional Monarchy like Canada, the Monarch plays an important symbol. In Canada's case, a Symbolic Executive. In Canada the (symbolic) functions are acted out by our Governor General, Michaelle Jean.

If you are to suggest that Canada is run by a dictator, you must also believe that the following countries, through connection to a monarchy are also below the term "Democracy":


These are but a few countries that still retain an (symbolic) Executive.

Canada is in fact a Constitutional Monarchy [5], wherein we recognize (in this case) The Queen as a figure with extremely limited power. Again, this power is limited namely by parliament and law. This Constitutional Monarchy must not be confused with an Absolute Monarchy, which grants all political power to a Queen or King.

Even if my opponent's claims were to be found true, I offer spectators an excerpt from a 'Speech From The Throne', presented by the Queen's representative in Canada and our Governor General, Michaelle Jean:

...The Speech from the Throne is an important moment in our country's democratic life. Through the Speech from the Throne, the Government shares its vision with Canadians. And it is thus that we open the Second Session of the Thirty Ninth Parliament today... [6]

Michaelle Jean, and by legal extension, Queen Elizabeth II, mention Canada as 'democratic'. Had the Queen complete and utter power in our nation, her word would be law. Canada is a Democratic Nation regardless of what you believe, and again, as the Monarch in question does not hold absolute power, I must reiterate the fact that Canada cannot and must not be classified as a Dictatorship.

Debate Round No. 1


To Yoni, I send appreciation for your interest in Canadian topics, as well. Especially on such influential levels as this. By the comments made, there is overwhelming attention put on American content. This promotes ignorance towards the attempts made to bring consciousness to global issues with common concerns. Hopefully, we can help change this!
To the audience, I send my appreciation for your time and interest to observe such an issue as what we are debating on and hope that you will find the value of confirmation which brings clarity to what one believes, with promotion to end unconfirmed acceptance without resistant, which would allow validation.

First let me state, Lest we forget, that the history of this nation called Canada is not without great atrocities by European governments (particularly Britain) to claim a land from a people at their expense with attempts to wipe out their identity, pervert and deceive the people concerning this history, and then claim its wealth and resources for concentrated and selfish motives. This makes such a claim as mine, concerning the governmental operation of the Canadian system to be constituted under a dictatorship, considerably possible and to be evaluated with great scrutiny independent of common ideology dictated by the same interests which had orchestrated atrocities done to the original occupants and governors of these lands once called Kanata, today referred to as Canada.
As stated in the introduction of the Constitution of Canada, under the Declaration of the UNION that,

"It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare …"

This stipulates the terms of the language which is not standard English, but legal terminology. This form of communication allows regulation through Commercial Law, which is often considered to be a branch of civil law and deals both with issues of private law and public law. This allows the dictation of this declaration to be of a business nature. With this in mind, allow me to refer us to a section of the constitution which states in its introduction, prior to the Preliminary and above excerpt:

"And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire…"

This is an indicator that identifies a system of governing which does not recognize the ‘citizens' of Canada as holding power. The progress, success, and accumulation of wealth to be evenly distributed amongst the people of Canada are not in the sole interests of those which have allegiance to a Democratic Canada. As for the democracy my opponent so readily promotes and regards as the system of government Canada has demonstrated to ALL people, instead of just proclaiming by word and writing, but with hypocrisy in its deeds.

Democracy: 1. a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
2. the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.

"The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."

Once it is not vested in the people, which defines Democracy, is there a point on continuing with a play on words to stimulate debate on whether there is representation for the people or not? If the power is not vested in the people, they have no option to exercise it directly or indirectly. Representation would be towards the interests of the British Empire as stated in the constitution, which is governed by the Queen whom holds ALL power: Authority of and over… vested in the Queen. My opponent stated,

"Canada is a democratic constitutional monarchy."

By her own words this is a demonstration of hypocrisy with the terms democratic and monarchy, exposing the deception of a supposed Democracy.

Monarchy: 1. a form of government in which supreme authority is held by a single hereditary ruler, such as a king
2. supreme power and authority held by one person; autocracy.

Democracy is a majority, being the people, having the power vested in them.

Vested:1. (Law) Settled, fixed, or absolute; being without contingency.

Meaning there is no getting around it, it either is, based on this criteria stated in the definition, or it is not! My opponent makes much reference to ‘symbolism' in her explanation of the governing body.

"Every system of government has an official who acts as a symbolic embodiment of the state…"
"In Canada's case, a Symbolic Executive."

There is no declaration or statement within the constitution that gives reference to any of what she stated as being ‘symbolic.' On the contrary, it is particular and literally stated with defined terms and references to be clear what it states, considering the gravity of the issue: governing law of a nation and its occupants! The constitution was not symbolic, nor any aspect of it, but proclaimed.

Proclaim:1. To announce officially and publicly; declare.
2. To indicate conspicuously; make plain.

"It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada…"

My opponent stated,

"…the Queen as a figure with extremely limited power."

However, the constitution states otherwise. She claims that it is limited by, "parliament and law." What law? Separate from the Democracy you claim? As for parliament, according to the constitution:

"There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons."

With the Queen being part of Parliament and all power is vested in Her, with the power exercised by Parliament being only through the Act of Parliament, who authorizes this process? The Queen of Canada does! As for my opponents reference to a speech made by the Governor General, Michaelle Jean, as my opponent stated,

"…the Government shares its vision with Canadians."

Well, that vision has become more of a strategy to maintain an ignorance towards the factual perception of the Canadian Constitution from being evaluated with understanding of the terminology chosen without interpretation of other terms which pervert the true definition. Such a strategy is not new to Canada, the aboriginals have a chapter in their history which brought about the deception and proclaiming over their rights and lands. Not to mention who the Governor General is to the Queen. She is one which acts on behalf and in the Name of the Queen. Which is a powerless entity on its own, it has no power except that which is given, for the purpose of exercising it in the interest of whom she represents, being the Queen.

My sources are all the same, actual excerpts from the Canadian Constitution without prior interpretation. This gives a plain look at what we are evaluating and the validity of my research. As much as my opponent expressed in the last paragraph of her statement, her resistance to consideration on whether Canada is running under a dictatorship, the reality is that it must be considered. With consideration, the evaluation must be in the context which the laws were designed. Otherwise, it can maintain ignorance to how our government is functioning.

The question may arise to those viewing this debate, "why a dictatorship?" As it was said by Michael Corleone, a character in the movie, The Godfather I, "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business..."



Yoni forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


What more can I say? As my stance has not been challenged with a rebuttal within the 2nd round, it would seem unnecessary to add to points which I have established with no argument to question its validity. At this point, I continue to be punctual, steadfast, and maintain my rapport with the voters to confirm my arguments successful validity over my opponents opinions.
Thank you. Kingsley aka. the voice of the people!


Yoni forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
I could move, Yoni -
Posted by Yoni 8 years ago
I believe it says that somewhere in our national anthem.
Posted by Yoni 8 years ago
My original argument for this debate:

(Is she serious? Oh my.)
Posted by Yoni 8 years ago
Gay Marriage is not legal where you live, my man. I'm gay, you're gay - it's just not meant to be!
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
*Ragnar growls....*

*Ragnar sees Yoni's picture, and growls again, but this time more cheerfully*
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
Yoni - marry me...
Posted by Yoni 8 years ago
The United States of America - Canada's spastic colon?
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
Canada - America's Hat.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
But do Canadians really want to become a satelite of the US? What about their own distinct heritage? What about Quebec?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BobMarleyIsDead 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by trendem 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40