Should Canada still see the British Monarch as its own?

[casper]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The idea of having a deceased monarch as our head of state sounds very weird to me. Almost metaphysical.

Other countries or nations have worshipped a deceased "father of the nation" (it's almost always been a male) but not sure that's a good model to emulate.

And even more rarely (if ever) has the deceased person even been at the head of the country anyway. Not even symbolically so.

Even cults of personality recognize that when a person's dead, they are dead and no longer exercising power.

I would look at it differently. We just have not found time to fill the position of King/Queen of Canada. At some point in the future when there are less pressing things we will deal with it. For the time being we can leave her photo up on in on the wall in all those government buildings.

I think the key difference with a cult, is the leader of a cult exercises power, the King/Queen of Canada exercises no power.

I do agree we can't do this with the governor general. That would be a major road block to the functioning of government. But the queen, not an issue at all.

[casper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

As I said earlier, it is literally the North Korean system. Grandpa Kim was the "Eternal President" after he died.

You have to agree it has not interfered in the functioning of government in any way.

The government is as effective today in mistreating and abusing its population as it was during the time of Grandpa Kim. If anything it has become more effective at what it does.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by acottawa

As I said earlier, it is literally the North Korean system. Grandpa Kim was the "Eternal President" after he died.

Yes basically, albeit a very much kinder gentler version of it. It's that whole birthright to be head of state thing. So archaic, regardless if it's just a role nowadays.
Granted a very responsible role, but with tons of privilege and lavishness that tax payers pay or paid for along the way.

[caveat.doctor]

If cost is the issue, then the current setup seems best - simply have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court carry on as the Administrator of the Government, and stick to the essentials of non-partisan head of state duties, like assent to legislation, etc. In fact this very well could be the best set up for having an actual legal expert decide on possible constitutional responsibilities that could happen, like having to decide on proroguing Parliament. (Remember that the Supreme Court itself operates on a majority basis, so having the CJ individually as Administrator doesn't imply that the judiciary has taken over the executive.)

Other ceremonial tasks, like national honours and awards, could be stopped or delivered on a cost-recovery basis (e.g. application or nomination fees, sponsors, etc). We would retain the existing set up with Queen Elizabeth II and heirs as official head of state to avoid the costs of legal changes, changes to symbols, ranks on uniforms, a selection process for a head of state, etc. but curtail any visits and associated spending.

If the issue is having a head of state other than one who is also a head of state of other countries and not living in Canada, I think it would have to be balanced against the benefits of the current set up. The Queen is clearly non-partisan and no Canadian can ever say that she/heirs have a bias or political slant supporting one Canadian group or another. And even if she/heirs did, being non-resident it would not be of any effect day-to-day. I don't think there could be a Canadian, that would be ever above any perception that they could have some bias or be subject to popular pressure in the same way the Queen/heirs are. No one will ever ask the Queen her stance on a Canadian political issue, nor will the Queen ever have an inclination to respond or have something in her past that would imply taking sides and leading to intervention or pressure on our government. Any kind of election or selection of a Canadian opens that door to politicisation; at least with the Queen/heirs as head of state, no one can ever finagle or machinate their way to the role.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The idea of having a deceased monarch as our head of state sounds very weird to me. Almost metaphysical.

I'd prefer to have the Flying Spaghetti Monster as official head of state, if the alternative is a dead person.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

I would look at it differently. We just have not found time to fill the position of King/Queen of Canada. At some point in the future when there are less pressing things we will deal with it. For the time being we can leave her photo up on in on the wall in all those government buildings.

I think the key difference with a cult, is the leader of a cult exercises power, the King/Queen of Canada exercises no power.

I do agree we can't do this with the governor general. That would be a major road block to the functioning of government. But the queen, not an issue at all.

There is an established process. When the Queen dies Charles (or William) becomes King, automatically. Declaring the current monarch (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) our Eternal Queen requires a constitutional amendment, which requires unanimity among provinces.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

. The Queen is clearly non-partisan and no Canadian can ever say that she/heirs have a bias or political slant supporting one Canadian group or another. And even if she/heirs did, being non-resident it would not be of any effect day-to-day. I don't think there could be a Canadian, that would be ever above any perception that they could have some bias or be subject to popular pressure in the same way the Queen/heirs are. No one will ever ask the Queen her stance on a Canadian political issue, nor will the Queen ever have an inclination to respond or have something in her past that would imply taking sides and leading to intervention or pressure on our government. Any kind of election or selection of a Canadian opens that door to politicisation; at least with the Queen/heirs as head of state, no one can ever finagle or machinate their way to the role.

The idea that having someone from another country as the ultimate head of our country is optimal due to them having no skin in the game is kind of mind-boggling to me.

If we follow that logic then the President of France should be Japanese, or the President of Russia should be Congolese?

I realize the UK and Canada have more of a history but still... it seems like a pretty flimsy justification.

I would never disagree that the impact of the current monarch on Canada has been totally benign BTW.

But I don't think that "nothing's ever happened" or even "nothing bad is likely to happen" is proof that it's an optimal set-up either.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There is an established process. When the Queen dies Charles (or William) becomes King, automatically. Declaring the current monarch (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) our Eternal Queen requires a constitutional amendment, which requires unanimity among provinces.

Correct. The constitutional process will be automatic, Charles becomes King of Canada. The main question though, if we wanted to continue with QEII on our coins (inertia, basically), I suppose we could...? There's no constitutional requirement, AFAIK, that it's the current monarch that has to be on the coinage.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Correct. The constitutional process will be automatic, Charles becomes King of Canada. The main question though, if we wanted to continue with QEII on our coins (inertia, basically), I suppose we could...? There's no constitutional requirement, AFAIK, that it's the current monarch that has to be on the coinage.

My guess is that this is correct and we could do this.

When I was kid in the 70s I remember seeing on extremely rare occasions Canadian coins in my pocket with King George on them.

Though I am positive that when he died and the Queen took over in 1952(?) that Canada switched over immediately.

I'd also add that there is probably nothing legally or constitutionally obliging Canada to have the monarch on its coins (or stamps) at all.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But I don't think that "nothing's ever happened" or even "nothing bad is likely to happen" is proof that it's an optimal set-up either.

Well, let's look at a couple of alternatives.

1) - the GG becomes head of state, but is appointed by the PM of the day. This means the GG "owes" the PM for his job and might just be a party hack or a stooge or a flunky. As such, if the PM gets up to some shenanigans, the GG might very well look the other way.

2) - an elected ceremonial president replaced the GG. Since he is elected, the odds are that he will be a partisan, likely elected at the same time as the PM, and from the same party. Again, he is not really dispassionate regarding the government of the day, and would likely be more than willing to cut the government considerable slack, even in the face of egregious wrongdoing.

Given these scenarios, a system where a hereditary head of state exists to oversee the government, divorced from political realities doesn't seem so bad, especially if their representative in country ( the GG) is chosen by an impartial committee.

Think of the GG as a form of ombudsman, wose job it is to make sure the government doesn't step out of bounds.

[biguc]

Many European presidents are appointed figureheads.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Well, let's look at a couple of alternatives.

1) - the GG becomes head of state, but is appointed by the PM of the day. This means the GG "owes" the PM for his job and might just be a party hack or a stooge or a flunky. As such, if the PM gets up to some shenanigans, the GG might very well look the other way.

2) - an elected ceremonial president replaced the GG. Since he is elected, the odds are that he will be a partisan, likely elected at the same time as the PM, and from the same party. Again, he is not really dispassionate regarding the government of the day, and would likely be more than willing to cut the government considerable slack, even in the face of egregious wrongdoing.

Given these scenarios, a system where a hereditary head of state exists to oversee the government, divorced from political realities doesn't seem so bad, especially if their representative in country ( the GG) is chosen by an impartial committee.

Think of the GG as a form of ombudsman, wose job it is to make sure the government doesn't step out of bounds.

The latter set-up as highlighted is possible even without the presence at the top of a British-born monarch based in London.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The latter set-up as highlighted is possible even without the presence at the top of a British-born monarch based in London.

True, but I would like to point out that the monarch does not have citizenship. The Queen is not British - she is Britain. She is the embodiment of the state.

Similarly, the Queen does not have Canadian citizenship - she is Canada. This is her function as Queen of Canada.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by biguc

Many European presidents are appointed figureheads.

Are you sure about that? Most are elected by some sort of electoral college if they aren’t directly elected.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Hecate

It wouldn’t be that easy. Only if the stakeholders of the treaties agree to entertain a continued partnership with the republic of Canada, which they’d have very little reason to, would that happen. You’d definitely see a push for sovereignty amongst many indigenous nations. You’d see the breakup of Canada.

Pretty much.

Any removal of the monarchy in Canada would require all provincial and federal consent in all houses of government in this country. This has never happened and will never happen. Canada will sooner break apart then remove the monarchy from its governmental system.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I've always been a supporter of keeping the Royal Family, largely for tradition and the tourism aspect (at least in Ottawa, with Rideau Hall, Changing of the Guard, and so on).

At this point though, seeing how archaic the institution is, and how Meaghan is treated like garbage by much of the institution, some of the Royal Family and the media, while that pedophile Andrew is left alone, maybe it is time to break from tradition. I would recommend the same for all Commonwealth Countries, the U.K. included. The Commonwealth can continue if there are benefits, but without the Royal Family.

On the interview, I think the Queen comes out looking pretty good compared to the institution and other members. For the "concerns" about Archie's colour before he was born, that is straight up racist. I mean, Harry is as white as can be and I would never know Meaghan was black had it not been for the media and internet. There's no way any child of them would turn out black, and even if it was possible, if one cares, they are racist, plain and simple.

I do think that Meaghan is probably a little dramatic, but we've seen how Diana was treated before her. We've seen how the media treats Meaghan compared to Kate. She's not imagining or inventing the whole thing, clearly.

Canada should start the process of breaking-up from the monarchy, mostly to make a point. If we get ahead of the game, it might be possible to make a clean break as soon as the Queen passes away. I think she's proven she deserves some respect and a certain amount of loyalty. Not so much for the rest.

LOL, if you're going to make wholesale constitutional changes, don't make it based on the words of a narcissistic, self-serving manipulator and her clueless naif of a husband.

We've already seen obvious lies in their story, that Charles refused to continued to pay for their security in Canada when in fact it was Canada that said it wouldn't continue to pay. It is clear that they are merely trying to shake down the Windsors for for more cash to fund their B-list celebrity lifestyle. And at a time his grandfather is hospitalized natch.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The idea that having someone from another country as the ultimate head of our country is optimal due to them having no skin in the game is kind of mind-boggling to me.

...

But I don't think that "nothing's ever happened" or even "nothing bad is likely to happen" is proof that it's an optimal set-up either.

The alternatives all open the door to having someone who has skin in the game and is liable to interfere - or at the very least, be perceived to, which is just as much of the issue. Germany might be the best Western example of what should be a reasonable expectation of an elected figurehead president staying above the fray, but
it happens there too.

Are you saying that it's less likely that a Canadian in the role would ever take sides for/against a government, than the Queen/heirs? You and I might disagree on how likely that is to happen with a Canadian on the throne (given national and global political trends, I think it's very likely), but even if it wasn't, I'd use your own argument: "I don't think that 'nothing bad is likely to happen' is proof that it [would be] an optimal set-up either."

Originally Posted by Acajack

The latter set-up as highlighted ("a system where a hereditary head of state exists to oversee the government, divorced from political realities doesn't seem so bad, especially if their representative in country ( the GG) is chosen by an impartial committee. Think of the GG as a form of ombudsman, wose job it is to make sure the government doesn't step out of bounds") is possible even without the presence at the top of a British-born monarch based in London.

(I'll assume in good faith that "British-born" isn't really your issue, as the "based in London" part - if you're going down the road to say that immigrants wouldn't be eligible in an alternative system, then that's another point of discussion entirely.) Sure, it's possible, but as we've seen with PM Trudeau and dissolving the GG nomination committee, in-house processes can be easily undone. It opens the door to politicisation and interference over the status quo - and for what improvement?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

(I'll assume in good faith that "British-born" isn't really your issue, as the "based in London" part - if you're going down the road to say that immigrants wouldn't be eligible in an alternative system, then that's another point of discussion entirely.)

You're correct. It's more someone living abroad permanently, and who's actually never even lived in Canada.

I don't care if a naturalized immigrant becomes our head of state, and in fact we've had a few GGs born abroad.

I've always said that there aren't two classes of citizens. And I am also opposed to the "we're all immigrants" here schtick as well. Anyone born here isn't an immigrant.

[shreddog]

here's an idea for an "easy" transition.

Canada removes reference to the Crown as being the HoS and entrenches that role explicitly in the GG.

As set up under Harpo, an "impartial" committee reviews GG candidates and makes a recommendation of 3 or 5 individuals (when a new GG is required). The provincial Premiers select their preferred GG using a ranked ballot. If there is a tie, the 3 Territorial leaders will be required to provide their ranked ballots.

Head of SCC identifies the preferred GG and "anoints" them however they serve at the "pleasure" of the entire SSC - that is, if the SSC decides, they can remove a GG.

The GG serves for 7 years, no extensions. Same role and responsibilities as today expect that the GG has been "selected" by the people via the Premier surrogates without the inflated sense of being elected and therefore will have a muted sense of power. A mix of Premiers will ensure that the GG is as least partisan as possible.

We get a GG that can still manage the PM is limited ways, they are more accountable to Canadians but without feeling like they have a mandate.

[Acajack]

I also liked the idea of having a panel of Order of Canada members (companions, whatever) involved in the process at some point.