The Canadian Monarchy

[Oleg Bach]

Yes, but not Catholic.

Heaven forbid the silly construct of the virgin Mary become a force to be delt with. Nothing worse than a catholic who believes all woman are sluts except their mother...who of course is a virgin. Catholics as far as the Queen is concerned are right up their with Muslims...as we saw how pissed off the Queen was when that play boy Arab decided to mount the disposed of royal brood mare...might just cause the english speaking world to start a few invasions..no one insults the Queen and gets away with it.

[Smallc]

actually it is that simple we do not have to change the way we govern ourselves, replace queen with an elected GG or President and it's done.

Okay, now get everyone to agree. The fact, also, that you seem to think that electing the head of state won't change everything is also funny. You want to make it out to be simple, but it's far from it. It would very much be the most divisive exercise in our history.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Smallc

[Shwa]

Okay, now get everyone to agree. The fact, also, that you seem to think that electing the head of state won't change everything is also funny. You want to make it out to be simple, but it's far from it. It would very much be the most divisive exercise in our history.

You keep saying this smallc, but you don't go any further to explain. So... please explain. For example, how will it cost us $billions? (I am presuming that you derive this figure from the costs of the repatriation of the Constitution in the 80's)

I agree, there could be some legal roadblocks, but they could be overcome. I simply don't see a hell scenario for this one, especially if there is a decisive referendum to get it done.

[g_bambino]

you're deflecting making the sovereigntists a scapegoat, they're a non-issue...

I didn't raise the issue.

[Topaz]

It wasn't the Tories idea to go back to the "Royal" wording, it was the vets. Yes, they didn't have to but they have screwed up the vets so bad they couldn't say no. It wouldn't surprise me if Harper tried to go back to the Union Jack because it has BLUE on it.

[Smallc]

I agree, there could be some legal roadblocks, but they could be overcome. I simply don't see a hell scenario for this one, especially if there is a decisive referendum to get it done.

And you think that people in all 10 provinces will agree? And what if they don't? You do, after all, need legislative consent from all 10 provinces, the House, and the Senate to make the change. You also need agreements from people like first nations, who hold treaty with the Crown, that a republic is going to honour the agreements.

You need to design a new federal system that allows for the provinces to be sovereign within the country as they are now. The Queen in council in the provinces at current is just as powerful as the Queen in council for the federal government. How are you going to reproduce that? Australians, who actually dislike the monarchy, couldn't even agree on a system. Add to that the fact that this would all have to be choreographed to change in 11 places, not just one.

There are also the mentioned legal changes that would have to happen, but it isn't going to be as easy as passing a bill, and it it's going to again, have to happen in 11 places. Parliamentary traditions and offices would also have to be redesigned, as would things as distant as the level of power of the Supreme Court in the federal system.

Also, with any change, comes instability and risk. A debate like this, which would fracture the country across provincial lines, is going to cost investment. The debate isn't going to short or easy, and it certainly isn't going to be pretty. The Canadian economy will suffer as a result...and for what?

What would we as Canadians gain by dropping the Canadian Crown. I have yet to be a compelling case that makes any of the above (and remember, these are only some of the things) worth while.

[g_bambino]

actually it is that simple we do not have to change the way we govern ourselves, replace queen with an elected GG or President and it's done...

You must be joking. Do you forget this country is a federation of eleven jurisdictions, one of them being Quebec?

Presently, the Queen is the person in whom the sovereignty and executive power of the federal and provincial entities is vested; the provinces don't derive their power from Ottawa. Rather, the eleven governments are on an equal footing under the one Crown that is their source of authority, with the governor general and lieutenant governors regarded as equals representing the Queen in their respective jurisdictions. If the Queen is removed and the governor general made head of state: the governor general moves up to the Queen's old place, above the provincial lieutenant governors in the constitutional order, making the provincial governments subordinate to the one in Ottawa. Can you see any province, let alone Quebec, agreeing to that? If that's not to be, then you're looking at having to rearrange Confederation in the process of "simply" replacing the Queen with a president.

However, there's still the matter of how the president is to be elected: will it be by parliament? Or by popular vote? What then of the resulting fact that the office of head of state will become politicised; the presidential candidates will be - as they are in every other republic on earth - chosen and/or endorsed by a politicial party, which could lead to (and has lead to) either conflict and stalemate between the prime minister and president, should each be of a different party, or the president being a puppet of the prime minister, should both be of the same party and the prime minister a strong figure within it. Neither is a scenrario one wants in a constitutional crisis, wherein political gain should not be the goal over stable government for all Canadians, regardless of party preference. It also means the head of state becomes inherently divisive, representing only those Canadians who voted for him, alienating those (possibly the majority) who didn't. For Quebec, would a president ever represent anything other than the majority of the country's Anglophone majority?

Australia went through this already: political elites used tax dollars to put steam into their personal project of turning the country into a republic, mostly for their own benefit. With lies about colonialism and emotive, patriotic arguments, they stirred up large segments of the public that was otherwise unfamiliar with the facts, and the debate that followed went on for twenty years. The eventual referendum on the matter failed, and still, another twelve years on, they're at it (though republicanism is gradually diminishing). Decades of time and billions of dollars spent and everything's still status quo, and their federation isn't nearly as cranky as ours.

[+]

Edited October 5, 2011 by g_bambino

[Shwa]

I qualified the statement though, hinging on a decisive referendum. I would imagine preceeded or followed-up by some sort of "royal" commission. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume there has been a referendum and something like 75% of respondents said that they would be willing to take a look at it.

And you think that people in all 10 provinces will agree? And what if they don't? You do, after all, need legislative consent from all 10 provinces, the House, and the Senate to make the change. You also need agreements from people like first nations, who hold treaty with the Crown, that a republic is going to honour the agreements.

The legislature would be driven by the politics of the referendum. There isn't anything saying that the rights of the people and treaties and such, would automatically become invalidated. The repatriation of the Constitution has already proved this and the Charter of Rights has already moved us in a direction which is perfectly compatible with a parliamentarty republic.

You need to design a new federal system that allows for the provinces to be sovereign within the country as they are now. The Queen in council in the provinces at current is just as powerful as the Queen in council for the federal government. How are you going to reproduce that? Australians, who actually dislike the monarchy, couldn't even agree on a system. Add to that the fact that this would all have to be choreographed to change in 11 places, not just one.

Like wyly pointed out, all you need is a replacement figure. President-in-Council or Govenor-General-in-Council.

There are also the mentioned legal changes that would have to happen, but it isn't going to be as easy as passing a bill, and it it's going to again, have to happen in 11 places. Parliamentary traditions and offices would also have to be redesigned, as would things as distant as the level of power of the Supreme Court in the federal system.

Also, with any change, comes instability and risk. A debate like this, which would fracture the country across provincial lines, is going to cost investment. The debate isn't going to short or easy, and it certainly isn't going to be pretty. The Canadian economy will suffer as a result...and for what?

I see no link between a careful and relatively simple switchover which would mitigate any economic 'suffering' if there would be any at all.

What would we as Canadians gain by dropping the Canadian Crown. I have yet to be a compelling case that makes any of the above (and remember, these are only some of the things) worth while.

A change in management, a severing of formal ties to England, a republic that recognizes that the Monarchy truly has no play here anymore. What real benefits did the repatriation of our Constitution have? Did we economically "suffer" when the Constitution was reptriated? No.

You see, other than 'its a big job' and some fear thrown in, I see no real legal or moral obstacles to morphing ourselves over to a parliamentary republic.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Shwa

[Shwa]

You must be joking. Do you forget this country is a federation of eleven jurisdictions, one of them being Quebec?

Presently, the Queen is the person in whom the sovereignty and executive power of the federal and provincial entities is vested; the provinces don't derive their power from Ottawa. Rather, the eleven governments are on an equal footing under the one Crown that is their source of authority, with the governor general and lieutenant governors regarded as equals representing the Queen in their respective jurisdictions. If the Queen is removed and the governor general made head of state: the governor general moves up to the Queen's old place, above the provincial lieutenant governors in the constitutional order, making the provincial governments subordinate to the one in Ottawa. Can you see any province, let alone Quebec, agreeing to that? If that's not to be, then you're looking at having to rearrange Confederation in the process of "simply" replacing the Queen with a president.

Open the Constitution in Word and use the search and replace.

However, there's still the matter of how the president is to be elected: will it be by parliament? Or by popular vote? What then of the resulting fact that the office of head of state will become politicised; the presidential candidates will be - as they are in every other republic on earth - chosen and/or endorsed by a politicial party, which could lead to (and has lead to) either conflict and stalemate between the prime minister and president, should each be of a different party, or the president being a puppet of the prime minister, should both be of the same party and the prime minister a strong figure within it. Neither is a scenrario one wants in a constitutional crisis, wherein political gain should not be the goal over stable government for all Canadians, regardless of party preference. It also means the head of state becomes inherently divisive, representing only those Canadians who voted for him, alienating those (possibly the majority) who didn't. For Quebec, would a president ever represent anything other than the majority of the country's Anglophone majority?

Sure the devil is in the details, but the details do not reveal any obstacles that can be overcome. Even the touchy question of Quebec. That is mere methodology, not some moral or legal imperative.

Australia went through this already: political elites used tax dollars to put steam into their personal project of turning the country into a republic, mostly for their own benefit. With lies about colonialism and emotive, patriotic arguments, they stirred up large segments of the public that was otherwise unfamiliar with the facts, and the debate that followed went on for twenty years. The eventual referendum on the matter failed, and still, another twelve years on, they're at it (though republicanism is gradually diminishing). Decades of time and billions of dollars spent and everything's still status quo, and their federation isn't nearly as cranky as ours.

That's Oz. We can learn from them and learn what not to do.

[Sir Bandelot]

If by "people" you mean "sovereigntists", then: precisely. They won't be happy until there's a President of Quebec living in the independent state of Quebec. A President of Canada would be a federal creature: not only representative of the majority of the already primarily Anglophone federal electorate, but also resident in Ottawa, and the person who's signature would create federal laws affecting Quebec. Sovereigntists would not be appeased.

For one thing, Quebec does not unilaterally oppose federalism. But a President, or better yet "First Canadian" as is my preference, might be a french speaking Quebecer. The King of England will never be a frenchman.

Thus the alternate model does not have to be a Republic.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[Smallc]

I qualified the statement though, hinging on a decisive referendum. I would imagine preceeded or followed-up by some sort of "royal" commission. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume there has been a referendum and something like 75% of respondents said that they would be willing to take a look at it.

And if people in PEI vote against the deal, it's dead. That's what you don't get.

The legislature would be driven by the politics of the referendum. There isn't anything saying that the rights of the people and treaties and such, would automatically become invalidated. The repatriation of the Constitution has already proved this and the Charter of Rights has already moved us in a direction which is perfectly compatible with a parliamentarty republic.

What does that even mean? How does the Charter of Rights make us any more or less compatible with parliamentary republics. Besides, those are not comparable things. The repatriation of the constitution was not nearly the deal that

Like wyly pointed out, all you need is a replacement figure. President-in-Council or Govenor-General-in-Council.

It's not about the figure, it's about the office and the power behind the figure. You don't seem to understand that.

I see no link between a careful and relatively simple switchover which would mitigate any economic 'suffering' if there would be any at all.

It wouldn't be relatively simple. If you think so, you're imagining things.

A change in management,

Why?

a severing of formal ties to England,

Already done.

a republic that recognizes that the Monarchy truly has no play here anymore.

But that isn't true, and we're not the only country. Many European democracies are monarchies in the same sense that we are, as well as places like Japan.

What real benefits did the repatriation of our Constitution have? Did we economically "suffer" when the Constitution was reptriated? No.

Again, that isn't the same kind of situation. And what benefit did it have? Something that you already talked about, it make us completely independent.

[g_bambino]

For one thing, Quebec does not unilaterally oppose federalism. But a President, or better yet "First Canadian" as is my preference, might be a french speaking Quebecer. The King of England will never be a frenchman.

Nobody, except perhaps maple_leafs182, insinuated that everyone in Quebec is a sovereigntist. But it is the sovereigntists who oppose Quebec's place in Confederation, completely regardless of whether or not there is a monarch or a president heading it. Even if the president were a Francophone Quebecer, he'd still be regarded as representative of the Anglophone dominated federation; federal prime ministers from Quebec, whether Anglophone (like Mulroney) or Francophone (like Chretien), were considered borderline traitors by Quebec nationalists, not representative of Quebecers or their interests. Likewise, it's entirely possible for the monarch of Canada (there hasn't been a King of England for more than 300 years and Canada is a kingdom independent of the UK) to be of more recent French descent than the present one is; but it wouldn't make a difference to Quebec sovereigntists, since that person would be both the federal Canadian head of state and the Quebec head of state, not solely the head of the independent country called Quebec.

How important is it to have a Francophone Quebecer serve as president? And, if it is very important, how would it be made to happen without the appearance of Quebec being given special treatment again, upsetting the other regions, linguistic groups, and ethnicities in the country? There's something to be appreciated about choosing a head of state without regard for region of origin, ethnicity, or language. (There's just those pesky and outdated religious restrictions, which could and should be done away with.)

Thus the alternate model does not have to be a Republic.

Um, what?

[GostHacked]

The King or Queen doesn't hold citizenship of any country.

I have a problem with that. If they are not citizens of the country (any country) then why the hell are we even humoring the option of a monarchy? We need to break from the Monarch and go our own way. It's not impossible, but it may be hard.

[Smallc]

I have a problem with that. If they are not citizens of the country (any country) then why the hell are we even humoring the option of a monarchy?

What?

[g_bambino]

I have a problem with that. If they are not citizens of the country (any country) then why the hell are we even humoring the option of a monarchy? We need to break from the Monarch and go our own way.

What a multilayered construction of nonsense.

Citizenship is a legal classification spelled out in a law enacted in the sovereign's name. Why must the monarch subject herself to her own citizenship requirements?

Having a monarch is not an impediment to "going our own way". Indeed, we've already gone entirely our own way, and did so while maintaining a monarch at the constitutional apex.

[sp, +]

Edited October 5, 2011 by g_bambino

[Sir Bandelot]

Um, what?

Um, what I said. replace Governor General with First Canadian. You know we've talked about it here before.

[g_bambino]

Um, what I said. replace Governor General with First Canadian. You know we've talked about it here before.

So, a system with a president of a different name. That's still a republic.

[Oleg Bach]

Better to have a king who is used to power - than one who is not that seeks to be king....kind of like ------------I don't mind people that were born to money - who are intergenerationally rich - they are usually civilized....The ones I worry about are the new ambitious types who greed for power and money who lack a thing called class..... The Monarchy do not represent us - they represent the founder of our civilization ------Jesus the Christ.... The rule of law and the superiour moral character of God...with out the Queen - our powerful will attempt to play god - they are not very good at it - the Queen is accustomed to it...hence trust worthy - It is about trust....MUCH better to have some one who acts as a blocker - who is an institution that prevents people from playing god....which is the Queen at present.....call it a safety device...and a stablizer.

[ToadBrother]

I have a problem with that. If they are not citizens of the country (any country) then why the hell are we even humoring the option of a monarchy? We need to break from the Monarch and go our own way. It's not impossible, but it may be hard.

I'd say it probably is impossible, at least at this time. There's no way you're going to get all ten provinces to agree to it, and without that, our constitution simply will not allow it to be done.

Beyond that, what great advantage do you see to breaking with the Monarchy? Unless your advocating serious structural reforms, such as increasing the powers of the head of state (however that position is constituted), you're likely just going to end up with the same system, with a president with the same reserve powers as the Queen currently has. If that's the case, then isn't there a rather long list of other reforms, constitutional or otherwise, which could have some meaningful effect on governance in this country, that should take precedence over what I consider a cosmetic change to who gets to stay at Rideau Hall?

And if it is a substantial change in our system of government, well that's an enormous issue with an incredible number of implications.

I just want to know what the hell it is you republicans expect turfing the Monarchy will accomplish, and what kind of system of government you want out of the end of it. This change for change's sake drives me nuts, because it's pointless, divisive and potentially dangerous, because ripping the Crown out of the Constitution makes the constitutional debates prior to the 1982 repatriation and the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords look like child's play.

Edited October 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Um, what I said. replace Governor General with First Canadian. You know we've talked about it here before.

Do you mean a president?

[Shwa]

And if people in PEI vote against the deal, it's dead. That's what you don't get.

And what if all the provinces did, as indicated by a decisive referendum? Do you "get" that part?

What does that even mean? How does the Charter of Rights make us any more or less compatible with parliamentary republics. Besides, those are not comparable things. The repatriation of the constitution was not nearly the deal that

Does our Charter of Rights make us incompatible with a parliamentary republic?

It's not about the figure, it's about the office and the power behind the figure. You don't seem to understand that.

All that power can be invested in another figurehead, no problem.

It wouldn't be relatively simple. If you think so, you're imagining things.

Relatively simple and relatively easy and, based on what you have offered as an argument thus far, I ain't imagining anything. Seems pretty straight forward. All you are doing is saying it can't be done, without explaining why. "just because" doesn't cut it.

Why?

Why not, seems easy enough.

Already done.

A couple of more steps and we'll be there. A free and independent Republic of Canada. Likely get a little more world respect too, you know, with having dared challenge the supremacy of the monarchy that has people tied up all these can't-be-done knots.

But that isn't true, and we're not the only country. Many European democracies are monarchies in the same sense that we are, as well as places like Japan.

Meh. We should be governed more like the US anyways. They certainly think so and now is no time for thoughtless Canadian chauvenism.

Again, that isn't the same kind of situation. And what benefit did it have? Something that you already talked about, it make us completely independent.

But it does indicate that severing such formal governance ties are not such a big deal - they are do-able and, with the right amount of support, entirely possible in this age. The main benefit is that it gets Canadians talking about Canada, what we are, how we want to roll in the future, get involved with governing ourselves.

[Shwa]

I just want to know what the hell it is you republicans expect turfing the Monarchy will accomplish, and what kind of system of government you want out of the end of it. This change for change's sake drives me nuts, because it's pointless, divisive and potentially dangerous, because ripping the Crown out of the Constitution makes the constitutional debates prior to the 1982 repatriation and the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords look like child's play.

I am no republican, well, usually not.

But it is an interesting discussion because if the will of the people, acting through their elected representatives, decides to roll like a republican, there really isn't anything holding us back structurally. If there is, I don't see it.

Sure there would be lots of details to be worked out, etc. But nothing is preventing it, except the will of the people who will, presumably, take great interest in the process. Or much more than the 60% who bother to show up at the voting booths on a good day.

Plus it beats having another country come in an impose a form of government on a population. You know, cause those Yanks make me nervous.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Shwa

[ToadBrother]

And what if all the provinces did, as indicated by a decisive referendum? Do you "get" that part?

And what if elephants could fly and every time I walked outside hundred dollars bills rained down on me?

Come on, who is going to force this referendum? Most certainly the Federal government could not impose it.

All that power can be invested in another figurehead, no problem.

Except that the notion of the Crown imbues our system of government from top to bottom. It's not just a matter of search-and-replace, it's a matter of substantial amendments to the constitution, to the point where I'd say we would have to write a new one. And we know how well we've done at that over the last thirty years. The last major constitutional reform lead to fifteen years of grief.

But it does indicate that severing such formal governance ties are not such a big deal - they are do-able and, with the right amount of support, entirely possible in this age. The main benefit is that it gets Canadians talking about Canada, what we are, how we want to roll in the future, get involved with governing ourselves.

Except the level of support isn't there. Every poll I've seen over the last decades suggests, nationally, that support for the monarchy usually runs at around 40-50%.

And why is this such a big deal? As we saw from the Parliamentary wars of the previous Parliament, the real issues facing our democracy stem from the way Parliament (and by extension provincial legislatures) work. These can be reformed, to a large degree, without so much as changing the punctuation in the constitution, so why would we risk a protracted, potentially dangerous set of reforms to get rid of the Monarchy, which won't, in fact, change much of anything, when we can make changes that will have a very obvious effect.

But it's all pie-in-the sky. Harper couldn't even bring up Senate reform without a couple of provinces threatening to go to the Supreme Court and one premier demonstrating an appalling lack of understanding of the basic constitutional issues. And you think, somehow, we're in any position to sweep away the very bedrock concept of our constitution?

Edited October 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

Do you mean a president?

Like Prime (first) Minister (servant) Harper actually knows his place and postion and is doing a good job.....a president is a representive of a large squabbling committee who all expect the public to be their servants.

[ToadBrother]

Like Prime (first) Minister (servant) Harper actually knows his place and postion and is doing a good job.....a president is a representive of a large squabbling committee who all expect the public to be their servants.

As I recall, the "First Canadian" bit was a relic of any early stage of Trudeau's mulling of constitutional changes. Of course, it was stomped on pretty quickly when it was pointed out that the BNA Act didn't give him license to do anything of the kind, and thus was ushered in the negotiations that lead to the Constitution Act, 1982.

On a purely aesthetic level, I find the title "First Canadian" appallingly idiotic, like a husband calling himself "First Man". I realize that the Roman Emperors, at least in the early Empire, had the title First Citizen, so I'm assuming that's the origin of it. But what was proposed then looked pretty much like a President, so why, if you were going to turn Canada into a republic, you wouldn't call the head of state a President is quite beyond me.