The Monarchy in Canada | Queen Elizabeth 1926-2022

[PhilippeMtl]

ditch, ditch ditch and ditch again.

[rbt]

Voted Keep strictly from a cost/time perspective.

Ditching requires rewriting the majority of our laws (nearly all mention the crown in some manner) which would be an expensive and time consuming process.

I'm not certain what it gets us. Most of what the governor general does is still useful and a large subset of our population will still take interest in British royalty and we will still pay for security when they visit just as we do with any other state heads and people of some importance.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by rbt

Most of what the governor general does is still useful

Useful? It's constitutionally and systemically necessary. How is spending billions to change a system that works very well with another that doesn't necessarily work well and replacing som people (the governor general and lieutenant governors) with some other people (a president and governors) considered to be a good thing?

Seriously, look at how many constitutional monarchies are on the top of most of the best lists. It may surprise you.

[vid]

Originally Posted by habfanman

The head of state of Canada must also be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, therefore: Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, non Church of England Protestants, Agnostics, Atheists etc. etc. need not apply. And females can forget about if they have an older male sibling.

I support the disestablishment of the Church of England. I think religious beliefs should be irrelevant to the crown and as I mentioned, the UK is asking other realms to join it in changing the order of precedence to allow first born females to have precedence over males.

Originally Posted by habfanman

I'd really like to see a monarchist defend the hereditary selection process.

It is stable and less expensive than a republic system. We know who the next head of state will be long before they become head of state. It doesn't really work against us. Sure, a Canadian can't become the head of state, but if the monarchy is symbolic that isn't really an important factor. It's the stability and low cost that makes the monarchy so attractive.

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Habfanman answered before me; many of these tasks can be done by anyone. Some of them could be done by a computer. Apointing people is just officializing a decision made by someone else (someone with real power). Replace the rubber stamp by a printer and voilà.

You wouldn't replace the rubber stamp with a printer. You would put it into the hands of people who would no longer have a balance to their power.

The reason the US completely removed the executive from the legislative was to provide a balance to its power. Our only executive balance is the person at the top keeping an eye on the people at the bottom, who are also in the legislative branch (and have total control over it in majority government situations). Abolishing that top position could make it more easy for a Prime Minister or premier to abuse their power.

There are no modern examples where the Prime Minister is also the head of state. Every single country with a Prime Minister has some sort of symbolic figurehead above them to "rubber stamp" things.

Angela Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany, but Germany also has a president, who is above the Chancellor and not directly elected. Can you name him?

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Your best argument is that it would be very difficult to ditch the monarchy. Constititional changes for a symbol... If we want to make changes in the Constitution, I am sure there are a lot of other things that are more important and that would be more worthy of the time and energy spent.

But if we chose to make some changes, I still say get rid of the monarchy.
(And would getting rid of the Lieutenant-Governors by the provinces who want it really needs a constitutional change? I mean, it is not the General-Governor).

The position of Lieutenant Govenor, and the structure and roles of the provincial governments, is outlined in the constitution. To change those roles or to abolish them would require a constitutional amendment.

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Seriously, look at how many constitutional monarchies are on the top of most of the best lists. It may surprise you.

List of countries by Human Development Index (top 20)

Constitutional monarchy (0.892) / republic (0.880)

0.938 Norway
0.937 Australia
0.907 New Zealand
0.902 United States
0.895 Ireland
0.891 Liechtenstein (constitutional absolute monarchy)
0.890 Netherlands
0.888 Canada
0.885 Sweden
0.885 Germany
0.884 Japan
0.877 South Korea
0.874 Switzerland
0.872 France
0.872 Israel
0.871 Finland
0.869 Iceland
0.867 Belgium
0.866 Denmark
0.863 Spain

[Travis007]

It would be complex and expensive to suddenly re-write and change our laws/constitutions so keeping everything at the status quo would be best. But on a personal level opinions, Canada should ditch. My opinion is partially influenced by the fact that most of my family live the States but in the modern era, we share more in common with the United States (media, culture, economy) than with Britain.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Acajack

OK, I get it now! Although I wonder if this might really improve things? The institution would be even less overtly "Canadian" than it is today. At least at the moment our GG, who really does all the work and "representation" (as opposed to the Queen) is a Canadian after all.

Yes, but what I'm saying is if we had royalty staying here PERMANENTLY. In other words, the children of the royals who move here, grow up and stay in Canada and become the regents, splitting Canada off from Britain peacefully the way Brazil did. This way, Canada gets its own, homegrown, absolutely Canadian monarchy.

Originally Posted by Dado

I think the Monarchist League have really shot themselves in the foot with that one. They've just disposed of a really useful middle option in the future. The Crowns are already distinct legal constructs (effectively the Crowns are held in a personal union, though this was not always the case) so it's only a small step to make their bearers separate people. The easy way to do that is to transfer the succession of the 'Maple Crown' to another of Queen Elizabeth's descendants (my preference is Peter Phillips, either in his own right or as regent for his Canadian daughter Savannah).

The child of Peter and Autumn Phillips is the most likely since she holds dual British and Canadian citizenship. She's also (I believe) the 12th in line to the throne. Peter Phillips would probably be okay in his own right, but he doesn't hold Canadian citizenship like his daughter.

A useful thing about the idea of separating the monarchy is that it breaks one of the main republican arguments as used in Canada: that the monarchy is "foreign". Strictly speaking it's not true, but that's the perception and it requires a heavy degree of pedantism to argue otherwise. With the option of a separate monarchy on the table, republicans would have to engage in a "clean" monarchy-vs-republic argument, rather than being able to win points on the basis of its current "foreigness".

I completely agree, which is why I would support a truly Canadian monarchy for its simplicity of conversion. Plus, the Kingdom of Canada/King of Canada/Queen of Canada has a nice ring to it. However, if such an option never makes it to the table, I'd support Canada becoming a republic with an actual born-and-raised Canadian being Head of State.

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

Keep it, if we ditch the monarchy and end up being a U.S. clone, I'm moving to Cuba >:

If you think that all that separates Canada from the US in terms of culture and system of governance is the monarchy, then go ahead and move.

Originally Posted by habfanman

So I guess all of you pro monarchists are OK with this:

The head of state of Canada must also be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, therefore: Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, non Church of England Protestants, Agnostics, Atheists etc. etc. need not apply. And females can forget about if they have an older male sibling.

CANADIANS NEED NOT APPLY! Canadians themselves can never aspire to be the head of state of their own nation. Our head of state can only ever be an Anglican Protestant Brit, preferably male.

Is this something that we should supporting in 21st century Canada?

I'd really like to see a monarchist defend the hereditary selection process.

You know, those are very good points I totally failed to consider.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Travis007

It would be complex and expensive to suddenly re-write and change our laws/constitutions so keeping everything at the status quo would be best. But on a personal level opinions, Canada should ditch. My opinion is partially influenced by the fact that most of my family live the States but in the modern era, we share more in common with the United States (media, culture, economy) than with Britain.

Why? Does it really cost us much to scratch out the word "Crown" and replace it with "State"? They're both five letter words and are used in the exact same context. Example:

"Subject to the authority of the Crown..."
"Subject to the authority of the State..."

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by vid

There are no modern examples where the Prime Minister is also the head of state.

I don't think that's completely correct. South Africa's President is very much like a prime minister, and has no one above him. Zimbabwe was the same until recently. That said, I don't think that either of those are compelling examples...especially not Zimbabwe.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Why? Does it really cost us much to scratch out the word "Crown" and replace it with "State"?

If you think it's that simply, you're fooling yourself. Every law in every province and at the federal level would have to be changed. The Constitutions of Canada and Quebec (I don't think there are other provinces with written constitutions) would have to be changed. The aboriginal treaty rights, negotiated with the federal government and the provinces would need modifications. The justice system would need to be reworked. A situation that maintains provincial sovereignty within Canada as it exists now would have to be developed. That's just the things I can think of in a couple of minutes. This isn't even close to a simple thing....and that's assuming that everyone agrees.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

You know, those are very good points I totally failed to consider.

The Canadian representative of the Queen is always Canadian (now) though. That, and the fact that the Queen isn't British takes away a couple of the points. I do agree that we should change the rules of succession for fairness sake....but in reality, the rules aren't a concern for at least the next two aires.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by vid

You wouldn't replace the rubber stamp with a printer. You would put it into the hands of people who would no longer have a balance to their power.

The reason the US completely removed the executive from the legislative was to provide a balance to its power. Our only executive balance is the person at the top keeping an eye on the people at the bottom, who are also in the legislative branch (and have total control over it in majority government situations). Abolishing that top position could make it more easy for a Prime Minister or premier to abuse their power.

Balance to what power? If a judge is appointed, the LG doesn't stop it. He just says: OK. And I am pretty sure he doesn't read most of the bill he passes into laws (well, most MNAs dont read them either even if they vote for them). And for is job as basically an independant arbitrator, the courts pretty much do that part anyway. If you take out all the symbols and rubber stamp parts of the job, the rest could easily be done for less costs. Those functions are more suited for a public servant then a representative of a foreing monarch (who is only symbolically Canadian).

[MTLskyline]

Nice to see that Montreal is getting into it as well!

http://tweetreel.com/?sgja5

Also the Globe and Mail reported that the pro-monarchists far outnumbered the anti-monarchists. Very glad to hear that.

I am very proud of the turnout here. Fortunatley none of those nutbars protesting at the St-Justine Children's Hospital did anything stupid.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

If you think it's that simply, you're fooling yourself. Every law in every province and at the federal level would have to be changed. The Constitutions of Canada and Quebec (I don't think there are other provinces with written constitutions) would have to be changed. The aboriginal treaty rights, negotiated with the federal government and the provinces would need modifications. The justice system would need to be reworked. A situation that maintains provincial sovereignty within Canada as it exists now would have to be developed. That's just the things I can think of in a couple of minutes. This isn't even close to a simple thing....and that's assuming that everyone agrees.

Why would it need to be reworked? Sure, documents would need to be renamed but it's not like you need to be a theoretical physicist to figure out that "Crown" becomes "State" and the term can then be applied to current laws, treaties, acts, etc.

Originally Posted by jmt18325

The Canadian representative of the Queen is always Canadian (now) though. That, and the fact that the Queen isn't British takes away a couple of the points. I do agree that we should change the rules of succession for fairness sake....but in reality, the rules aren't a concern for at least the next two aires.

True, but our Head of State, the top of the top, is not. I don't care about legal definition; she and her family were born and raised in Britain, live in Britain, have based themselves in Britain, and speak with British accents. They're British. You can legally define a couch as a dishwasher, but that doesn't really make it so.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Why? Does it really cost us much to scratch out the word "Crown" and replace it with "State"? They're both five letter words and are used in the exact same context. Example:

"Subject to the authority of the Crown..."
"Subject to the authority of the State..."

It takes time, and time is money. All 11 legislatures would have to change all their laws to reflect it, unless they passed some sort of law that defined crown as being state. I'm not sure if that is possible but it would be preferable.

I imagine that parliamentarians with agendas would want to see other amendments to some bills, that could drag the process on.

Originally Posted by jmt18325

I don't think that's completely correct. South Africa's President is very much like a prime minister, and has no one above him.

He is like Barack Obama, head of government and head of state. He is appointed by Parliament. I guess it is similar to what we've discussed. I'm not familiar with South Africa's government structure but it might be an option for us, they're also a former realm.

Originally Posted by jmt18325

I don't think there are other provinces with written constitutions

Section V of Constitution Act 1867 sort of functions as a constitution for the four original provinces.

Originally Posted by jmt18325

The aboriginal treaty rights, negotiated with the federal government and the provinces would need modifications.

Those are between Aboriginals and the Crown, with the Federal Government taking the crown's responsibilities. Many aboriginal leaders view it as an agreement between them and the Queen herself, so there will obviously be significant issues regarding the treaties if we become a republic. There will probably be many aboriginal leaders asking for new treaties so that they could get a better deal as well. As I've pointed out before, many aboriginals are turning to law as a profession specifically to argue for their people.

Originally Posted by jmt18325

This isn't even close to a simple thing....and that's assuming that everyone agrees.

1,005 parliamentarians in 11 houses—1,110 in 12 chambers in 11 houses if the senate is involved—within three years of the first vote in the first house.

Unless the "7 of 10 provinces representing half the population" rule applies here, in which case it would be easier. But I am pretty sure this kind of change requires unanimous consent in all 11 parliaments.

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Balance to what power? If a judge is appointed, the LG doesn't stop it. He just says: OK.

But he can stop it, if necessary. That's the balance. They're called "reserve powers" and they're the fail safe that prevents our politicians from abusing their power.

We have a situation where the monarch holds the power but doesn't use it, while the prime minister uses the power but doesn't hold it. This must be preserved, and you can't do that if you abolish the individual who holds but doesn't use the power.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

Nice to see that Montreal is getting into it as well!

http://tweetreel.com/?sgja5

Also the Globe and Mail reported that the pro-monarchists far outnumbered the anti-monarchists. Very glad to hear that.

I am very proud of the turnout here. Fortunatley none of those nutbars protesting at the St-Justine Children's Hospital did anything stupid.

When are people going to ditch the idea of Quebec being majority separatist and full of monarchy haters? Most Quebecers, like most Canadians, are relatively indifferent to the monarchy.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by vid

But he can stop it, if necessary. That's the balance. They're called "reserve powers" and they're the fail safe that prevents our politicians from abusing their power.

I would love to see the L-G stop the nomination of a judge because he doens't like him. On refuse to sign a law passed by the National Assembly. That would cause quite a stir...

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by vid

But he can stop it, if necessary. That's the balance. They're called "reserve powers" and they're the fail safe that prevents our politicians from abusing their power.

We have a situation where the monarch holds the power but doesn't use it, while the prime minister uses the power but doesn't hold it. This must be preserved, and you can't do that if you abolish the individual who holds but doesn't use the power.

You make it sound like it was intentionally designed that way, like it's some sort of masterful system created to provide some heavenly balance. You're forgetting that this was never the case. The British system of Parliamentary/Monarchy balance evolved over time by the royals slowly relinquishing certain powers in exchange for financing or political support. They are kept as head of state for tradition, not for a functional purpose like you make it sound.

After all, why should an unelected and totally unaccountable person hold the official power? And how is the sovereign even qualified, as an unelected person, to act as such a failsafe deciding if an elected PM is abusing her or his power. And if the PM is the one to actually use the power in the first place, and the GG/Monarch never actually uses it, and the PM was lawfully elected to the position by the people, then why shouldn't the PM be the holder of the power.

The issue isn't whether or not the power is held by one person, but whether or not the power is held by someone lawfully elected some supported by the populace. After all, it is ultimately the people who provide the accountability. The transition between a dictator (the Monarch) having complete power and the elected official (PM) having the power has been a slow and at times difficult one that happened over hundreds of years. In function and for all intents and purposes, the elected officials have the actual power. The official transition has not yet been completed simply because of tradition and convenience.

But anyway, this is all fairly academic, considering that having a Canadian head of state would not even require us to change from being a Constitutional Monarchy. We could simply make the GG our official monarch and have any legal reference to the crown simply refer to the Canadian Sovereign.

[FrAnKs]

Double ditch.

[habfanman]

Constitutional monarchy (0.892) / republic (0.880)

0.938 Norway
0.937 Australia
0.907 New Zealand
0.902 United States
0.895 Ireland
0.890 Netherlands
0.888 Canada
0.885 Sweden
0.885 Germany
0.884 Japan
0.877 South Korea
0.874 Switzerland
0.872 France
0.872 Israel
0.871 Finland
0.869 Iceland
0.867 Belgium
0.866 Denmark
0.863 Spain

Interesting list, although it would seem to indicate that having a strong democracy is more important than whether you're a republic or constitutional monarchy. (I've removed Liechtenstein as it is more of a tax haven than a country- pop. 35,000, 1/4 the size of Toronto). If you look at the next 20 nations on that list, 13 of them are republics, the rest a mixture of sultanates, emirates, kingdoms, Hong Kong etc.

Let's analyse the monarchies

Of the 10, only 3 have foreigners as their head of state:

0.938 Norway
0.937 Australia
0.907 New Zealand
0.890 Netherlands
0.888 Canada
0.885 Sweden
0.884 Japan
0.867 Belgium
0.866 Denmark
0.863 Spain

Of the 10, 6 are purely symbolic, completely subservient to their various parliaments. (the irony is that if any monarch who still retains any power were to go against the wishes of their 'subjects', that would create a constitutional crisis that would result in their extinction. Hence the lame duckedness of any monarch who does retain any semblance of power: use it- you lose it)

0.938 Norway
0.937 Australia
0.907 New Zealand
0.890 Netherlands
0.888 Canada
0.885 Sweden
0.884 Japan
0.867 Belgium
0.866 Denmark
0.863 Spain

Of the 10, only 3 have heads of state who are both foreign and have any power, however minimal that power may be

0.937 Australia
0.907 New Zealand
0.888 Canada

If being a constitutional monarchy is such a nirvana, why have countries been ditching the system en masse over the last 60 or so years?

If having a king or queen as head of state is so effective, why have all remaining constitutional monarchies been systematically limiting the powers of their monarchs over the years, most to the point of completely neutering them?

If being a constitutional monarchy is really the be-all and end-all of systems of government, why aren't nations establishing/re-establishing them?

[habfanman]

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

Nice to see that Montreal is getting into it as well!

http://tweetreel.com/?sgja5

Also the Globe and Mail reported that the pro-monarchists far outnumbered the anti-monarchists. Very glad to hear that.

I am very proud of the turnout here. Fortunatley none of those nutbars protesting at the St-Justine Children's Hospital did anything stupid.

lol! The Gazette reader tweets! Yeah that's truly representative of most Montrealers. (maybe 5%?)

I can forgive most of the so-called pro-monarchists, the majority of them were simply (simple?) celebrity hounds. Most of them don't have a clue about the politics, they would have just as readily stood in line for a glimpse of The Bieb or Ga Ga.

I can respect the protestors, they were standing up- non violently- for what they believe in.

The true nutbars are the die-hard monarchists. Most of them probably have royal plate collections, have their homes festooned with royal memorabilia crap, and live and breathe royal gossip. Fucking weirdos!

I just noticed that one of the main tweeters is 'MTLcelebreport'. That should tell you something.