The Monarchy in Canada | Queen Elizabeth 1926-2022

[Urban_Genius]

Ditch it. But it's not a priority like senate reform for example.

[manny_santos]

I think it would be a lot more costly than some of us would like to believe. There is the issue of amending the Constitution. Re-opening the Constitution would be political suicide, and it would be a waste of time when there are more pressing issues in this country.

As far as I'm concerned, the Monarchy system we have isn't necessarily ideal, but there are far bigger issues for Canada to be worried about.

We also can benefit by being part of the Commonwealth, not just from the UK, but from other member countries.

[vid]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Maybe we should let the provinces who choose to get rid of their lieutenant-Governor. That will be that much money saved.

The Lieutenant Governor is the head of the executive. You can't "get rid" of that. You can only delegate it to the premier, a position that I think already has too much power vested in it. It could turn a majority premier into a dictator. Those functions will still have to be performed by someone and there will still have to be staff to see to them.

It won't save any money. It will just allocate it to another section of government. It will probably costs even more; I don't know how the government manages to do it, but when they eliminate positions by merging departments they always end up spending more.

Originally Posted by habfanman

I refused to watch the debacle and when a German buddy of mine questioned me as to why, I explained that the British Queen was still our head of state and that I wasn't happy with that. He replied "That's funny, I thought that Canada had grown up".

How do you respond to that?

Explain what happened since 1867 and then say that you're a republican? You're from Québec too so you've got to reasons to dislike the monarchy, don't you?

Originally Posted by habfanman

(and if one more fucking monarchist insults my intelligence by telling me that the Queen is Canadian! You're not Canadian just because you decree yourself to be)

She didn't decree herself to be Canadian. We did. No offense to your intelligence but that should be cleared up! She still regularly refers to herself as British, I think even when speaking with us.

Legally speaking though, she is Canadian, and Prince Charles will automatically become Canadian when she dies if he isn't one already. That's just how the constitution is laid out.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

There is a thought that once the Queen dies parliament could simply not go through whatever motions are required to recognize the new monarch.

I agree, if constitutional modification is required it becomes much less palatable. Then again, this might be one thing that would pass easily.

"La Riene est mort. Vive le roi." The position transfers automatically upon death. Prince Charles will become our king before we find out Queen Elizabeth is dead; even before he finds out. That's just how it works.

I am pretty sure a law could be passed to change that, though, and there is a procedure parliament goes through to recognize the new monarch, as well as the coronation later (Elizabeth was Queen almost a year before her coronation).

I think a few countries have ended their relationship with the monarchy upon the death of the reigning monarch so it isn't impossible, but if it does require constitutional amendments, it will be very difficult to change.

I wouldn't oppose such a law, though I don't think it is very necessary and worry about the abhorrent cost of such a relatively pointless procedure. The fiscal conservative in me says "if it isn't broken, leave it alone", and while Novelleecosse's argument is a good one, I don't think that changing that is worth the cost of actually changing it. We might not get any money from visits to Buckingham Palace, but we aren't going to get much revenue from visits to 24 Sussex, either.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I don't find the legitimacy argument all that convincing.

Well the Prime Minister can't appoint himself. That is what the Governor General does right after the election, even if it is a majority. He chooses which party forms government and then appoints the leader of that party as the Prime Minister. Who will fulfill that role if we abolish the monarchy? The "previous" Prime Minister can't do it.

This is just an example of one of the many things about our government system that will have to change with a republic system. Considering how long it would take to change these things, I doubt we'll finish it before Queen Elizabeth dies, and that is even taking into account her family's longevity.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

If our head of state was a giant inflatable weiner, one could also ask "how is it failing us?", as though one would need a convincing proof of failure to justify ditching it.

The giant inflatable wiener has legitimacy.

I think you could have chosen a better example than an inflatable wiener. But, honestly, if that Wiener did what the monarchy does for the same price, it might still be a less expensive deal than a republic, and we won't have to figure out who will appoint the government.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

- I do relate to the sentiment that having a foreign (yes foreign) head of state is a symbol of not having fully 'grown up' as a nation.
- I do not want new sovereigns faces on our money
- I do respect Elizabeth and have no issue with retaining the monarchy until her death

I generally agree on these points. I have a copy of A Vision of Britain from the Library and I'm not too fond of seeing its cover on the back of the 20. Even when he was younger Charles was hard on the eyes.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

- I support simply keeping all of the current processes in place, the Governor General will remain as it always has, doing the same job they always have, they will simply just be the Canadian head of state, rather than representing the Queen.

But now we have a dilemma one step up from that which I explained about the Prime Minister.

Without a Queen, who appoints the Governor General? Does the Prime Minister retain this power? Do party politics come into play like in a republic or does the role remain non-partisan? (I'd prefer the latter and I think most Canadians would as well.)

Appointment of the Governor General however is easier to solve than appointment of the government and prime minister. Parliament could appoint the Governor General, by committee with a list of well researched candidates and then secret ballot to choose an individual, for example.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

- The argument that the monarchy is all that separates us from the States is an incredibly sad commentary, and one that I don't believe to be true. In a sense that's using the monarchy as a crutch to prove Canadian 'differentness'. If the loss of the monarchy makes some think we're now just the same as the Americans, perhaps the push to actually differentiate ourselves vs relying on the monarchy is a good thing.

The structure of our government and the nature of our political system is one of our biggest differences but I agree, defending the monarchy out of fear of "becoming American" is bullshit. If the only different is the Queen, we might as well join the US.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

- This might be overstated, but I think ditching might help the French/English tensions in the country, although I think due to those tensions being pretty low at the moment it may not have any effect. It might though have an effect in the future should tensions flare up.

I don't think it will help too much. If we end up with an anglophone Governor General (or whatever we call the head of state) two times in a row, it will probably cause tension. I suppose we could have two heads of state, one Anglophone and one Francophone, but then you'll probably get Aboriginals upset saying they're not represented and who knows how many heads of state we'll have then. Switzerland, a country with several large ethnic groups (French, German, Italian and Romansch) has seven heads of state.

The EU presidency rotates from nation to nation. We could do something like that. Eliminate the Governor General and give the provincial Lieutenant Governors the top role for one tenth of the year on a rotating basis.

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Second, if we were to get rid of the monarchy, all we'd have to do is replace the Office of Governor-General with President, Secretary-General, Grand Poohbah, whatever. They'd still have the same powers the Governor-General/Queen currently have and could live in Rideau Hall. Where do these magical "it'll be more expensive as a Republic" costs come from? How much money does it really cost to wake up one day and say: "We're ditching the monarchy. Mr. Johnson, you're now the President of Canada and elections will be held in 2015 for your replacement"?

The cost would be in restructuring. Even if we create a law that says "all references too ... are replaced with ...", we're going to have to educate people on the republican equivalents of monarchic positions down the line, when the monarchy becomes a memory.

The process of becoming a republic will be long and drawn out as well, and that could cause economic instability. We saw that kind of instability with all the elections and political uncertainty over the past seven years; republicanizing could lead to greater uncertainty, especially if the debate drags on for along time or becomes heated.

The court currently draws its authority from the crown; land is owned by the crown; government companies are crown corporations; we're going to have to replace the concept of crown. With what? More laws to change.

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

As for my personal beliefs, the monarchy in England actually creates substantial tourism dollars. I will accept a monarchy in Canada on the following conditions:

- Some members of the British Royal Family move to Canada and live in Rideau Hall.
- Their children are born in Canada and raised as Canadians.
- This "Canadian Monarchy" actually bases themselves in Canada and serves as the nation's regency. Essentially, they make their homes here and come to represent the country.

I agree with these, and agree that it would be much easier to do than becoming a republic. I'm a way it is kind of surprising it hasn't already been done. You would think a realm as established by ours would have its own branch of the monarchy, especially when the monarch back at home already delegates the bulk of their responsibilities to a representative.

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Did we stop after the first trains, planes and automobiles were created? No. They weren't broken, but we saw ways to improve upon them and advance them. Currently, because of the monarchy, we have stagnated. It's not progress, it's not regression; it's stagnation.

You could argue that the stability of monarchy is better than a republic though. The Scandinavian and Low countries are also monarchies and they're not doing too bad in the long run. Canada, a monarchy where the monarch doesn't even reside in the country, has weathered the recession pretty well. Not very stagnant. Socially, we're very progressive, just like the other northwest European monarchies. (Spain is a bit different.)

I don't really see how we have stagnated because of the monarchy. What kinds of progress would we have as a republic that we don't have now?

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

also, to elaborate on my point about "although possibly should be elected at some point", I said that because the most critical role he or she would play would be interpretation of constitutional law, so I look at the position more like that of a judge, than a politician, and wonder if a public election is the best route. What about a council of former GG's who vote in a new GG?

As I explained above, have Parliament do it. Currently, the Prime Minister suggests someone to the Queen and the Queen appoints the Governor General. Have the Prime Minister, or a committee of all parties in the house, to make suggestions and vote on the best choice, or you could have the Prime Minister mention people and just vote on who would be preferred until someone gets a majority of the vote.

I think Germany does this to appoint their Chancellor.

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Well, he might like to be Queen, but John Baird has called dibs.

Is that a gay joke?

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Indeed. This is how I've often felt about such a scenario. Furthermore, if they were to live in La Citadelle in Quebec City and learn French, it could help to potentially bridge the divide between French and English Canada.

...

I actually had no idea about that. Learn something new every day I suppose. He or any of the actually Canadian members of the Royal Family would get my support for Regent provided they meet the three criteria I listed earlier.

The Queen speaks French (very well, too) and has a strong interest in Canada's aboriginal cultures. She's always considered Canada her "favourite". Another plus for her, but she won't live forever. Charles is much more focused on the UK than the other realms, as William also appears to be. Not being in the direct line of succession is probably why Harry had more time to spend "exploring", and decide that he likes Canada. Elizabeth is from the era when the British Empire was winding down (to put it lightly) so she was well travelled by the time she became Queen. (She was in Africa when it happened.)

[vid]

Elected monarchies exist. The Pope is one. We could put the crown on the head of a Governor General appointed by Parliament.

There! I fixed it!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by vid

Elected monarchies exist. The Pope is one. We could put the crown on the head of a Governor General appointed by Parliament.

There! I fixed it!

Well, except for the constitutional amendment maybe. Good luck with that!

Seriously, in a list of the 10 most serious problems needing attention in the Canadian system of government, the fact that we are a constitutional monarchy would have to be number 11. Focus, people!

[vid]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Well, except for the constitutional amendment maybe. Good luck with that!

I'm sure I could make a convincing argument to get about 1,000 people in 11 legislatures to vote in favour of it within three years.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by vid

I'm sure I could make a convincing argument to get about 1,000 people in 11 legislatures to vote in favour of it within three years.

Good luck. I'd like to see you attempt it!

(Seriously, it would be interesting to see a person spearhead such a movement.)

[jigglysquishy]

I would hate to lose the crown. Its a unique and cool part of our country. If we lose the British monarchy we could start a Canadian one.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by vid

"La Riene est mort. Vive le roi." The position transfers automatically upon death. Prince Charles will become our king before we find out Queen Elizabeth is dead; even before he finds out. That's just how it works.

I am pretty sure a law could be passed to change that, though, and there is a procedure parliament goes through to recognize the new monarch, as well as the coronation later (Elizabeth was Queen almost a year before her coronation).

So I wonder what would be the status if that procedure simply never got put on the list of parliamentary business?

The giant inflatable wiener has legitimacy.

I think you could have chosen a better example than an inflatable wiener. But, honestly, if that Wiener did what the monarchy does for the same price, it might still be a less expensive deal than a republic, and we won't have to figure out who will appoint the government.

I disagree, I think a wiener was the best example ever

But now we have a dilemma one step up from that which I explained about the Prime Minister.

Without a Queen, who appoints the Governor General? Does the Prime Minister retain this power? Do party politics come into play like in a republic or does the role remain non-partisan? (I'd prefer the latter and I think most Canadians would as well.)

Well initially the current process is in all reality the PM is the one who chooses the person, the Queen just agrees, so I wouldn't be opposed to that remaining the process. But yes a committee would be be better. I still would probably oppose a general election ballot, as it should be a position beyond politicking (such as the Speaker of the House).

I don't think it will help too much. If we end up with an anglophone Governor General (or whatever we call the head of state) two times in a row, it will probably cause tension. I suppose we could have two heads of state, one Anglophone and one Francophone, but then you'll probably get Aboriginals upset saying they're not represented and who knows how many heads of state we'll have then. Switzerland, a country with several large ethnic groups (French, German, Italian and Romansch) has seven heads of state.

Please no! haha, and really, in a sense having multiple HoS's would just be a new symbolic divide for the country.

Of course if Wiener was our GG we'd probably fight over ketchup/mustard rather than languages.


Although my preference would be for changes upon the death of QEII, it's probably no that likely until polling indicates that 60-75% of Canadians would support it.

[DizzyEdge]

Some interesting recent polling:

http://royalwedding.globalnews.ca/Ne...keep_Monarchy/

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by vid

The Lieutenant Governor is the head of the executive. You can't "get rid" of that. You can only delegate it to the premier, a position that I think already has too much power vested in it. It could turn a majority premier into a dictator. Those functions will still have to be performed by someone and there will still have to be staff to see to them.

It won't save any money. It will just allocate it to another section of government. It will probably costs even more; I don't know how the government manages to do it, but when they eliminate positions by merging departments they always end up spending more.

Then modernize the function with automatization. Replace the Lieutenant-Governor by an automatic rubber stamp to sign the laws. It will be as useful and more efficient (and will cost a lot less) then the present system.

[Architype]

Be careful what you wish for.


Source

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Indeed. This is how I've often felt about such a scenario. Furthermore, if they were to live in La Citadelle in Quebec City and learn French, .

Language hasn't been much of an issue with GGs. At least not lately. The last GG that did not speak French was Ray Hnatyshyn and his term ended in 1995. All of the others since then have been bilingual, including "anglos" like Clarkson and Johnston.

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

it could help to potentially bridge the divide between French and English Canada.
.

Divide? What divide? There is a divide? Has anyone seen a divide?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by vid

The cost would be in restructuring. Even if we create a law that says "all references too ... are replaced with ...", we're going to have to educate people on the republican equivalents of monarchic positions down the line, when the monarchy becomes a memory.

While I can see your point here, the same would've applied when Canadian became a self-governing Dominion yet we didn't fear that necessary step and the costs involved. Why so fearful of a change to a republic?

The process of becoming a republic will be long and drawn out as well, and that could cause economic instability. We saw that kind of instability with all the elections and political uncertainty over the past seven years; republicanizing could lead to greater uncertainty, especially if the debate drags on for along time or becomes heated.

We don't know for certain that attempting to transition to a republic will be long and drawn out. And how does government debate cause economic instability? If that were the case, we'd be unstable all the time judging from the conduct of MP's on the Hill. Our system allows for such political uncertainty, so it's unfair to say anything would be worse under a republic. Theoretically, we could keep the parliamentary system. It's not that hard to do.

The court currently draws its authority from the crown; land is owned by the crown; government companies are crown corporations; we're going to have to replace the concept of crown. With what? More laws to change.

More like words; replace Crown with State.

I agree with these, and agree that it would be much easier to do than becoming a republic. I'm a way it is kind of surprising it hasn't already been done. You would think a realm as established by ours would have its own branch of the monarchy, especially when the monarch back at home already delegates the bulk of their responsibilities to a representative.

It would be easier to do than becoming a republic and would likely have the support of most Canadians. As for why it hasn't happened yet, no idea. It was still funny to read about the Monarchist Association of Canada's response to Harry being a possible contender "absurd".

You could argue that the stability of monarchy is better than a republic though. The Scandinavian and Low countries are also monarchies and they're not doing too bad in the long run. Canada, a monarchy where the monarch doesn't even reside in the country, has weathered the recession pretty well. Not very stagnant. Socially, we're very progressive, just like the other northwest European monarchies. (Spain is a bit different.)

True, but France and Germany (both Republics) have also done well for themselves; especially Germany. Germany got out of recession faster than we did and their growth is now higher than ours. Even America, for all its faults, is arguably one of the most successful republics in existence.

I don't really see how we have stagnated because of the monarchy. What kinds of progress would we have as a republic that we don't have now?

True nationhood. I mean come on, look at our history; went from a bunch of separate colonies to a self-governing Dominion in 1867. Acquired further domestic powers via the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Created our own flag in 1965. Repatriation of the Constitution in 1982. The last step to true nationhood is to sever the last legal threads tying us with Britain with either our own separate monarchy or by becoming a republic.

The Queen speaks French (very well, too) and has a strong interest in Canada's aboriginal cultures. She's always considered Canada her "favourite".

And this is one of my biggest problems with the monarchy; as you've just clearly illustrated, she's like an outsider looking in. Those things should be a part of her "culture" as our Head of State (who should be born and raised here) instead of what it currently is; some interest in a former colony.

Another plus for her, but she won't live forever. Charles is much more focused on the UK than the other realms, as William also appears to be. Not being in the direct line of succession is probably why Harry had more time to spend "exploring", and decide that he likes Canada. Elizabeth is from the era when the British Empire was winding down (to put it lightly) so she was well travelled by the time she became Queen. (She was in Africa when it happened.)

Well if British monarchs become more and more insular, they risk losing more realms to republicanism.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Language hasn't been much of an issue with GGs. At least not lately. The last GG that did not speak French was Ray Hnatyshyn and his term ended in 1995. All of the others since then have been bilingual, including "anglos" like Clarkson and Johnston.

I was talking about the Royal Family, should some move to Canada and try to establish a properly Canadian regency.

Divide? What divide? There is a divide? Has anyone seen a divide?

I believe it's called the provincial border of Quebec.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I was talking about the Royal Family, should some move to Canada and try to establish a properly Canadian regency.

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.

[vid]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

So I wonder what would be the status if that procedure simply never got put on the list of parliamentary business?

I am sure there is something that requires it to happen for parliamentary business to happen.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Well initially the current process is in all reality the PM is the one who chooses the person, the Queen just agrees, so I wouldn't be opposed to that remaining the process. But yes a committee would be be better. I still would probably oppose a general election ballot, as it should be a position beyond politicking (such as the Speaker of the House).

The Queen does still have the right to disagree, just in case a prime minister abuses the power. It probably won't happen, but you never know.

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Then modernize the function with automatization. Replace the Lieutenant-Governor by an automatic rubber stamp to sign the laws. It will be as useful and more efficient (and will cost a lot less) then the present system.

There is more to the Lieutenant-Governor than royal assent.

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

While I can see your point here, the same would've applied when Canadian became a self-governing Dominion yet we didn't fear that necessary step and the costs involved. Why so fearful of a change to a republic?

The government wasn't as big and complex then, and self-governance is a lot different than reforming the way the government works. Giving a parliament more responsibilities is different from changing how responsibilities
are divided and how the people carrying them out are appointed, especially when a government is as big and complex as ours has become.

In July 1867, the entire government fit within the three Parliament buildings. Now, it employs more people than there are residents of Saskatoon.

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

We don't know for certain that attempting to transition to a republic will be long and drawn out.

But when you look to the past it's the logical assumption.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Keep the monarchy

Change the rule of succesion, so that the crown goes to the first born of the monarch, not necessarily the first male born.

Otherwise, I'm totally fine with it.

If we changed our own succession laws and other countries didn't, maybe we would end up with our own King/Queen that would be different from the British one, as often happened between various kingdoms in the "olden" days?

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by vid

There is more to the Lieutenant-Governor than royal assent.

Yeah! Symbolic stuff that can be done by public servants for much less. And more important, by people nominated by the provinces, not by another level of government, base on a system from another country (actually from a system OF another country. Are we still a colony?).

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Yeah! Symbolic stuff that can be done by public servants for much less. And more important, by people nominated by the provinces, not by another level of government, base on a system from another country (actually from a system OF another country. Are we still a colony?).

I think vid was probably referring to the LG's role in cases of provincial govt crisis and other constitutional roles.

Although that brings up a point, could those roles simply be taken up by the Courts?