The Canadian Monarchy

[g_bambino]

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 that's with inaccurate and biased questions about British monarchy in Canada being asked to a population that, as other polls have shown, generally doesn't understand the system. Last poll on the matter showed 65% thinking the prime minister is head of state, only about 20 knowing it is the Queen.

[ToadBrother]

And that's with inaccurate and biased questions about British monarchy in Canada being asked to a population that, as other polls have shown, generally doesn't understand the system. Last poll on the matter showed 65% thinking the prime minister is head of state, only about 20 knowing it is the Queen.

Frankly, I'm pretty used to that. I'll wager if you polled most people in most countries on the basic outline of their political system, they probably couldn't answer it. Most people don't really care, sadly. Which leads me back around again to my central point. What purpose would be served by ending the Canadian Monarchy?

[GostHacked]

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?

Would that not be like making a law for everyone else, but you are exempt from it?

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, +]

So if we have gone our own way, then let's go all the way our own way.

Edited October 5, 2011 by GostHacked

[ToadBrother]

So if we have gone our own way, then let's go all the way our own way.

And what advantage is to be gained from what I think all but the most naive know would be an incredibly complex, potentially dangerous set of negotiations? I want to know what structural changes it would introduce, and whether said structural changes even need basically throwing out the existing constitution. I'm not interested in pandering t-shirt-level rhetoric about Canadians "being all grown up", I'm talking about actual reforms that make governance better.

[jbg]

The Crown will exist for a very long time into the future. It works, and changing away from it would be the most divisive fight this country had ever seen. I'm not sure what we would gain by moving away from the Crown, really.

I couldn't agree with you more. One of the problems that the U.S. has is the merger of the head of state with the "prime minister" position. It creates a giant cluster**** when you have a non-functioning President such as Nixon or Obama, and no good way to terminate the problem.

[g_bambino]

Would that not be like making a law for everyone else, but you are exempt from it?

Sure. It happens all the time.

So if we have gone our own way, then let's go all the way our own way.

Already done.

[wyly]

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%.

than you've been deliberately closing your eyes to polls...a quick web search has majority support for monarchy free canada...and polls regarding choice of head of state an elected canadian is the clear winner, and polls consistently report that the queen should be our last royal...

[ToadBrother]

than you've been deliberately closing your eyes to polls...a quick web search has majority support for monarchy free canada...and polls regarding choice of head of state an elected canadian is the clear winner, and polls consistently report that the queen should be our last royal...

You could always provide a link to these polls, no?

[Sir Bandelot]

Do you mean a president?

No, not a president. 'First Canadian' replaces the role of Governor General. All other structures would remain in place.

First Canadian is an elected position, but once elected would be a life-long position. With some possible exceptions. Like the Governor General, it is a position of high respect and has some authority, ut is also generally a 'figure head'. The actual powers that this position holds could be discussed.

One similar concept is the Principate.

Another is the Tribune

I like those ideas, especially the latter in the sense that it appoints one person who is inherently non-partisan, and whose primary responsibility is to protect the rights of individual persons, as a buffer vs. the pressure to make concessions to corporate power. Unlike a president.

[wyly]

You could always provide a link to these polls, no?

I could've but then you could be truely objective and spend about 2 seconds and find them for yourself...

[ToadBrother]

I could've but then you could be truely objective and spend about 2 seconds and find them for yourself...

Uh huh....

[Shwa]

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

Then I would suggest you up your librium.

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

Imposition isn't the question really, but there isn't anything - other than "the people" that could prevent such a referendum. You know TB, I really didn't think that it was possible that the Soviet Union would fall either, but there you go. Shit happens.

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.

Here we go, the meat. So what "substantial amendments" would be required at this point in time? A little bit of wording, a bit of shifting of personnel here or there, a couple of decisions. But even substantial amendments, by defintion, are not preventative. In other words, there isn't anything preventing us - structurally - from becoming a republic.

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%.

For sure, pretty common knowledge. However, get the right government in there, sending out some key messages and that low number could drop. Could it drop to less than 25%? I think that if there was a reason for it, that reason would originate in England, not Canada.

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.

What danger? If the will is there in sufficient degrees, I see no structural dangers at all, in fact, we seem to be heading in that direction anyways, if the past 100 years of Canadian history is any indication. One common argument of the republicans is that it is inevitable. It certainly seems that way. So perhaps the move to a republic doesn't have to be a big move, but more incremental. Like a new girlfriend. First it's the toothbrush for overnighters...

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?

Stephen Harper is no Lech Walesa that's for sure.

You see though? When you say "bedrock" you are referring to a real, tangible structure and I don't see it that way, other that the will of the people - which you may be referring to I suppose. But even IF it was "the people" the bedrock is still only a notion and notions can change. In other words, within the Constitution or articles of governance, I don't see any "bedrock" outside of sentementality and loyalty that would prevent the move towards republicanism.

[ToadBrother]

No, not a president. 'First Canadian' replaces the role of Governor General. All other structures would remain in place.

First Canadian is an elected position, but once elected would be a life-long position. With some possible exceptions. Like the Governor General, it is a position of high respect and has some authority, ut is also generally a 'figure head'. The actual powers that this position holds could be discussed.

One similar concept is the Principate.

Another is the Tribune

I like those ideas, especially the latter in the sense that it appoints one person who is inherently non-partisan, and whose primary responsibility is to protect the rights of individual persons, as a buffer vs. the pressure to make concessions to corporate power. Unlike a president.

I'm not getting this at all. Is this a replacement for the Queen? The Governor General is only an acting head of state, a Viceroy. Is this "First Canadian" to replace the Queen? If the Monarchy is retained, and the Prime Minister retains the right to advise the Monarch directly, then what's to stop the Prime Minister from turfing a "First Canadian" who he finds annoying?

[wyly]

No, not a president. 'First Canadian' replaces the role of Governor General. All other structures would remain in place.

First Canadian is an elected position, but once elected would be a life-long position. With some possible exceptions. Like the Governor General, it is a position of high respect and has some authority, ut is also generally a 'figure head'. The actual powers that this position holds could be discussed.

One similar concept is the Principate.

Another is the Tribune

I like those ideas, especially the latter in the sense that it appoints one person who is inherently non-partisan, and whose primary responsibility is to protect the rights of individual persons, as a buffer vs. the pressure to make concessions to corporate power. Unlike a president.

if I recall correctly without doing a web search both france and russia have a president and a pm...you call the head of state the "big enchilada" for all I care as long he/she is canadian...

[g_bambino]

First Canadian is an elected position, but once elected would be a life-long position...

I like those ideas, especially the latter in the sense that it appoints one person who is inherently non-partisan, and whose primary responsibility is to protect the rights of individual persons, as a buffer vs. the pressure to make concessions to corporate power. Unlike a president.

What you're talking about is an elective monarchy, like the Vatican.

What's the benefit, though? All it seems to do is replace the seamless, constitutionally guided transition from one monarch to another with a periodic, fractious election of the head of state, the infrequency of which would likely make it an extremely valuable prize to any political party.

It's slightly better than the typical republican practice of frequent presidential elections, but still doesn't seem preferable to what we have now.

[ToadBrother]

Imposition isn't the question really, but there isn't anything - other than "the people" that could prevent such a referendum. You know TB, I really didn't think that it was possible that the Soviet Union would fall either, but there you go. Shit happens.

We live in a country where the rule of law is supposedly supreme. The basic law of this land states how the status of the Crown may be changed, and it requires the ten provinces, as one facet, to agree. I'm asking you how you would propose to carry out a referendum, who would be responsible for it, and how, for instance, you would deal the constitutional disaster that would ensue if, say, nine provinces agreed via referendums to get rid of the monarchy but one says "Nope, we want to keep it", because under the basic law of this country, that would mean the Monarchy stayed, but the political ramifications could very well tear the country to pieces.

Here we go, the meat. So what "substantial amendments" would be required at this point in time? A little bit of wording, a bit of shifting of personnel here or there, a couple of decisions. But even substantial amendments, by defintion, are not preventative. In other words, there isn't anything preventing us - structurally - from becoming a republic.

Have you ever read the core constitutional documents; in particular I would suggest the British North America Act, 1867 and its amendments, the Statute of Westminster and the Constitution Act, 1982. The Crown is referred to multiple times, its position, its powers, what it represents are laid out. You cannot simply strip the Crown out of the constitution. The Crown is a bedrock notion, the fundamental pillar on which our constitutional system sits. To get rid of the Crown wouldn't require amendments, it would require a new constitution. I simply do not see how the Crown could be "amended away".

For sure, pretty common knowledge. However, get the right government in there, sending out some key messages and that low number could drop. Could it drop to less than 25%? I think that if there was a reason for it, that reason would originate in England, not Canada.

But it isn't up to one government at all.

What danger? If the will is there in sufficient degrees, I see no structural dangers at all, in fact, we seem to be heading in that direction anyways, if the past 100 years of Canadian history is any indication. One common argument of the republicans is that it is inevitable. It certainly seems that way. So perhaps the move to a republic doesn't have to be a big move, but more incremental. Like a new girlfriend. First it's the toothbrush for overnighters...

I think you must have either been born after 1995 or been living in a cave. Constitutional wrangling in Canada is not friendly sport, I'm afraid.

Stephen Harper is no Lech Walesa that's for sure.

You see though? When you say "bedrock" you are referring to a real, tangible structure and I don't see it that way, other that the will of the people - which you may be referring to I suppose. But even IF it was "the people" the bedrock is still only a notion and notions can change. In other words, within the Constitution or articles of governance, I don't see any "bedrock" outside of sentementality and loyalty that would prevent the move towards republicanism.

Have you ever read the core constitutional documents; in particular I would suggest the British North America Act, 1867 and its amendments, the Statute of Westminster and the Constitution Act, 1982. The Crown is referred to multiple times, its position, its powers, what it represents are laid out. You cannot simply strip the Crown out of the constitution. The Crown is a bedrock notion, the fundamental pillar on which our constitutional system sits. To get rid of the Crown wouldn't require amendments, it would require a new constitution. I simply do not see how the Crown could be "amended away".

Edited October 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

you call the head of state the "big enchilada" for all I care as long he/she is canadian...

We call ours "the Queen".

[ToadBrother]

What you're talking about is an elective monarchy, like the Vatican.

What's the benefit, though? All it seems to do is replace the seamless, constitutionally guided transition from one monarch to another with a periodic, fractious election of the head of state, the infrequency of which would likely make it an extremely valuable prize to any political party.

It's slightly better than the typical republican practice of frequent presidential elections, but still doesn't seem preferable to what we have now.

I don't see how it's better at all. If I had to choose another system besides the Monarchy, the last thing I'd do is choose an elected monarch. If we are well and truly to get rid of the monarchy and become a republic, then so be it, and let it be in a similar vein to what other parliamentary republics have.

[ToadBrother]

if I recall correctly without doing a web search both france and russia have a president and a pm...you call the head of state the "big enchilada" for all I care as long he/she is canadian...

By definition, the Queen is Canadian.

[wyly]

By definition, the Queen is Canadian.

okay, but you know what I mean...

[wyly]

We call ours "the Queen".

I'm sure some men would object to being called a "queen"...

[ToadBrother]

okay, but you know what I mean...

Not really, no. The Statute of Westminster makes it very clear. The reigning sovereign is the King or Queen in each of the Commonwealth Realms, separate Crowns embodied in one monarch.

[Shwa]

We live in a country where the rule of law is supposedly supreme. The basic law of this land states how the status of the Crown may be changed, and it requires the ten provinces, as one facet, to agree. I'm asking you how you would propose to carry out a referendum, who would be responsible for it, and how, for instance, you would deal the constitutional disaster that would ensue if, say, nine provinces agreed via referendums to get rid of the monarchy but one says "Nope, we want to keep it", because under the basic law of this country, that would mean the Monarchy stayed, but the political ramifications could very well tear the country to pieces.

It could very well tear the country to pieces. Then again it might not. Conjecture works that way. With the repatriation of the Constitution, there was no tearing of the country to pieces and any harm done, directly caused by that act, has more or less been mended. People get over it.

However, a federal referendum can be held, they are perfectly legal. They do not have to propose an act, but the possibility of an act. A Royal Commission can be held as well, to gauge "the people" and their thoughts on the subject. Those two things alone - as an intellectual benefit to the country - are worthy of doing right now. Whether people are for or against, the resulting education of Canadians, about Canada, is worthwhile IMO.

Have you ever read the core constitutional documents; in particular I would suggest the British North America Act, 1867 and its amendments, the Statute of Westminster and the Constitution Act, 1982. The Crown is referred to multiple times, its position, its powers, what it represents are laid out. You cannot simply strip the Crown out of the constitution. The Crown is a bedrock notion, the fundamental pillar on which our constitutional system sits. To get rid of the Crown wouldn't require amendments, it would require a new constitution. I simply do not see how the Crown could be "amended away".

Yep, I have read enough of the Constitutional documents in my time, and a pile of other dry, detailed and boring legislative docs. The term "Crown" is a signifier. The word can be kept - even as a relic - but point to a new signified. What that would turn out to be could be an interesting concept. But either or - keep the relic or determine a new term - we only need to change the signified.

[maple_leafs182]

Nobody, except perhaps maple_leafs182, insinuated that everyone in Quebec is a sovereigntist.

I know not everyone in Quebec wants to separate but there is a large minority that would like to separate from Canada.

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.

I would like to replace our current parliamentary system with a constitutional republic system that has limited federal powers. In my opinion the federal government should only do a few things such as maintain sound money for the nation, develop a national defense to be used only in defense not nation building like we do now, possibly health care but I think we could develop a better system then we have now, I know there is more I just can't think of any right now. What I don't want is an authoritative federal government that imposes federal laws and regulations on the provinces, I want the provincial governments to hold the powers of creating laws and regulations.

[g_bambino]

In my opinion the federal government should only do a few things such as maintain sound money for the nation, develop a national defense to be used only in defense not nation building like we do now, possibly health care but I think we could develop a better system then we have now, I know there is more I just can't think of any right now.

That can be done without dispensing with the Westminster parliamentary constitutional monarchy system.