The Canadian Monarchy

[Shwa]

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.

For all intents and purposes, the Charlottetown Accord was a federal referendum.

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

No, but the only thing that is different is the context that the term is being used in. But the term still signifies the same concept.

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

Pretty much, yep.

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.

Yes, but the point being is that in such questions there are deals and compromises to be made to get the provinces to agree and that the provinces can agree on certain questions if the climate is right.

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:

Has anyone indicated that the Feds have a unilateral power to force a referendum?

[ToadBrother]

For all intents and purposes, the Charlottetown Accord was a federal referendum.

....

Has anyone indicated that the Feds have a unilateral power to force a referendum?

Now you seem to want it both ways. On the first score, the national referendum wasn't actually a completely national referendum. Quebec's Charlottetown referendum was separate from the referendum in the rest of the country. Second of all, the very fact that there was a referendum at all was agreed to by the provinces, so it's nothing more than an extrapolation of section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which still means, even if you want a national referendum, you still need all the provinces to agree to it. If one province says it won't allow the vote in its jurisdiction, or the majority of the voters in that province opt for the monarchy, then, constitutionally speaking, that's it. The amendment has failed.

Can you imagine the handwringing and serious disunity that would erupt if, say, PEI and Alberta refused to take part in this referendum? You'd probably have another sovereignty vote in Quebec within a year or two. And again, I ask, for what? So the letterhead of the person living in Rideau Hall can be changed? It's so pointless, and would have so little effect on the actual issues of governance that Canadians face.

[treehugger]

I say we burn the crown to the ground. Lets become a constitutional republic with limited federal powers, I am sure Quebec would be happy with that.

I say that you move to a repubulic wherever and stay there. This country was founded as such and that is our history ya don't like it move.

[treehugger]

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.

you are extremely crude, I pity your partner if indeed you have one. (when the playboy arab etc etc)

[Moonlight Graham]

Get rid of the "British" monarchy and crown me King of Canada please. Nelly Furtado can be my Queen.

But seriously, though i'm not a fan of the monarchy or the idea of it in a democracy, the Crown still works fairly effectively and any change to get rid of it would mean opening the massive can of worms that is constitutional reform....and then even if we could change it there's still major doubts it would work any better.

[Shwa]

Now you seem to want it both ways. On the first score, the national referendum wasn't actually a completely national referendum. Quebec's Charlottetown referendum was separate from the referendum in the rest of the country. Second of all, the very fact that there was a referendum at all was agreed to by the provinces, so it's nothing more than an extrapolation of section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which still means, even if you want a national referendum, you still need all the provinces to agree to it. If one province says it won't allow the vote in its jurisdiction, or the majority of the voters in that province opt for the monarchy, then, constitutionally speaking, that's it. The amendment has failed.

So are you saying that all provinces must agree to have a federal referendum, even a non-binding one?

Can you imagine the handwringing and serious disunity that would erupt if, say, PEI and Alberta refused to take part in this referendum? You'd probably have another sovereignty vote in Quebec within a year or two. And again, I ask, for what? So the letterhead of the person living in Rideau Hall can be changed? It's so pointless, and would have so little effect on the actual issues of governance that Canadians face.

Let's go back a few pages:

...I simply don't see a hell scenario for this one, especially if there is a decisive referendum to get it done.

I think it is instructive to the public to inform them that, should they truly wish it, a republic is basically at their fingertips. That is, there are no Constitutional structures, laws or conventions that would prevent them from having their republic should they wish it. The only obstacle to a republic in Canada is public consent. Wouldn't you agree?

[ToadBrother]

But seriously, though i'm not a fan of the monarchy or the idea of it in a democracy, the Crown still works fairly effectively and any change to get rid of it would mean opening the massive can of worms that is constitutional reform....and then even if we could change it there's still major doubts it would work any better.

That's exactly where I stand. I have no great emotional attachment to the Monarchy. I'm not some card-carrying member of the Monarchist League who books a ticket to wherever the Queen or her kin may be waving at people when they visit the country. But I do think the system works very well, has produced stable governments even in times of great discontent. We nearly tore ourselves to pieces over the 1982 constitution, and things really didn't calm down until after the Clarity Act. There's so little to be gained by swapping the Queen with a President (or... shudder... a First Canadian), if we're retaining all the other aspects of the Westminster System.

Let's look at the facts. This isn't Australia, where there is fairly strong republican sentiment. Outside of Quebec, most Canadians are just plain ambivalent. That's not a recipe for a sweeping constitutional reform movement. That's a recipe for not doing very much. Maybe Canadians will contemplate relatively modest reforms (ie. Senate reform), but I don't think there's any real appetite for basically tearing into the core of our constitutional system.

[JAmotue]

Ok, this started more of a debate than I was expecting it too. And I thank you all for your input from both the republicans and monarchists. But, there is one other possibility that I didn't see being talked about, one that I think could go a long ways to making both sides more happy. (or as Canadian history shows us, make everyone just as unhappy and of course that's fair) But asking a member of the British Royal Family (or from another royal line) to take up a Canadian Crown on Canadian soil. then we would have our own monarchy breaking ties with the British making the republicans happy but still hold closely to our past and traditions making the monarchists happy.

[Smallc]

I don't think that would make the republicans happy at all....in fact, I don't think it would make anyone happy.

[g_bambino]

[A]sking a member of the British Royal Family (or from another royal line) to take up a Canadian Crown on Canadian soil. then we would have our own monarchy breaking ties with the British making the republicans happy but still hold closely to our past and traditions making the monarchists happy.

This misunderstands the monarchy and the Royal Family. There is already a Canadian Crown; Canada has its own monarchy; for us, it's the Canadian Royal Family.

However, the question of what Canadian republicans would do should the personal union be split and Canada took on as monarch a person who wasn't also monarch of Australia, Jamaica, St. Lucia, etc. is intriguing, since much of their "campaign" centres around this false narrative about Canada's continued colonial status under the United Kingdom; their arguments are less about actual republicanism than they are about neo-Canadiana nationalism, anti-British sentiment, and rousing patriotic emotion with fables about the Rebellions of 1834 being just the beginning of our still un-won fight for freedom from foreign tyranny.

[cybercoma]

This misunderstands the monarchy and the Royal Family. There is already a Canadian Crown; Canada has its own monarchy; for us, it's the Canadian Royal Family.

However, the question of what Canadian republicans would do should the personal union be split and Canada took on as monarch a person who wasn't also monarch of Australia, Jamaica, St. Lucia, etc. is intriguing, since much of their "campaign" centres around this false narrative about Canada's continued colonial status under the United Kingdom; their arguments are less about actual republicanism than they are about neo-Canadiana nationalism, anti-British sentiment, and rousing patriotic emotion with fables about the Rebellions of 1834 being just the beginning of our still un-won fight for freedom from foreign tyranny.

Perhaps Stephen Harper could move to be the first native-born King of Canada.

[ToadBrother]

Ok, this started more of a debate than I was expecting it too. And I thank you all for your input from both the republicans and monarchists. But, there is one other possibility that I didn't see being talked about, one that I think could go a long ways to making both sides more happy. (or as Canadian history shows us, make everyone just as unhappy and of course that's fair) But asking a member of the British Royal Family (or from another royal line) to take up a Canadian Crown on Canadian soil. then we would have our own monarchy breaking ties with the British making the republicans happy but still hold closely to our past and traditions making the monarchists happy.

It would not create difficulties from the perspective of having to redefine or strip out the Crown from the constitution, but as it would be effectively stripping out the Act of Settlement, 1701 and the Statute of Westminster, both of which are core constitutional documents, it would still require the House of Commons, the Senate and all ten provinces to agree, so we're still back to the core issue of how you would ever do it.

But there is some news. The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has sent a letter to the heads of the other Commonwealth Realms seeking to amend the Act of Settlement to end male-preference primogeniture. This involves, as required by the Statute of Westminster, which stands both as a core constitutional document of all sixteen realms and as a treaty between them, all the realms to agree.

[g_bambino]

But there is some news. The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has sent a letter to the heads of the other Commonwealth Realms seeking to amend the Act of Settlement to end male-preference primogeniture. This involves, as required by the Statute of Westminster, which stands both as a core constitutional document of all sixteen realms and as a treaty between them, all the realms to agree.

This could be messy. The media - as is usual with monarchical matters - hasn't yet been able to grasp the full picture of what's involved with the international Commonwealth Realms crown. To alter the line of succession will involve anywhere between sixteen and thirty-two parliaments, depending on what the Supreme Court in Canada and the High Court in Australia say about the need for approval from the provinces and states, respectively.

It would be nice to see the male primogeniture and anti-Catholic provisions* gone from our succession laws. But, I have my doubts it's going to happen. Consitutional change in Canada alone will be a quagmire.

* Though, there is still that interesting question that never seems to be addressed: Could there ever be an issue with a Catholic head of one sovereign state having to be faithful to the Pope, who is himself the head of another sovereign state?

[+]

Edited October 13, 2011 by g_bambino

[wyly]

Ok, this started more of a debate than I was expecting it too. And I thank you all for your input from both the republicans and monarchists. But, there is one other possibility that I didn't see being talked about, one that I think could go a long ways to making both sides more happy. (or as Canadian history shows us, make everyone just as unhappy and of course that's fair) But asking a member of the British Royal Family (or from another royal line) to take up a Canadian Crown on Canadian soil. then we would have our own monarchy breaking ties with the British making the republicans happy but still hold closely to our past and traditions making the monarchists happy.

as a monarchist interviewed on cbc last night stated (to the best of my recollection) "sexism in the monarchy has no place in the 21st century" to which I would add the monarchy has no place in the 21st century...if the debate is to be opened then the opportunity presents itself to eliminate these anachronistic freeloaders...

[Smallc]

to which I would add the monarchy has no place in the 21st century...

Why would you add this? Many of the most prosperous, stable, and democratic countries on earth (including this one) are monarchies.

[ToadBrother]

* Though, there is still that interesting question that never seems to be addressed: Could there ever be an issue with a Catholic head of one sovereign state having to be faithful to the Pope, who is himself the head of another sovereign state?

[+]

While Cameron has made noises in this direction, the fact remains that the Queen is the Head of the Church of England, and to allow a Catholic Monarch would create considerable constitutional difficulties. It appears that while Cameron has made pleasing noises in that direction, it's not on the table right now.

In the longer view, the only two solutions I've seen are either to disestablish the Church of England, which would be a major constitutional overhaul in England (and would certainly create far more controversy than I think most people would imagine), or a somewhat awkward concept of a proxy who would, in the event of a Catholic becoming the Sovereign, hold the office of Supreme Governor. Without this, even if you did remove the ban on Catholics on the throne, without changing who exactly was Supreme Governor of the Church of England, any Catholic, upon his or her secession, would technically be breaking with the Catholic Church and would, by definition alone, be excommunicating themselves.

[ToadBrother]

as a monarchist interviewed on cbc last night stated (to the best of my recollection) "sexism in the monarchy has no place in the 21st century" to which I would add the monarchy has no place in the 21st century...if the debate is to be opened then the opportunity presents itself to eliminate these anachronistic freeloaders...

I don't even know what this means. There are plenty of monarchies out there. Ours just happens to be probably the best well known. The system, as it has evolved since the 17th century works well. In other words, what you said is, on the face of it, patently false.

[Sir Bandelot]

It would be nice to see the male primogeniture and anti-Catholic provisions* gone from our succession laws. But, I have my doubts it's going to happen. Consitutional change in Canada alone will be a quagmire.

* Though, there is still that interesting question that never seems to be addressed: Could there ever be an issue with a Catholic head of one sovereign state having to be faithful to the Pope, who is himself the head of another sovereign state?

[+]

Your post demonstrates a weakness in being tied down to a system that is too wide-spread, requires too many differing factions to unanimously agree in order for effectual change to take place.

While you yourself agree the change would be a positive one, you admit that it's unlikely to happen because of the inherent dilemma. Exactly why it is better to be more independent and determine our own unique sense of fairness and justice, and the ability to revise and change laws when necessary, as dictated by circumstance.

Any system that is so mired in tradition that it cannot adapt, even when people agree that it's necessary, does not serve the people. It becomes a hindrance based on a mere abstraction.

[Smallc]

Any system that is so mired in tradition that it cannot adapt, even when people agree that it's necessary,

The problem isn't tradition, the problem is that people won't agree to the remedy.

[ToadBrother]

Your post demonstrates a weakness in being tied down to a system that is too wide-spread, requires too many differing factions to unanimously agree in order for effectual change to take place.

While you yourself agree the change would be a positive one, you admit that it's unlikely to happen because of the inherent dilemma. Exactly why it is better to be more independent and determine our own unique sense of fairness and justice, and the ability to revise and change laws when necessary, as dictated by circumstance.

Any system that is so mired in tradition that it cannot adapt, even when people agree that it's necessary, does not serve the people. It becomes a hindrance based on a mere abstraction.

It wouldn't be impossible. In fact, I think, though I'm just going off the top of my head, England is the only part of the Commonwealth Realms that still has an established church that the Queen is the head of, so amending the Act of Settlement in that regard is chiefly a problem for the UK, and not for the other realms. The issue there then becomes more of a private battle between elements of English society, and this is coming at an awkward time in the UK, because of growing fears of Scottish secession, which could lead to the growth of English nationalism.

At any rate, no one seems to be contemplating removing the ban on Catholics, this is purely to do with male-preference primogeniture. And as I've said, if you wish to get rid of the monarchy in Canada, you're still dealing with having to get the provinces on side.

How this will happen is through negotiation, and now formal move will be made until each of the Realms has said they can and will pass the amendment to the Act of Settlement. As our own PM has so wisely pointed out, it's not as if the issue will become a substantial one any time soon. The Heir to the throne and his heir are both men, so, even if Prince William fathers a daughter, it's still decades before we're faced with the issue in a direct fashion. Lots of time.

Edited October 13, 2011 by ToadBrother

[wyly]

Why would you add this? Many of the most prosperous, stable, and democratic countries on earth (including this one) are monarchies.

prosperity, stability and democracy have nothing to do with monarchy, china, US, germany, france have done just fine without it......the entire concept that one human is superior to another because of their parentage is repugnant...this no different when we had entire ethnic groups subservient to others and racial superiority based on skin colour...I have royal ancestry and even the thought of people bowing down and kissing my arse is ludicrous, that people still devalue themselves with that behaviour is pathetic...

[ToadBrother]

prosperity, stability and democracy have nothing to do with monarchy, china, US, germany, france have done just fine without it......the entire concept that one human is superior to another because of their parentage is repugnant...this no different when we had entire ethnic groups subservient to others and racial superiority based on skin colour...I have royal ancestry and even the thought of people bowing down and kissing my arse is ludicrous, that people still devalue themselves with that behaviour is pathetic...

And what, you don't have to defer the President of the United States or France? Give me a break.

[Wild Bill]

I'm curious as to the ethnic descent of some of the more vocal anti-monarchy posters in this thread.

My ancestors came from Scotland to land at Pictou, Nova Scotia in 1773. That's 238 years ago! Along the way came many Irish and English. The British part of my ancestry is strong and until after the second world war was the mainstream for English Canada. We had other nationalities contribute, of course, but still, we were of British stock and proud of it! But it should not be forgotten, our first loyalty was for Canada!

When we had sent soldiers, sailors and pilots to help out the Mother country, many British officers had to be forcefully reminded of the fact that we were NOT British colonists! Canada is a Dominion, a realm that through history and ancestry shares a Monarch with Britain but that's all. Britain does not rule us and even our shared monarch only rules as a constitutional rather than an absolute monarch.

We have always welcomed immigrants, especially for the last 60 years or so. However, it seems only in the last 30 or more have we been hearing all this talk about jettisoning our monarch to become some sort of republic.

Have those who champion this idea have any notion of how this can sound to a Canadian of many generations? We welcomed people in who promptly want to change the decor of the entire house!

If there had been a poll taken in 1950 that welcoming immigrants would have lead to this result, what do you think the results would have said?

Personally, I am proud of my British heritage (perhaps a bit more for the Irish and Scot! ) and loyal to my Queen.

Those that want to change it can piss off!

Edited October 13, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Shwa]

Any system that is so mired in tradition that it cannot adapt, even when people agree that it's necessary, does not serve the people. It becomes a hindrance based on a mere abstraction.

These are some of the best lines ever in MLW. Sums it up perfectly. Thanks SB!

[ToadBrother]

These are some of the best lines ever in MLW. Sums it up perfectly. Thanks SB!

And pray tell what exactly is being hindered by the Statute of Westminster?