The Canadian Monarchy

[Smallc]

And what if all the provinces did,

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

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

Now you're just not making sense.

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

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

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.

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

Why not, seems easy enough.

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

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.

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.

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

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

But it does indicate that severing such formal governance ties are not such a big deal

If only in your mind.

[Smallc]

It could very well tear the country to pieces. Then again it might not.

So why not take the chance, right?

[g_bambino]

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

Probably. Do we have a male head of state at the moment, though?

[wyly]

Uh huh....

you could've posted a link to the polls you referred to as well... but didn't

[Smallc]

One:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/06/28/monarchy-poll-canadians-628.html

Two:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/01/us-monarchy-poll-idUSN0132590420071001

Three:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/39278/queenaas_visit_raises_monarchy_profile_in_canada/

These polls all show apathy, and nothing more.

[ToadBrother]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Smallc]

Oh, and the latest one, of course:

http://royalwedding.globalnews.ca/News/Majority_of_Canadians_want_to_keep_Monarchy/

[ToadBrother]

One:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/06/28/monarchy-poll-canadians-628.html

Two:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/01/us-monarchy-poll-idUSN0132590420071001

Three:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/39278/queenaas_visit_raises_monarchy_profile_in_canada/

These polls all show apathy, and nothing more.

I've seen the polls. It takes one helluva leap of logic to take them and use them to declare "Canadians want to get rid of the Monarchy!"

[Smallc]

I've seen the polls. It takes one helluva leap of logic to take them and use them to declare "Canadians want to get rid of the Monarchy!"

I know, that was my point.

[ToadBrother]

I know, that was my point.

So hopefully we can get these guys to admit that there isn't widespread support for turfing the Monarchy, and thus little appetite for any change in its status, maybe we can get them to agree that seeking a republic is pretty much a non-starter, and to expend energies on something sensible, like electoral and parliamentary reform.

[g_bambino]

We're already a free and independent Canada.

It's fascinating how this "we're still a colony" statement keeps coming up over and over again, despite all the facts laid out for everyone to see. It seems almost deliberate; the invention of a problem perhaps as cover for weaker or less politically correct motives for a republic? Sheer stubbornness? I don't quite know.

[Sir Bandelot]

In my opinion our system is far superiour to a republic. I understand the importance of Monarchy, if properly implemented. It is to act as a buffer to protect the rights of citizens against those who can be "bought", ie. elected officials. By giving the Monarch a life in which everything is fully provided, they should never want for anything and are not corruptable. They embody the ideal that we uphold the human being as most supreme. Hence, "First Citizen among equals".

For those who are snickering now, remember we are talking about political theory here. Reality often becomes otherwise, because of constant erosion and degeneration. And that is what has happened in Canada, because the role of Governor General as representative of the Monarchy is now almost irrelevant. there are only a few instances in which the Governor general has an influential role. I want to see a more prominent role along lines of what I've said, this is especially inportant now in this corporate, global era we're in.

So we need to re-work that position to give it greater significance. And to make it a purely Canadian one, where First Canadian is concerned purely with the interest of Canadians giving it their undivided attention. Not like the Queen of the Commonwealth, to which Canada is but one of many colonies.

[ToadBrother]

So we need to re-work that position to give it greater significance. And to make it a purely Canadian one, where First Canadian is concerned purely with the interest of Canadians giving it their undivided attention. Not like the Queen of the Commonwealth, to which Canada is but one of many colonies.

Electing a monarch for life seems a rather silly exercise. Canada isn't a colony, and hasn't been one in reality since 1867, and in fact since 1931. The Queen is not the Queen of the British Empire or Commonwealth (which she isn't anyways, she's the head of the Commonwealth), but rather the Queen of Canada.

And none of this actually answers the fundamental question of the constitutional difficulties and dangers involved in even changing who becomes the Monarch (see Statue of Westminster). There's so little to be gained from even this "First Canadian" concept, and so much to risk getting to it, that I say the status quo is infinitely preferable.

Edited October 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[maple_leafs182]

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

Ya, you are right, it can be done.

One thing I would really like to see change is the senate. I think senators should be elected not appointed.

[ToadBrother]

Ya, you are right, it can be done.

One thing I would really like to see change is the senate. I think senators should be elected not appointed.

There are pluses and minuses to that one. Unlike in the UK, where the House of Lords is a substantially weaker body than the House of Commons, in Canada, other than the limitation that money bills must originate in the House of Commons, the Senate is the Commons' equal. Making the Senate an elected body would effectively unbalance the legislative functioning of the government. Our system since the 19th century has firmly rested on the supremacy of the House of Commons.

I think we ought to think very carefully before we advocate an elected Senate without other changes to its powers.

[Sir Bandelot]

Electing a monarch for life seems a rather silly exercise.

It is not silly if it provides the benefits to citizens I have outlined. It would re-invigorate the role that governor general should already actively carry out.

Canada isn't a colony, and hasn't been one in reality since 1867, and in fact since 1931. The Queen is not the Queen of the British Empire or Commonwealth (which she isn't anyways, she's the head of the Commonwealth), but rather the Queen of Canada.

This matters not... semantics... mere nit pickin. It detracts from the main issue here. As i hinted at in my opening post of this thread, the re-establishment of symbols of Royalty, specifically the British Royal Family which succeeds by inheritance is done to reaffirm British heritage in this country.

For the Queen, has no castle in Canada...

none of this actually answers the fundamental question of the constitutional difficulties and dangers involved in even changing who becomes the Monarch (see Statue of Westminster). There's so little to be gained from even this "First Canadian" concept, and so much to risk getting to it, that I say the status quo is infinitely preferable.

There is no impetus or strong need to change anything, so status quo it shall be.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[ToadBrother]

It is not silly if it provides the benefits to citizens I have outlined. It would re-invigorate the role that governor general should already actively carry out.

I don't see how "reinvigoration" is in any way a justification for lighting the fuse on the constitutional bomb.

This matters not... semantics... mere nit pickin. It detracts from the main issue here. As i hinted at in my opening post of this thread, the re-establishment of symbols of Royalty, specifically the British Royal Family which succeeds by inheritance is done to reaffirm British heritage in this country.

But the Queen isn't British when she's here, she's Canadian. You're the one nitpicking over sematnics.

For the Queen, has no castle in Canada...

Then what's Rideau Hall?

There is no impetus or strong need to change anything, so status quo it shall be.

Then let's be about trying to push for reforms that 1. can actually be accomplished and 2. actually will make some real difference.

[g_bambino]

It is not silly if it provides the benefits to citizens I have outlined. It would re-invigorate the role that governor general should already actively carry out.

And how would it do that?

the re-establishment of symbols of Royalty, specifically the British Royal Family which succeeds by inheritance is done to reaffirm British heritage in this country.

There is no British monarchy in this country anymore; why do you persist with this "Canada is still a colony" fallacy? The Crown is there as the foundation of the entire Canadian state; it is not a mere symbol. And, while it does have a secondary symbolic purpose, the modern Crown is representative of Canada and all its denizens, not just those of British stock. Your views are woefully outdated.

For the Queen, has no castle in Canada...

She has nine. (Though, some are less than castle-like.)

[-]

Edited October 5, 2011 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

She has nine. (Though, some are less than castle-like.)

Is there still nine?

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

Edit: Ah, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Smallc

[Sir Bandelot]

And how would it do that?

There is no British monarchy in this country anymore; why do you persist with this "Canada is still a colony" fallacy? The Crown is there as the foundation of the entire Canadian state; it is not a mere symbol. And, while it does have a secondary symbolic purpose, the modern Crown is representative of Canada and all its denizens, not just those of British stock. Your views are woefully outdated.

I've already stated my views on the importance of the Monarchy. The difference is, I don't see it actively fulfilling that role. If properly carried out, that role could be so important in ensuring justice and equal opportunity. But I see it failing in its role, and I say it is because they are disinterested. They are not even capable of understanding. the distance is greater than the ocean that separates us, it is one of culture, of blood. Only Canadians born and raised in this country can understand our problems, our needs. Our home and native land

[ToadBrother]

I've already stated my views on the importance of the Monarchy. The difference is, I don't see it actively fulfilling that role. If properly carried out, that role could be so important in ensuring justice and equal opportunity.

And how pray tell would the monarchy do that and not fundamentally violate the most basic notions of Parliamentary supremacy?

What the monarchy does, and has done extremely well for over three hundred years, is deny any government absolute power. It need do no more than that, save perhaps in rare circumstances like a hung parliament.

But I see it failing in its role, and I say it is because they are disinterested. They are not even capable of understanding. the distance is greater than the ocean that separates us, it is one of culture, of blood. Only Canadians born and raised in this country can understand our problems, our needs. Our home and native land

This is just pure rhetorical mishmash. Even Trudeau wrote that he was amazed at how well informed the Queen was of Canada's constitutional issues, much more so than the British ministers that he had to deal with as he and his ministers prepared for the signing of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Have you got anything that doesn't amount to t-shirt sloganeering?

Edited October 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Is there still nine?

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

Does not all the Lieutenant-Governors have official residences? That being said, I don't think a reigning monarch has stayed at Government House out my way in BC since the 1930s.

[Smallc]

Does not all the Lieutenant-Governors have official residences?

No, there are none in Ontario and Quebec, and the one in Saskatchewan is just an office. The one in Manitoba is just a house, and the LGs office is in the Legislative building. In Ontario, the LG has an office in the Ontario Legislature at Queen's Park, and in Quebec, the LG has an office behind the Parliament Building. I think that Saskatchewan and Ontario provide their LGs with accommodations if necessary. I'm not sure about Quebec.

There are government houses in Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick that I had forgotten about.

As far as I can recall, the monarch has spent the afternoon at Government House in Winnipeg, but that's about it in the last few decades.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Smallc

[Sir Bandelot]

And how pray tell would the monarchy do that and not fundamentally violate the most basic notions of Parliamentary supremacy?

What the monarchy does, and has done extremely well for over three hundred years, is deny any government absolute power. It need do no more than that, save perhaps in rare circumstances like a hung parliament.

This is just pure rhetorical mishmash. Even Trudeau wrote that he was amazed at how well informed the Queen was of Canada's constitutional issues, much more so than the British ministers that he had to deal with as he and his ministers prepared for the signing of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Have you got anything that doesn't amount to t-shirt sloganeering?

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

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...

[g_bambino]

I've already stated my views on the importance of the Monarchy. The difference is, I don't see it actively fulfilling that role. If properly carried out, that role could be so important in ensuring justice and equal opportunity. But I see it failing in its role, and I say it is because they are disinterested. They are not even capable of understanding. the distance is greater than the ocean that separates us, it is one of culture, of blood. Only Canadians born and raised in this country can understand our problems, our needs.

But, how is it, specifically, that the Crown is presently failing in its task? What, then, would this elected monarch do to rectify these supposed problems?

I can't see where the Queen has been derelict in her duties as sovereign: deny politicians absolute control over power; advise, encourage, and warn; and personify the state above political, linguistic, ethnic, and religious divides. She was, like her predecessors were and her successors are being, raised her entire life to take on the role; where she was born and that education took place is entirely irrelevant to her ability to follow the rules of constitutional monarchy.

If you are, however, now arguing that only someone born and raised in Canada would have the knowledge required to be involved in any matter a Canadian head of state would have to deal with, I would point to the current queen as an example of how this isn't true. She's shown herself to be highly knowledgeable about Canadian affairs - constitutional, cultural, aboriginal, etc. This has been said by politician after politician; she presented a challenge to Trudeau, for example, on a number of occasions and been of great service to him on others (which he acknowledged).

Should that, for whatever reason, still not be good enough, an elected monarch (read: president for life) isn't the only alternative besides a republic with more frequently rotating presidents. It's entirely possible for Canada to remain a constitutional monarchy exactly as now, but break from the personal union by placing on the throne a different person than he or she who acts as monarch of the Commonwealth Realms; have a domestically based royal family with children born and raised in this country. It, at least, avoids the politics and partisanship inherent in elections, and no change to the structure of the federation would be necessary.

Still, I don't see what worthwhile improvement either brings over the current arrangements, and this "they gotta be born in Canada" sentiment has a certain inward looking, mildly xenophobic tone to it, which I don't like.

[c/e, +]

Edited October 5, 2011 by g_bambino