Bear true allegiance To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Canada Her Heirs and Successors......

[John Stone]

Arguably, Canadas last National project was the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway - epic! Truly, Canada as we largely see it today could not have existed without it - likely the West would have indeed become the 51st State. 

It should also be mentioned that the person largely responsible for its construction was Sir John A. Macdonald - you know, the guy that is vilified today for promoting the cultural genocide of indigenous peoples. 

Our understanding of good and evil is shaped by the power structures of any given era. This power influences the environment and societal norms and shapes our views of the world and the past. As society evolves, so do our moral standards. What we see as right and wrong today might have been viewed very differently just a century ago.

[suds]

18 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

On paper, they’re very powerful.  Still useless.  
 

Plus, should we put this kind of power in an undemocratic institution?   

I wouldn't say they were useless, but it is a subject that not all constitutional scholars agree on. Without a Governor General, any future PM would have almost complete control over the workings of Parliament with little oversight (it being almost that way now, see my second link). It's why many feel that systemic changes have to be made. I would prefer these reserve powers lying in the hands of the Supreme Court if possible. Except the Supreme Court is also an un-elected body isn't it? There's also supposed to be a separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches. An elected head of state perhaps? This is where we get back to being neutral or apolitical in answer to your first question. My expert opinion (ha ha) would pick the Supreme Court.

Edited December 17, 2025 by suds

[eyeball]

18 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

On paper, they’re very powerful.  Still useless.  
 

Plus, should we put this kind of power in an undemocratic institution?   

I'd consider it if the monarchs reserve powers included measures to improve transparency, accountability and public trust in our government. I've always kind of felt the monarchy is an authority the public should be able to count on to protect us against the worst of our government's excesses. I'm pretty sure Canada's First Nations take this view. They don't want anything to do with republicanism and the likelihood of a tyranny of the majority.

Take the uselessness out of corruption by making it harder to commit. I'm pretty convinced doing so will require changes to our Constitution and possibly at its most foundational levels.

To become a republic would require the same. I suppose we could introduce these measures then.

I'm not holding my breath in either case.

Edited December 17, 2025 by eyeball

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, suds said:

Without a Governor General, any future PM would have almost complete control over the workings of Parliament with little oversight

Why would it need to be that way?  You think we’d anoint a king?   What is an example of the GG preventing the PM from doing something in the last 50 years?  
 

2 hours ago, suds said:

I would prefer these reserve powers lying in the hands of the Supreme Court if possible.

I agree.  I think the SC could take a proper oversight role.  I’ve mentioned this in past posts.  

 

2 hours ago, suds said:

Except the Supreme Court is also an un-elected body isn't it?

Unelected does not mean undemocratic.   There are ways to appoint and remove judges.  Not so with a king who “rules” based on his bloodline, which is inherently undemocratic.  
 

 

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

They don't want anything to do with republicanism and the likelihood of a tyranny of the majority.

So Germany is a tyranny?  Finland is tyranny?   Being a republic is not inherently corrupt. 

[herbie]

Quote

tyranny of the majority

Seems to be what a lot of people actually want, especially those who seem to think they're the majority.

I've pared my not pro Monarchy position down to a 'until they come up with a better system' one. And a put the centennial animals on the back of the coins one

[suds]

Another thing to consider is that if the Crown is done away with... all of the treaties the First Nations signed with the Crown may have to be renegotiated. Again, some scholars say they will have to be renegotiated and some say they won't. What will the First Nations think about that?

[suds]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I agree.  I think the SC could take a proper oversight role.  I’ve mentioned this in past posts.  

I must have missed that. So as it stands now, what don't we agree with? Other than my feelings that it's best just to leave it the way it is, outside of maybe clarifying a few things.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

So Germany is a tyranny?  Finland is tyranny?   Being a republic is not inherently corrupt. 

I think that corruption is a feature, to various degrees, of virtually every governing system known to humanity. But the answer to your first two questions is no, not at the moment at least.

From what I gather First Nations regard the monarch in England as being the pinnacle of authority in our system of government and the only one that recognized indigenous title. It's who they  made the very first treaties that predate Canada with.  From First Nations perspective the government of Canada has fought and resisted the very notion of First Nation title since Confederation. Our governments still discuss title in terms of extinguishing it during modern treaty negotiations.

There's no way they'll ever embrace becoming a republic. The monarch is what anchors their ancient claims and aspirations in the same concept of title ours is rooted - a concept that traces its roots into time immemorial, in our case through the monarchy.