The Federal Republic of Canada

[g_bambino]

His job is to advise, and not advising Whitlam of what was to come was an abuse, in my eyes at least, of his use of the Reserve Powers. Now the rational behind that is pretty simple, because of Whitlam knew what precisely was coming his first thing to do would have been to give Buckingham Palace a jingle and instruct the Queen to dismiss Kerr and appoint a new GG. The latter, oddly enough, is more preferable than what Kerr did.

I fail to see why laying the problem at the Queen's feet would've been preferable; it would've put her in a very awkward position: does she follow her prime minister's advice knowing full well the political motivations behind it and in doing so obliterate the non-partisanship of her own representative's office? Or, does she refuse her prime minister's advice, eschewing centuries of convention but saving the governor general's essential apolitical nature?

Kerr was right to act as he did. Whitlam never cared for Australia's constitutional structure, especially when it got in the way of what he wanted. For instance, in 1972, he simply ignored the country's pre-existing federal order and assumed himself to be the ruler of not only the federal jurisdiction but of all the states, as well, attempting, as he did, to redefine both the Queen's relationship with her state governors and the states' positions vis-à-vis Canberra without even consulting the state governments, against all advice from British officials, and in complete contravention of the law. (He had a particular hatred for the states: When a proposed badge for the Order of Australia was presented to him in 1974, he had a fit over the inclusion of the shield of the country's arms, which is comprised of the emblems of each state, and declared he wouldn't have those state symbols on "his" (his!) insignia.)

In 1975, he was doing everything he could to circumvent parliament's right to approve or disapprove appropriations and there was every indication he'd take down the office of governor general next, if that's what he thought was required. With Whitlam refusing to back away, the viceroy sitting open as the next target for his abuse, the Queen about to be dragged into the political mess, and no funds with which to run the country (given the blockage of the supply bills by the Senate), what option did Kerr have but to dismiss Whitlam and appoint Fraser as interim prime minister on the agreement that, once the Senate had passed the money bills, Fraser would advise Kerr to fully dissolve parliament and call an election? The Senate was certainly a key player in the affair, but it never acted unconstitutionally. Whitlam, on the other hand, was very much trying to work around the constitution, at best, against it, at worst.

Whitlam was an egotistical little tyrant; he hovered around as the governor general's private secretary read out the proclamation of dismissal, waiting to grab the microphone and have a tantrum, and, even though he was no longer prime minister, he still tried get his way, asking the Queen to undo the governor general's actions! he was promptly told to bugger off. It's too bad he never did all-together; it's almost embarassing to consider his petty efforts over the ensuing decades to see the Australian monarchy abolished simply as revenge for his sacking as prime minister.

[g_bambino]

It is remarkable that the internal poll of forum posters here is so different from Canadians on this particular issue.

Could it be that this board attracts people whose interests make them generally more knowledgeable about governmental and constitutional matters than your average Canadian? Hardly remarkable at all, if that's the case.

[jbg]

Could it be that this board attracts people whose interests make them generally more knowledgeable about governmental and constitutional matters than your average Canadian? Hardly remarkable at all, if that's the case.

As a poll voter (for keeping the monarchy) I'm hardly your average Canadian; I'm not a Canadian at all.

[g_bambino]

As a poll voter (for keeping the monarchy) I'm hardly your average Canadian; I'm not a Canadian at all.

Yes, I know; but I didn't indicate the nationality of the posters, merely that they might tend to be more knowledgeable about Canada's constitution than the average Canadian. Take from that what you will...

[August1991]

Bump.

Link.

Apart from Australia, or this ridiculous British system of hierarchy, we Canadians must make our own society.

Edited August 18, 2010 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Bump.

Link.

Apart from Australia, or this ridiculous British system of hierarchy, we Canadians must make our own society.

Why ? And will Canadians ever care enough, at this point, to make all the changes necessary to make that happen ?

Who will be on our money ?

Al Waxman ?

[g_bambino]

Apart from Australia, or this ridiculous British system of hierarchy, we Canadians must make our own society.

With no leaders or any one person wealthier than the other. All are equal, Comrade.

[PoliticalCitizen]

With no leaders or any one person wealthier than the other. All are equal, Comrade.

Well, not quite. You'll still end up with US-style plutocracy, which is more modern than monarchy anyway.

[g_bambino]

Well, not quite. You'll still end up with US-style plutocracy, which is more modern than monarchy anyway.

Hardly; it's modelled after the monarchical/parliamentary system in existence in Britain at the end of the 18th century.

[ToadBrother]

Well, not quite. You'll still end up with US-style plutocracy, which is more modern than monarchy anyway.

I'm confused about this "modern" thing. There have been democracies before the US. The Roman Republic even had a constitution of sorts.

[nicky10013]

I don't think, when people advocate for things like an end to the monarchy or an elected senate, that people understand the difficulty in actually doing it. I'd like to point out that there are no fundamental flaws in the Canadian constitutional order. Are there small problems here and there? Sure. However, none are so big as to demand a constitutional amendment, which you'd need to do either.

As for replacing the queen, who would replace her and why? It can't be to save money. We'd still need a position of a governor general to dissolve parliament for elections and to make constitutional decisions. Whether the position would be called a governor general is something different entirely. That person would be just as powerless as the current GG and they'd still get the salary and the house. If we're only going to institute what is really only a nominal change, why not keep the history behind the monarchy?

[ToadBrother]

I don't think, when people advocate for things like an end to the monarchy or an elected senate, that people understand the difficulty in actually doing it. I'd like to point out that there are no fundamental flaws in the Canadian constitutional order. Are there small problems here and there? Sure. However, none are so big as to demand a constitutional amendment, which you'd need to do either.

As for replacing the queen, who would replace her and why? It can't be to save money. We'd still need a position of a governor general to dissolve parliament for elections and to make constitutional decisions. Whether the position would be called a governor general is something different entirely. That person would be just as powerless as the current GG and they'd still get the salary and the house. If we're only going to institute what is really only a nominal change, why not keep the history behind the monarchy?

My feelings exactly. I'm not really emotionally attached to the Monarchy, but unless we're talking about throwing out the old system and bringing in a new one, there's precious little point. To move from a British-styled monarchy to, say, an Irish or Indian styled republic, where the head of state is still essentially compelled to do as the government advises seems utterly vapid. I can understand the Irish and the Indians wanting to boot the monarchy, seeing as those ties represented long years of imperialism and oppression, and in general bad memories.

But countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the modern Commonwealth Realms really can't claim that. Yes, there was colonialism involved, but whatever demons there are from that certainly pale in comparison to, say, the conduct of the British government during the Potato Famine (and let's remember, when that happened, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and not a Dominion as it would later briefly be). So trying to make absurd arguments about how the monarchy represents colonialism and feudalism ring pretty false.

The fact of the matter is that Canada has worked very well, for the most part, under our governing system. The Monarchs who have reigned since Confederation have represented continuity, good government and stability, even during periods of dangerous upheaval. It's hardly perfect, but I don't see how politicizing the Head of State by making it an elected position will improve that situation. I'm certainly not seeing any evidence that countries like Germany, India or Ireland are any better governed.

If it was an easy symbolic change, then I wouldn't much care, but as you point out, and as many of us have pointed out, it is incredibly difficult. The notion of the Crown underlies and needles through the entire fabric of our government, at every level and in every branch. Beyond even that, it would open up the Constitution in ways that would make the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Meech Lake and Charlottetown attempts pale in comparison, and we all know that those changes created considerable upheaval, the failure of the latter two leading directly to the near severance of Quebec from the rest of Confederation. To talk about not only moving from a Constitutional Monarchy but to an entirely different system, with different federal-provincial divisions of powers and relations is staggeringly frightening. If someone imagines for a moment that Quebec nationalists wouldn't grab on to the opportunity, remembering how Levesque was outwitted, that person needs to stop drinking the kool-aid.

So, on the one hand, we have on one hand a system that works, for the most part, and has produced a phenomenally stable governing system that has persisted for nearly a century and a half (and much further back if you count its real inception in the Bill of Rights, 1689). On the other we have extreme dangers, and even if successful very negligible gains as far as government reform goes.

[dre]

I admit our attachment to the monarchy is a little odd, and I dont personally identify with it much as a Canadian.

But when it comes to results, Canadians have gotten the best governance in the first world, for the last few decades. One could argue were the ONLY country that has gotten good results from government. So I just dont see any compelling reason for reform. And if I WAS gonna take on reform it would be to address more specific issues... Id like to crackdown on special interest lobbies... fixed election dates... and few things like that.

[nicky10013]

I admit our attachment to the monarchy is a little odd, and I dont personally identify with it much as a Canadian.

But when it comes to results, Canadians have gotten the best governance in the first world, for the last few decades. One could argue were the ONLY country that has gotten good results from government. So I just dont see any compelling reason for reform. And if I WAS gonna take on reform it would be to address more specific issues... Id like to crackdown on special interest lobbies... fixed election dates... and few things like that.

Hahah we all saw how fixed election dates turned out. I'd like to see a traditional change to prorogation. In minority situations, a simple vote to prorogue.

[ToadBrother]

I admit our attachment to the monarchy is a little odd, and I dont personally identify with it much as a Canadian.

But when it comes to results, Canadians have gotten the best governance in the first world, for the last few decades. One could argue were the ONLY country that has gotten good results from government. So I just dont see any compelling reason for reform. And if I WAS gonna take on reform it would be to address more specific issues... Id like to crackdown on special interest lobbies... fixed election dates... and few things like that.

Exactly. There are far more compelling, not to mention reasonably achievable reforms that can be made. We don't need to toss out the monarchy for those changes.

[g_bambino]

I can understand the Irish and the Indians wanting to boot the monarchy, seeing as those ties represented long years of imperialism and oppression, and in general bad memories.

By the time both countries became republics, it was no longer "the monarchy", it was "their monarchies"; after the Statute of Westminster, the Crown had become divided. So, India and Ireland didn't have to boot their monarchies in order to remove the singular association that remained between they and Britain - the person of the monarch - and nor does Canada, should there ever be enough anti-British (or perhaps anti-Tuvaluan?) sentiment to push for a break of our personal union with the other Commonwealth Realms. Canada is already a distinct, fully formed constitutional monarchy; we could avoid the trouble of deciding how to re-organise the federation, select a president, deal with the reserve powers, & etc., by simply amending the Statute of Westminster and Act of Settlement to allow for a new monarch on our throne. Of course, "simply" still involves the agreement of all eleven legislatures in this country; but, it would still take less effort than establishing the untested republican alternative.

[+]

Edited August 18, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

By the time both countries became republics, it was no longer "the monarchy", it was "their monarchies"; after the Statute of Westminster, the Crown had become divided. So, India and Ireland didn't have to boot their monarchies in order to remove the singular association that remained between they and Britain - the person of the monarch - and nor does Canada, should there ever be enough anti-British sentiment to push for a break of our personal union with the other Commonwealth Realms. Canada is already a distinct, fully formed constitutional monarchy; we could avoid the trouble of deciding how to re-organise the federation, select a president, deal with the reserve powers, & etc., by simply amending the Statute of Westminster and Act of Settlement to allow for a new monarch on our throne. Of course, "simply" still involves the agreement of all eleven legislatures in this country; but, it would still take less effort than establishing the untested republican alternative.

The history of India and Ireland is considerably different than that of Canada, New Zealand and so on. I can well appreciate the Irish wanting to turf the monarchy, since it had for centuries been involved in all manner of oppression (rather directly during the Tudor period). In India, there was considerable anger at colonialism, and there to I can see the point of a symbolic detachment. Neither country had to abolish the monarchy, but clearly there was a great deal of popular will to do so.

Here in Canada, the best I can describe of the monarchy is "Meh..." There's no real concerted effort to oust the monarchy, and the effort to promote it is, to a large extent, largely fringe. I imagine there are some Quebec nationalists who are die-hard against the monarchy, but from what I can tell Quebecers in general are about as interested as anyone else in the country.

As to modifying the Statute of Westminster, there are two areas where it is difficult. On the one hand it is clearly a constitutional document, and one that affects the entire Dominion, so as you say, it would, as you say, require all the Provincial legislatures as well as the Federal Parliament because it requires unanimity to alter the Crown in Canada. Another difficulty is that the Statute of Westminster is also a treaty of sorts, binding the Commonwealth Realms to all recognize the same succession laws as laid out in the Act of Settlement. My hunch would be that the minute you tinkered with the Statute of Westminster, you would technically be repudiating the aspects of the Statute that create a treaty.

I think getting all eleven legislatures to agree would be well-nigh impossible. Worse, it would likely rip open some of the very old rifts in the country. I keep coming back to a nightmare scenario. What if everyone agrees to it except one or two provinces? Or visa versa, what if only one or two provinces agree to it? Technically, it fails of course, but alteration to the Crown (and that would include, say, abolishing it) requires everyone be on board, but in the world of real politik I can well imagine a rejection would divide the country, perhaps fatally.

It just isn't worth it. As nicky said, there are other reforms we can invoke which are much more obtainable and with much more concrete effects.

Edited August 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Jefferson]

I advocate the formation of the Republic of Canada, so that we can enjoy the same democratic privileges as modern nations like USA, Mexico, and Iran, where the citizens actually have the right to elect the people who hold the highest offices in the country, the President and the Senators, and the right to actually bear arms to protect their families instead of being sitting ducks for the hordes of well armed criminals who roam the streets and don't bother with such details as FAQs and registrations when they buy their smuggled guns. Those are pretty basic rights, in my opinion. Why do Canadians settle for what we have now, a Constitutional Monarchy?

Here's an interesting quote about the subject of Constitutional Monarchies;

"In the past, constitutional monarchs have co-existed with fascist and quasi-fascist constitutions (Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain) and with military dictatorships." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy#List_of_current_reigning_monarchies

Constitutional Monarchy is clearly cheating Canadian citizens out of the true democracy of a republic and only illustrates how pathetic our leaders are and have been since the formation of the country. I can only assume that they perpetuate this travesty of democracy because it serves their own purposes. You won't find the Senators, like the highly qualified Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, complaining about it. Would either of them have had a chance of actually being elected as Senators in the US? Here's Mike Duffy's campaign slogan; "vote for me, I'm TV journalist. Who else is better qualified to rule on the passage of laws effecting every Canadian? Wink for mom." Would Harper have been elected President? Maybe if he was running against a Ken doll, otherwise not too likely. Speaking of slogans, here's one for the nation of Canada; "Canada, we settled for second best and we're damn proud of it".

[Smallc]

There are so many things wrong with the 'facts' in the aboce post, it isn't even funny.

[nicky10013]

You clearly don't understand that the highest office in the land isn't the position of governor general, but the position of Prime Minister. You point out Mexico, the US, and hilariously Iran, but don't mention countries like Germany, where, the head of state (the German President) is ceremonial just like our Governor General. Even if there's a nominal change in the title and you make it elected (which on the whole is a terrible idea), then you still have a person who is subserviant to the Prime Minister.

[ToadBrother]

"In the past, constitutional monarchs have co-existed with fascist and quasi-fascist constitutions (Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain) and with military dictatorships." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy#List_of_current_reigning_monarchies

So have republics. Our system of government has worked extraordinarily well for 300 years, without falling into dictatorship or despotism. In fact, quite the opposite, since the Glorious Revolution our system has become increasingly democratic.

Edited August 31, 2010 by ToadBrother

[segnosaur]

I advocate the formation of the Republic of Canada, so that we can enjoy the same democratic privileges as modern nations like USA, Mexico, and Iran...

Ummm... Iran?

I think you managed to debunk your own opening post in your first sentence.

Why do Canadians settle for what we have now, a Constitutional Monarchy?

Because being a 'republic' does not guarantee that your country is a true democracy which respects human rights (See: People's republic of Korea).

Because while being a 'republic' would give us more options at the ballot box, our democratic traditions still allow people to exert enough control over their government

Because opening up the constitution to make the necessary changes into a "republic" would be probably cause more problems that its worth (see: Meech Lake).

[Smallc]

You clearly don't understand that the highest office in the land isn't the position of governor general, but the position of Prime Minister. You point out Mexico, the US, and hilariously Iran, but don't mention countries like Germany, where, the head of state (the German President) is ceremonial just like our Governor General. Even if there's a nominal change in the title and you make it elected (which on the whole is a terrible idea), then you still have a person who is subserviant to the Prime Minister.

Well, there are cases where she can act on her own, and she technically is the highest ranking person within the country in the absense of the Queen.

[nicky10013]

Well, there are cases where she can act on her own, and she technically is the highest ranking person within the country in the absense of the Queen.

The greatest thing about your post is the "tehcnically." She technically is the highest person in Canada but the PM has all the power. She's merely a weak check on that power.

[Smallc]

The greatest thing about your post is the "tehcnically." She technically is the highest person in Canada but the PM has all the power. She's merely a weak check on that power.

Well, other than certain situations, you're right. The constitutional order is very important though. We have to remember that the PM only gives advice to the Queen, and not orders.