The Canadian Monarchy

[ToadBrother]

You'll never find a t-shirt that says anything like what I've got to say.

It's reference to vapid assertions posited in bold, hyperbolic language.

On the other hand, what have you got of your own ideas to contribute. Aside from mere nay-saying of anything unique that's said here, aside from picking out the specks in other people's eyes, which is always the easiest and safets thing to do in any forum.

And how many Nike and Reebok T-shirts, do you own...

What I'm saying is that it's pointless at this juncture to ponder altering or extinguishing the Crown as set out in the Act of Settlement, 1701 and the Statute of Westminster. As I've pointed out, we can't even talk about something much more modest, like Senate reform, without the whole thing lurching into threats and recriminations, so something as huge as what you suggest is, by any reasonable measurement, pretty much impossible. Beyond that, for the most part, there is little to be gained, structurally, from your changes. It's not going to make the government better in any meaningful way, so it's hardly worth the risk to national unity to pursue the alteration or extinguishment of something most Canadians are pretty much ambivalent about.

This is why I'm a Monarchist of Convenience. It's not that I hold any particular allegiance to the House of Windsor (although, being something of a history buff, I think there's something to having a monarchy whose origins can be traced back, by some counts, to the 9th century, and by other counts, to the 8th), but rather that so there is so little of any actual importance to be gained from pursuing alterations to the Crown and so much to be lost if it fails that the status quo, so far as the large-scale structure of our governing system goes, seems infinitely preferable.

But within the constraints of the status quo I think there is a considerable amount that could be accomplished, much of it without constitutional amendment, that I think energies would be much better spent in pursuing those reforms, which would have very direct effects on how we are governed. For instance, all it would take to change to another voting system at the national level would be for Parliament to vote on it. That's it. That would change the structure of government in Canada many orders of a magnitude more than who we choose to be our head of state, and is something that invokes none of the grief or risk that comes from constitutional wrangling.

There's no appetite for substantial constitutional reform in this country. Even with moderate support for relatively minor tinkering like Senator term limits, we had two provinces threatening to go to the Supreme Court if the Feds tried to go over their heads. So I'd argue there's even less appetite among the governing class.

I don't want another 1995 Quebec sovereignty referendum or worse, a situation in which your reform is rejected by the electorate of a couple of provinces, because you want to change the letterhead of the person residing at Rideau Hall.

[g_bambino]

Is there still nine?

BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan (though not a residence), Manitoba, Ottawa, PEI, Nova Scotia?

Edit: Ah, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Actually, Alberta doesn't have an official residence for the monarch/lieutenant governor. The ninth (if we count Saskatchewan) is La Citadelle in Quebec City; maybe the closest to an actual castle.

[Smallc]

Actually, Alberta doesn't have an official residence for the monarch/lieutenant governor. The ninth (if we count Saskatchewan) is La Citadelle in Quebec City; maybe the closest to an actual castle.

As far as I know, La Citadelle isn't actually a royal residence, but is specifically a residence of the Governor General. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Smallc]

Here's something that I didn't know - The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario has a residence inside the Legislative Building of Ontario, though I'm not sure if they actually live there.

Also, there is a residence in Alberta, but it's used for official purposes only.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Smallc

[Bonam]

I don't see any compelling reasons to ditch the monarchy. Why fix what isn't broken? I haven't seen one good argument to get rid of the monarchy except that some people are offended by the notion of having a monarch and think its outdated.

[Shwa]

It would be irrelevant, as it only takes one province to kill the entire thing. Get it?

And if all the provinces agree, it could easily happen because there isn't any other legal structure preventing it. Get it?

Now you're just not making sense.

I am making perfect sense, you are dodging because you are getting close to being out of your league.

No it can't, and I thank Toadbrother and Bambino for better articulating all of this.

I rest my case about the above statement.

I've offered far more than just because. Sure, it could be done, but: Why? How? And; With what difficulty?

You haven't offered any conclusive evidence that there are any legal structures - other than the will of the people - that prevent Canada from being a republic.

You're going to change a working status quo on the basis of why not?

I am not going to change a thing, are you?

We're already a free and independent Canada. We don't need to be a republic. Las I checked, Canada isn't short on respect.

The point is - again - is that there are no legal impediments to us getting rid of the monarchy and so the only obstacle is the will of the people. With a little education, some well placed propaganda, it could happen.

Oh yes, because that has proven to be the world's best system of government....

For example.

If only in your mind.

If you have some evidence that there are some built in Constitutional roadblocks that makes republicanism illegal in Canada, you are free to bring it up. Or maybe you should move aside and let TB talk for you.

[Smallc]

I'm not sure why you find the need to argue things that I haven't even said, but if you're going to be that dishonest while dismissing every point that I actually make, that's fine, you can have your fun by yourself. You haven't actually offered an intelligent counter to anything I've said. Who's out of their league again?

[Shwa]

I do not think a Federal referendum could be applied to the status of the Crown, because the Constitution is explicit on how that is to be changed. First of all, because each province is afforded its say, a Federal referendum would be an intrusion on provincial powers. Second of all, the extent of how far a referendum could be used is still an unanswered question, and not one that any constitutional expert that I am aware of has ever pondered extending to the status of the Crown. If you have some reference, I'd gladly read it, but until I see it, the actual wording of the constitution seems to my mind to override the semi-constitutional notion of a referendum.

Charlottetown Accord - surely you remember this. It was a big deal back in the day.

You could certainly alter that, yes, but what an idiotic anachronism that would be, no? But you still have to get past the Act of Settlement, 1701, the BNA Act and the Statute of Westminster to even get to that point, and your Federal referendum notion doesn't get you past a whole series of serious issues. I simply do not believe that the Federal Parliament could hold a national referendum on the status of the Crown, and since you may find that there are some concentrations of monarchists in Canada, if one or two provinces don't go along with it, you've just created a disaster.

Not really. wyly pointed it out, change the the signified since the signifier is basically immaterial. The "Crown" could refer to some in-house body or government-as-a-whole as invested in an elected president or governor-general.

A referendum doesn't have to binding, but it can guage the support for such a move. Now, if concentrations of monarchists could derail the process, so be it IF they exist in sufficient numbers to alter the majority of a provincial legislature. At the current time, I would say they could. However, support for the monarchy ain't what it used to be

There are no shortcuts here, and I've seen your fellow republicans try to foist every one of them on me. There's no getting past it, because the Crown has Federal and provincial identities, you can't just simply sweep away the provinces' constitutional rights to be consulted and to give their permission to a change to the status of the Crown.

I am not suggesting that provincial constitutional rights can be swept away. However, such rights, under the proper conditions, can be ameliorated to provide the meands required for republicanism.

So let's go back to 1981 and the Patriation Reference ruling.

The Court affirmed the existence of an unwritten dimension to the Constitution and the majority held that by constitutional convention, amendments to the Constitution require a substantial degree of provincial consent. However, a differently-constituted majority of the court held that there was no legal barrier to the federal government seeking a constitutional amendment without any provincial consent.

This, of course, refers to the unpatriated Constitution as it existed in 1981, but it would be interesting to know if the same ruling would provide any sort of equivalent precedent to the current Constitution. For example, in Part V, Section 41, is the "office of the Queen" a legal definition or a conventional definition?

[Shwa]

I'm not sure why you find the need to argue things that I haven't even said, but if you're going to be that dishonest while dismissing every point that I actually make, that's fine, you can have your fun by yourself. You haven't actually offered an intelligent counter to anything I've said. Who's out of their league again?

You are, as I have already pointed out. You haven't really brought much to the discussion other than saying you will let TB & GB articulate for you. I am down with that.

[Smallc]

This, of course, refers to the unpatriated Constitution as it existed in 1981, but it would be interesting to know if the same ruling would provide any sort of equivalent precedent to the current Constitution. For example, in Part V, Section 41, is the "office of the Queen" a legal definition or a conventional definition?

It is very clear what is required to change the offices of the Queen or the governor general. The reference you are pointing to is referring only to unwritten parts of the Constitution, and not parts that have very clear written statements.

[Smallc]

You are, as I have already pointed out. You haven't really brought much to the discussion other than saying you will let TB & GB articulate for you. I am down with that.

I'm not sure what you expect me to bring. I've brought up the point that you need all 10 provinces to agree, and that you're unlikely to get that...and you glossed over it. I brought up the point that the Crown can't simply be removed from all legislation with a bill...and you glossed over it. I brought up the point that you would need to redefine and probably redesign the entire system of government....and you glossed over it. In fact, you've offered nothing as a counter to those points.

[Oleg Bach]

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.

I said the translation of Prime Minister mean first servant - I did not say ...first Canadian. I was trying to get across the idea and institution of service - of being a servant to the people - not having the people be YOUR servants.

[ToadBrother]

Charlottetown Accord - surely you remember this. It was a big deal back in the day.

Which had all the premiers' consent to go ahead, and thus, in a way, doesn't measure whether the referendum alone was legitimate, because technically, having all ten premiers agreeing to the reforms would have been enough to amend the constitution.

Not really. wyly pointed it out, change the the signified since the signifier is basically immaterial. The "Crown" could refer to some in-house body or government-as-a-whole as invested in an elected president or governor-general.

Considering that the concept of the Crown stems not just from one document, but from several, as well as the unwritten aspects of the constitution, I can't imagine it being as simple as "Amendment 1: The Crown now refers to ----"

A referendum doesn't have to binding, but it can guage the support for such a move. Now, if concentrations of monarchists could derail the process, so be it IF they exist in sufficient numbers to alter the majority of a provincial legislature. At the current time, I would say they could. However, support for the monarchy ain't what it used to be

But neither is it clear that you can translate the ambivalence into desire for a republic.

I am not suggesting that provincial constitutional rights can be swept away. However, such rights, under the proper conditions, can be ameliorated to provide the meands required for republicanism.

That's an odd turn of phrase. Shouldn't this be a decision for all the provinces, and not some sort of horsetrading game?

So let's go back to 1981 and the Patriation Reference ruling.

This, of course, refers to the unpatriated Constitution as it existed in 1981, but it would be interesting to know if the same ruling would provide any sort of equivalent precedent to the current Constitution. For example, in Part V, Section 41, is the "office of the Queen" a legal definition or a conventional definition?

There is considerable debate on how pre-1982 references can be invoked for post-1982 reforms. Even Senate reform gets caught in this one (re: Reference: Re Authority of Parliament in Relation to the Upper House). GB and I tend to disagree, with him favoring the idea that Senate terms may be reformable without reference to the Provinces, and me thinking that the Reference Opinion still stands on the basic premise that the Senate was made the way it was for a specific reason, and the Federal Parliament cannot tamper with Senator terms without agreement from sufficient number of provinces.

These are untried waters, and to my mind, particularly with something as important as the status of the Crown, one should choose the proper route to amendment rather than trying to slip it through the cracks with questionable arguments. In particular, if one province in a referendum, were to refuse to alter the Crown, then what? Force it through anyways, send it to the Supreme Court?

Edited October 6, 2011 by ToadBrother

[PIK]

Does it matter what quebec thinks, I have been on this planet for 51 years and the whole time it was alway ''but what would quebec think'' well people harper runs this country now not quebec.

[Smallc]

Does it matter what quebec thinks, I have been on this planet for 51 years and the whole time it was alway ''but what would quebec think'' well people harper runs this country now not quebec.

Yes it matters what Quebec would think. It matters what every province would think. Harper isn't some kind of supreme dictator.

[ToadBrother]

Does it matter what quebec thinks, I have been on this planet for 51 years and the whole time it was alway ''but what would quebec think'' well people harper runs this country now not quebec.

And it still takes ten provinces to agree to extinguishing the Monarchy. Although, on this point, Quebec would probably have little issue with it. Harper is Prime Minister, nothing more, nothing less. In fact, the office of PM barely has any constitutional existence at all, whereas Quebec most definitely does.

Edited October 6, 2011 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

I said the translation of Prime Minister mean first servant - I did not say ...first Canadian. I was trying to get across the idea and institution of service - of being a servant to the people - not having the people be YOUR servants.

But you interjected into a strain of conversation that stemmed from someone's desire to see the Queen replaced with a head of state called "First Canadian" (i.e. a president by another name). The term was coined by the Trudeau government in the late 1970s, within larger plans for constitutional reform that would see the monarch's role either greatly diminished or eliminated altogether.

"Minister" does indeed mean "servant", from the original Latin. Most people, however, have forgotten that fact and now think "minister" means "leader"; "prime minister" obviously translating into "top leader". Hence, the majority wrongly believe the prime minister to be the head of state.

There's an aspect of anti-monarchism that seeks to make that misconception into reality. Amongst all the other colonialism and patriotism gibberish is the view that the prime minister is elected (another fallacy) and the Queen is both unelected and acts as a check against the prime minister; ergo, the Queen is a relic of medieval authoritarianism without "democratic legitimacy" that should be done away with so that the prime minister may lead (and, by extension, democracy may operate) without encumbrance. Of course, "prime minister" would be a misnomer for such a person; who, exactly, would the prime minister be ministering? Further, unbridled democracy will lead to disaster.

Despite what's generally and incorrectly thought, the Queen, "as the permanent embodiment of popular sovereignty... humbles the pretensions of democratic politicians, in possession of their temporary majorities. As it has been said, when the prime minister bows before the Queen, he bows before us."¹ I think it's time more realised that and understood why it is that way.

[link]

Edited October 6, 2011 by g_bambino

[Shwa]

I'm not sure what you expect me to bring. I've brought up the point that you need all 10 provinces to agree, and that you're unlikely to get that...and you glossed over it. I brought up the point that the Crown can't simply be removed from all legislation with a bill...and you glossed over it. I brought up the point that you would need to redefine and probably redesign the entire system of government....and you glossed over it. In fact, you've offered nothing as a counter to those points.

I "glossed over it" to engage in a further discussion about the legal structure of the Constitution with regard to changing the governmental system into something more republican. Does the concept of supposition elude you?

[ToadBrother]

I "glossed over it" to engage in a further discussion about the legal structure of the Constitution with regard to changing the governmental system into something more republican. Does the concept of supposition elude you?

If you're going to move to a republic, I fail to see why you would want to amend the current constitution. The changes are sufficiently large that it would strike me that a new constitution would be in order. The bar for passage would be the same either way, so I can't imagine why trying to force-fit the constitutional notion of the Crown to fit some republican model would seem a reasonable compromise. At the end of the day, you still need the ten provinces to accede to it. It's as if republican supporters want to find some hidden trap door way of turfing the Monarchy.

[Smallc]

At the end of the day, you still need the ten provinces to accede to it.

In the early 2000s, there was talk of Chretien considering the move to a republic (they were only rumours). The premier of PEI, upon hearing the rumours, said that his province would throw the first veto.

[g_bambino]

It's as if republican supporters want to find some hidden trap door way of turfing the Monarchy.

That's precisely what they've always wanted.

[ToadBrother]

In the early 2000s, there was talk of Chretien considering the move to a republic (they were only rumours). The premier of PEI, upon hearing the rumours, said that his province would throw the first veto.

And that's all it takes. And let's just imagine for a moment that the Government decides it once a nation-wide referendum. What happens if PEI refuses to hold one, or refuses to recognize it? The only reason the Charlottetown referendum was viewed as legitimate was because all ten provinces signed on... well, sort of, because Quebec held its own referendum, which goes to show you that even within the context of a national referendum, basically the provinces call the shots.

I cannot imagine any sensible reason for fighting this battle at this time. No one beyond the republicans particularly want it. I suspect most Canadians don't give a damn one way or the other, but there are probably enough people who are even moderately pro-Monarchist that if a future federal Government decided "Hey, let's become a republic", that what everyone would get for their trouble would be a monumental sh-tstorm.

[Shwa]

Which had all the premiers' consent to go ahead, and thus, in a way, doesn't measure whether the referendum alone was legitimate, because technically, having all ten premiers agreeing to the reforms would have been enough to amend the constitution.

But you do agree that the Charlottetown Accord was a Federal referendum right?

Considering that the concept of the Crown stems not just from one document, but from several, as well as the unwritten aspects of the constitution, I can't imagine it being as simple as "Amendment 1: The Crown now refers to ----"

Then what other instruments would affect it since entities are all based on a commonly accepted definition usually, but not always, specified in the document itself? While the "Crown" may be used in different contexts, it still signifies a common product. I can't see why changing the signified wouldn't apply to all Constitutional documents if the term refers to a common product throughout.

But neither is it clear that you can translate the ambivalence into desire for a republic.

Very true, but other than some temporary sentimental musings here and there, there isn't a widespread desire for a monarchy either. However, the discussion is always good for Canadians.

That's an odd turn of phrase. Shouldn't this be a decision for all the provinces, and not some sort of horsetrading game?

I dunno. I am a decentralist at heart, so I see the devolution of certain powers to the provinces as a good thing and provides for a more tangible level of representation for the public. The Charlottetown Accord for example shows that provinces are willing to deal when it comes to gaining control over some aspects of governance. Politics is like that.

There is considerable debate on how pre-1982 references can be invoked for post-1982 reforms. Even Senate reform gets caught in this one (re: Reference: Re Authority of Parliament in Relation to the Upper House). GB and I tend to disagree, with him favoring the idea that Senate terms may be reformable without reference to the Provinces, and me thinking that the Reference Opinion still stands on the basic premise that the Senate was made the way it was for a specific reason, and the Federal Parliament cannot tamper with Senator terms without agreement from sufficient number of provinces.

That is an interesting question and it could come down to convention versus legality I think. Part V, Section 42 appears to refer Senate reform to 38(1) which requires measure of legislative approval.

These are untried waters, and to my mind, particularly with something as important as the status of the Crown, one should choose the proper route to amendment rather than trying to slip it through the cracks with questionable arguments. In particular, if one province in a referendum, were to refuse to alter the Crown, then what? Force it through anyways, send it to the Supreme Court?

I don't see a way you can, one way or another. Well, you can send anything to the SC, but the amending formulas were put in there to replace the convention. However, with power politics with the provinces, the right sort of environment, who knows? Perhaps it won't be an outright amendement concerning the office of the Queen, but rather an amendment to the amending formula for some other Constitutional purpose.

[Shwa]

If you're going to move to a republic, I fail to see why you would want to amend the current constitution.

The only reason the Constitution would be amended would be for the purpose of severing ties with the current monarchy and moving to a republic. Now, I am sure that if it ever came to that, there might be some other changes added, to appease the provinces and get them on-board.

The changes are sufficiently large that it would strike me that a new constitution would be in order. The bar for passage would be the same either way, so I can't imagine why trying to force-fit the constitutional notion of the Crown to fit some republican model would seem a reasonable compromise.

What sufficiently large changes would be required, especially if the goal is a parliamentary republic?

At the end of the day, you still need the ten provinces to accede to it. It's as if republican supporters want to find some hidden trap door way of turfing the Monarchy.

Not really because any rational republican recognizes Part V, Section 41. However, as it stands now that is the only thing legally preventing a republic. There aren't any structural or practical impediments other than consent.

[ToadBrother]

But you do agree that the Charlottetown Accord was a Federal referendum right?

Except in Quebec, which pretty much defeats your point. But the larger point was that it was negotiated between the Feds and the Provinces, which means, whatever you think of it, that it was an invocation of of Section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Then what other instruments would affect it since entities are all based on a commonly accepted definition usually, but not always, specified in the document itself? While the "Crown" may be used in different contexts, it still signifies a common product. I can't see why changing the signified wouldn't apply to all Constitutional documents if the term refers to a common product throughout.

Different contexts and not all the same thing, ie. the Crown in right of Canada, the Crown in Right of Ontario, etc.

Very true, but other than some temporary sentimental musings here and there, there isn't a widespread desire for a monarchy either. However, the discussion is always good for Canadians.

In other words, most people don't give it much thought at all, so it's a status quo situation.

I dunno. I am a decentralist at heart, so I see the devolution of certain powers to the provinces as a good thing and provides for a more tangible level of representation for the public. The Charlottetown Accord for example shows that provinces are willing to deal when it comes to gaining control over some aspects of governance. Politics is like that.

The Mulroney-era constitutional wranglings had a rather explicit purpose, and that was to try to negotiate a constitutional compromise that would finally get Quebec to agree to sign on the dotted line.

I don't see a way you can, one way or another. Well, you can send anything to the SC, but the amending formulas were put in there to replace the convention. However, with power politics with the provinces, the right sort of environment, who knows? Perhaps it won't be an outright amendement concerning the office of the Queen, but rather an amendment to the amending formula for some other Constitutional purpose.

I'll be honest, I think altering the amending formulas is about as likely as extinguishing the Monarchy.

At any rate, the fact still remains that the ten provinces have to sign off. The Charlottetown referendum didn't alter that, it was an exercise in which each province effectively loaned its legislative power to agree to the package of amendments to their electorates. Nine of the provinces agreed to work via a Federal vote, but one insisted upon holdings its own provincial vote, which, I think shows you that the Feds have no unilateral power to force a referendum on the entire country on the status of the Monarchy, and if so much as even one province says "F--- you" (as GB pointed out that PEI did when rumors that Chretien was looking at the issue), then the whole show is off. The Constitution is absolutely crystal clear:

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of each province:

.a. the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

.b. the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

.c. subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;

.d. the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and

.e. an amendment to this Part.