The Federal Republic of Canada

[jbg]

They can engineer their own defeat in the house during a majoirty as governments often do.

I am familiar with certain minority governments engineering their defeat as Diefenbaker did in 1958 and Trudeau did in 1974. When has a majority government done this?

More to the point, how did they go about it? Get their own members to vote against the government? And when did this happen?

[benny]

Or when the LPC reigns, be revolting.

Say goodbye to Quebec!

[WestViking]

They can engineer their own defeat in the house during a majoirty as governments often do. They don't need to simply ask as Harper did.

Show us an instance where this has ocurred please.

[Smallc]

Minority governments have often done it. Trudeau definitely did. Provincial governments have. Regardless, if we are going to have a fixed date law, it should be one like the provinces have which has a clear date that is stuck to outside of a vote of non confidence. The hypocrite, of course, wouldn't give us something like that because he's too busy playing political games. Instead, we had some nice, useless, partisan window dressing. Let the power stay with the PM or take it away, no ifs ands or buts. Its that simple.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Smallc

[benny]

Show us an instance where this has ocurred please.

Scandals happen very often.

[August1991]

Two in three Canadians agree the Royal Family should not have any formal role in Canadian society, according to the results of an Ipsos Reid poll conducted for Canada.com and released Wednesday.

According to the poll and not surprisingly, the strongest voices favouring abolishment of the monarchy in Canada come from Quebec, where eight in 10 people believe ties to the monarchy should be cut when the Queen's reign ends,

...

But according to one expert on the monarchy, the sentiment is simply a product of Canadians being "woefully misinformed" about our institutions.

"Canada has always been a monarchy," said Matthew Rowe, a spokesman for the Monarchist League of Canada. "It's part of who we are as a nation. We didn't spring from the Earth fully formed. We're part of an institution."

....

"Right now, our Governor General can't act as the constitutional referee," said Tom Freda, director of Citizens for a Canadian Republic, pointing to the fact the Michaelle Jean approved both of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's requests to prorogue Parliament. "It's not appropriate to have the prime minister appoint our head of state — and she does act as our head of state . . . Some dinosaurs in Ottawa and the Monarchist League are inhibiting the democratic evolution of the country."

The Gazette

Faced with with wide-scale popular opposition to the monarchy and desire for a republic, a monarchists argues that Canadians are "woefully misinformed".

The problem with democracy is that the stupid ordinary "misinformed" people get power.

[Smallc]

Have fun getting unanimous consent from the provinces.

[August1991]

Have fun getting unanimous consent from the provinces.

If two-thirds of Canadians are in favour of something, governments and politicians have a tendency to follow suit.

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

[Smallc]

If two-thirds of Canadians are in favour of something, governments and politicians have a tendency to follow suit.

No, not necessarily. This isn't even an issue that people care about.

[g_bambino]

Faced with with wide-scale popular opposition to the monarchy and desire for a republic, a monarchists argues that Canadians are "woefully misinformed".

The problem with democracy is that the stupid ordinary "misinformed" people get power.

True on both counts: the Canadian populace is generally uninformed on their monarchy and have the power to change their system of government. It's an unsettling mix, but one the fringe republican movement here hopes to use to its advantage. Sadly for them, constitutional change in this country doesn't happen based on silly polls asking biased questions.

Glad to see Tom Freda's still alive, though. I was beginning to wonder, given the silence of his bitter little group; the CCR message board's been dead for months and their Facebook page disappeared. I think Tom needs a hug.

[+]

Edited June 16, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

If two-thirds of Canadians are in favour of something, governments and politicians have a tendency to follow suit.

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

It's irrelevant. No one is going open the question anyways. Meech Lake and Charlottetown shut down any serious constitutional reform for decades to come. An issue is irrelevant to day-to-day government as to whether we keep the monarchy is not going to light any flames. Every poll I've seen doesn't show support for or against, but rather basic apathy. It just don't matter that much, and no national leader is going to go out on a limb to turf the monarchy based on that. The support simply isn't there to get rid of the monarchy, certainly not enough for any hope of success. Besides, if we're going to tear open the constitution, I'd think there would be much more sensible and useful reforms than that.

[DFCaper]

It's irrelevant. No one is going open the question anyways. Meech Lake and Charlottetown shut down any serious constitutional reform for decades to come. An issue is irrelevant to day-to-day government as to whether we keep the monarchy is not going to light any flames. Every poll I've seen doesn't show support for or against, but rather basic apathy. It just don't matter that much, and no national leader is going to go out on a limb to turf the monarchy based on that. The support simply isn't there to get rid of the monarchy, certainly not enough for any hope of success. Besides, if we're going to tear open the constitution, I'd think there would be much more sensible and useful reforms than that.

I voted for the Republic of Canada, but I wonder if it wouldn't cause more headaches than it's worth to do the change.

I think Monarchy's are obsolete, and the fact that ours is the royalty of another country, it is more embarrassing than anything else.

[Topaz]

The saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you just may get" apply here. First we become the republic of Canada, then the republic of USA than China take over the US and now we are the republic of China, then we blow oursevlves off the map trying to stop from being the republic of China!

[Smallc]

I think Monarchy's are obsolete, and the fact that ours is the royalty of another country, it is more embarrassing than anything else.

Why? And why are they obsolete?

[Smallc]

The saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you just may get" apply here. First we become the republic of Canada, then the republic of USA than China take over the US and now we are the republic of China, then we blow oursevlves off the map trying to stop from being the republic of China!

[Argus]

If two-thirds of Canadians are in favour of something, governments and politicians have a tendency to follow suit.

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

As I'm sure you're fully aware, this was a tiny poll - just 1000 people, and its numbers were influenced by the 80% of Quebecers who reject the Queen. Mind you, most of them reject Canada, too, except as a wallet.

And as I've pointed out before, the support for eliminating the monarchy is millimeters thick Even if some Canadians favour removing the queen, they don't really care much. Those Canadians who want to keep the monarchy, on the other hand, are highly, highly motivated. Very few of those who want to establish a republic will change their votes on it, so there isn't a lot to be gained by a party which champions a republic. But there are a LOT of votes to be lost, and lost permanently, to any party which tries. This is the kind of issue which causes a generational loss, where the people who are angered over it will never vote for that party again - ever. So there is much to lose and little to gain in trying to establish a republic.

It's not gonna happen. I advise and encourage you to work harder at getting Quebec separated so you can have your lovely republic. I doubt you'll be able to afford much of a residence for your new president, but then again with the way real estate prices will collapse you should be able to find him a bungalow somewhere.

[bloodyminded]

Even if some Canadians favour removing the queen, they don't really care much. Those Canadians who want to keep the monarchy, on the other hand, are highly, highly motivated.

I think this is exactly right.

[ToadBrother]

I voted for the Republic of Canada, but I wonder if it wouldn't cause more headaches than it's worth to do the change.

I think Monarchy's are obsolete, and the fact that ours is the royalty of another country, it is more embarrassing than anything else.

I don't really see how it's embarrassing. In her capacity here she is the Queen of Canada. I know that sounds legalistic, but that's her constitutional nature and has been effectively since Confederation, and certainly officially since the Statute of Westminster.

As I have often said, I'm a Monarchist of Convenience. If we're just going to replace the Monarchy with a nearly identical president like Germany or India, then I don't see the point. Electing a constitutionally-limited head of state vs. a hereditary one of near-identical powers seems like, from a structural point of view, a meaningless change. I can understand, to some extent why India and Ireland did it, seeing as how their experiences under the British Empire had a lot of negative points, but really, Canada has had no such poor experience.

As I said, constitutional change in this country was made very hard by the BNA Act and later by the Constitution Act, 1982. In reality major changes like the makeup of the Senate is incredibly hard, and I think that would be nothing compared to attempting to dislodge and replace the Monarchy. Though the polling usually ends up somewhere in the realm of 50-50 and is pretty apathetic, I can well imagine chaos ensuing from such an attempt. What if four or five provinces refuse? What if Quebec uses the opportunity to further modify its powers vis-à-vis the Federal Government and/or Confederation?

The Queen and her vice-regals have done no better and no worse a job than your average president in a weak presidential system like Ireland or Germany. There are advantages to a hereditary constitutional monarchy as well, in that I think there is much less risk of abuse of reserve powers, as the position is completely a-political (not that there is all that much evidence of such abuses in weak presidential systems, though some have pointed to Poland under the Kaczynski twins as an example of a situation where a relatively weak presidency can become very powerful if everything aligns itself right). Trudeau observed many years after the repatriation of the Constitution that the Queen was often better informed of the Canadian constitutional situation than British ministers were, and that kind of experience only comes from decades of occupying the position of Sovereign.

If we, as a nation, are going to pursue constitutional changes, then I think the Monarchy ought to be very low on the list.

Edited June 16, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

I voted for the Republic of Canada... I think Monarchy's are obsolete, and the fact that ours is the royalty of another country, it is more embarrassing than anything else.

And here is a pertinent example of how votes can be cast without rationale or knowledge (or proper English grammar skills, it seems). It's a dangerous thing.

[jbg]

The Gazette

Article quote: "Right now, our Governor General can't act as the constitutional referee," said Tom Freda, director of Citizens for a Canadian Republic, pointing to the fact the Michaelle Jean approved both of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's requests to prorogue Parliament. "It's not appropriate to have the prime minister appoint our head of state — and she does act as our head of state . . . Some dinosaurs in Ottawa and the Monarchist League are inhibiting the democratic evolution of the country."

Anyone who believes that the Canadian PM appoints Canada's Head of State is sadly misinformed. The Head of State is a member of the House of Windsor, and not chosen by any Canadian.

[BubberMiley]

Anyone who believes that the Canadian PM appoints Canada's Head of State is sadly misinformed.

You were more accurate when you said you know nothing about Canada. The Queen appoints the GG based solely on the advice of the Canadian PM. The PM makes the decision that matters. The ceremonial procedure is irrelevant.

[Smallc]

He's right though. The Governor General is at most Canada's acting head of state, and not its true head of state.

Anyway, the complaints are irrelevant. A head of state is something completely different from a head of government. The head of state does have constitutional powers, but the head of state is more about 'being' the state itself. They are a personification of an idea, which is probably their most important role. In Canada, the media doesn't talk enough about our head of state or even our acting head of state, and so we feel somewhat disconnected.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Smallc

[PIK]

Why get rid of our history, we should be celebrating it not losing it. We have a great country ,so why do something that could turns us into something else. Plus it is waaay to complicated to do it,asked the aussies.I do not want to be like america or some european country, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Smallc]

.I do not want to be like america or some european country, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Do you realize how many European countries are monarchies?

[ToadBrother]

Why get rid of our history, we should be celebrating it not losing it. We have a great country ,so why do something that could turns us into something else. Plus it is waaay to complicated to do it,asked the aussies.I do not want to be like america or some european country, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

My issue is your last point. Unless we're talking about moving to an entirely different system (ie. presidential model like the United States or semi-presidential like France), what is the exact advantage of removing the monarchy?

And that's the other problems with republicans, both here and in Australia, is the unwillingness to state what system they want. It's always "we'll figure that out later", which leads one to believe that their motives are entirely ideological, and lacking in any practical perspective.