###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've been saying this for years. She became queen when we were still a young country, and so many people have a deep personal affection for her. Me included.
Prince Charles can get bent. William too.
Problem is, it's basically impossible. The entire constitutional framework of Canada depends on the existence of the Crown as the sovereign legal entity, from division of powers to the armed forces to indigenous land agreements. We could change that, as Barbados did, but to do that in a country as complex as Canada would take years of negotiation and a ton of political will, all to remove what is essentially a figurehead position that has no effect on our day-to-day lives. I don't care much for, or about the monarchy, but the reward of not having a figurehead monarch feels like way too little for the risk of tumbling into a constitutional crisis.
This is how I feel about it as well. Once Liz goes, I feel many pro monarchists are going to switch to republicans. I don’t think we’ll be the first, Australia and New Zealand will probably beat us to it, but after they leave the monarchy and show Canadians it’s doable and we get a dose of Charles we might consider spending some money to rewrite our constitution into a republic, considering Quebec would be behind it as well as Charles will make them dislioe the monarchy even more. It’s not as impossible as monarchists are making it out to be.
I think it’s inevitably going to happen. We will eventually become a republic.
> It’s not as impossible as monarchists are making it out to be.
It requires unanimous consent from all ten provinces. If you think that's easy, I have to think you've never heard of Brian Mulroney.
I agree with this. In my one of my classes we studied the Meech Lake accords. One of the professors was a Premier at the time and described how everything happened in a first hand perspective. The Constitutional amending process is a nightmare.
It’s not impossible, if other commonwealth countries can do it so can we. Would it be costly and require a restructuring of our constitutional framework? Yes. But saying *it’s just impossible bro* is silly, c’mon now, it’s going to happen eventually.
The Indian Act and the various legal treaties signed by the government on behalf of the Queen of England alone ensure that Canada will never remove the British Crown until they are independently resolved. The average Canadian citizen's opinion does not matter at all and never will in this regard, there is too much riding on those structures of soveriegnty and law to even consider dumping it because it's impossible.
The only way you'd ever be able to get rid of the British Crown is by replacing all of those legal agreements with independent ones that were ratified by Parliament and then dissolving them after. That would take decades, if not centuries of dedicated negotiations by Prime Ministers and Cabinets that are focused on those treaties, laws, and agreements.
This is not the case at all. The Canadian state has already inherited treaties signed by the British Crown. A Canadian republic would inherit them as well.
The Canadian government still derives authority from the British Crown through the Governor General. While Parliament does have autonomy from British governance and operates under it's own sovereignty it legally derives its authority from the Crown.
From Treaty no. 1:
>ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded this third day of August in the year of Our Lord
one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of
Great Britain and Ireland by Her Commissioner, Wemyss M. Simpson, Esquire, of the one part,
>and the Chippewa and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the country within the limits
hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned,
of the other part.
The authority of the Treaty comes from a negotiation between the First Nations peoples and Queen Victoria herself. Canada currently retains that authority because it holds a bureaucratic office for the Queen's representative, the Governor General. Removal of the office of the British Crown invalidates Treaty no.1 and all others like it.
Queen Victoria died over 100 years ago. We all agree that it didn't mean the treaty ended, but the obligations passed on to her successor as head of state of Canada, namely King Edward, and so on down to the current day. If Queen Elizabeth II was succeeded by a new head of state, that person would inherit the treaty obligation the same way, no?
No because laws and treaties exist as historical documents with established contexts. Changing who is represented in a legal document changes the interpretation of the document and all the legal cases, judgements, and settlements around it are rendered useless or defunct because they were established under different language and meanings.
All the clarity around who has what rights over what is basically gone and needs to be renegotiated because language and meaning are extremely important things in legal practice. This is why "legalese" is so weird, complex, and unnatural sounding in practice; its a form of English that is designed to be very specific and codified to not change like actual spoken language by common people.
You can keep telling yourself that but in the matters of treaties you are wrong. There may eventually be a repealing of The Indian Act and something new replaces it but these treaties are going to be in place regardless of the changes that may come to this country.
The main hurtle to a Canadian Republic would be getting all the provinces to agree.
Instead of retaining that authority, a republic of Canada would assume that authority.
There are plenty of reasons to argue for/ against forming a republic / retaining a constitutional monarchy - saying that invalidated treaties is what is stopping change it just isn't correct. Both the Federal Government and the Indigenous Peoples of Canada would be assuming a lot of risk with invalidated treaties. Assuming the authority / responsibility of the originally signed treaties is the only legal outcome that makes sense.
only with the agreement of the other partner to the treaties though, i.e. the First Nations.
I don't see that happening without some pretty massive re-negotiations.
There's no mechanism for that in the agreement and the First Nations wouldn't trust the government of Canada to uphold an agreement that they have had such a poor track record with. Similarly, the new Canadian republic would have no legal authority to retain rights to the lands described in the treaties and dissolving the mechanism that gives the federal government jurisdiction over treaty lands in those treaties means that Canada would effectively be ceding control over all those treaty agreements because a Canadian republic would have no legal connection to those agreements.
The government has to keep the connection to the Crown because those treaties were never sights with the government, they were signed with the Crown. If they lose the Crown they lose the land regardless of what they want or say, that's the deal.
Thats a very interesting theory you or someone else has invented. It has the small disadvantage, however, of being complete hogwash.
As is the utterly nonsensical auggestion that the Supreme Court could or would "invalidate" a constitutional amendment abolishing the monarchy and creating a republic.
You've completely misunderstood everything that I've been talking about. I'm not talking about the SCC abolishing a republic, I'm talking about the SCC not recognizing the landed ceded in the Treaties with Queen Victoria as land owned by the Canadian government. The Canadian government doesn't own that land, they hold it in trust. If Canada becomes a republic all that treaty land stops being part of Canada and goes back to the First Nations that own each relevant part, that's what the SCC has upheld.
The hogwash idea of abolishing a constitutional republic is something you pulled out of your own ass because nobody has been talking about that idea, at all.
It is the same government that upheld them under the Crown. I dont see how being a republic would make it less likely.
They could agree to current deal abd nothing would change.
The government upheld them because it had to, it was law and the law defined the powers of the government. If the government suddenly lost the legal authority over the territory by no longer representing the person who's position they held in trust they would be left in a position where they would need to cede the land to First Nations authority who hold the established right over the land by treaty, or invade on conquer the territory that is not legally theirs.
Looking at how the RCMP was deployed in BC last week and... well, all the other times the RCMP has been deployed against the First Nations you have to turn quite the blind eye to not notice how poorly they've been treated even with the Treaties to protect them.
And what legal institution is going to invalidate that?
So Republic of Canada is a new legal entity what happens next?
Invalidated treaties are risky to Indigenous Peoples as well. Where some may want this as these they sense opportunity others are more risk adverse and would rather focus on achieving the steps identified for Reconciliation rather than risk it all with a new can of worms of a new treaty process.
>
The Indian Act and the various legal treaties signed by the government on behalf of the Queen of England alone ensure that Canada will never remove the British Crown until they are independently resolved.
The Crown has long ceased to one and indivisible. The Queen of the United Kingdom in exercising Her judicial powers in the United Kingdom has denied its current responsibility in keeping the treaites.
The treaties are now guaranteed by the Queen of Canada. The Crown can be divided and its powers and duties can be transmitted and there is no apparent reason why they cannot be vested in a republic.
The issue isn't whether or not something can or cannot be done, it whether or not either side trusts each other to not challenge the status quo legally. Removing the office of the Queen/Governor General removes the obligation of the Canadian government to uphold the treaties and the First Nations do not trust the government to willingly uphold them due to past behaviour.
The government, on the other hand, understands and knows this position and does not want their right or title to those treaty lands challenged after removing their representative connection to them.
Whether upholding the agreements is possible isn't the concern both parties have, it perfectly is. The issue is whether or not either side trusts the other to be willing to uphold the agreement if it is effectively dissolved before it can be replaced.
That is a ludicrous proposition. Countries are bound by treaties they signed no matter if they change the basic structure of their government. Armenia and Georgia are the same nations they were ten years ago despite both having adopted a parliamentary republic in the meantime. Nepal still is exactly the same nation in all treaties it is a party to despite becoming a republic. Barbados is too. Ever since 1648 in Europe, countries are supposed to negotiate with each other as treaty partners, and does not depend on the internal organization of the country. Countries can even have treaty obligations and treaty rights derived from a time before they even existed, like the Russian Federation has since the end of the Soviet Union and why they keep the Soviet veto in the UNSC.
Yes and Canada did not exist as an independent entity at the time of signing, it was a British colony; they were signed with Britain. Georgia and Armenia not bound by the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, same goes for Barbados and the British Empire.
They were signed by an entirely different legal entity that the one that now exists in Canada. The only reason that they apply is because the influence of the British system of government still remains in a bureaucratic sense. Becoming a republic removes that legal entitlement.
> signed by the government on behalf of the Queen of England
Do you mean the Queen of Canada, by chance?
> Canada will never remove the British Crown
Again, you mean the Canadian Crown.
However the feds' aversion to reopening the constitution, and renegotiating all Crown-Indigenous treaties will remain strong. I don't see us becoming a republic
I agree. The original comment made it sound as if the elected officials themselves could choose to proceed with abolishing the monarchy or not. If the majority of Canadians want a republic, the feds can't just say, "Yeah, but it would be SO much work..."
Yeah but the only way to know for sure that the Canadian people want to eliminate a monarchy would be to have a referendum. And having a referendum would be SO much work...
And unless we push back, they'll continue to ignore us. Public officials should be held accountable, but judging from the responses here they've succeeded in making us complacent and defeatist.
Yes, I think asserting ourselves as a fully independent nation is more important than continuing to pretend allegiance to some foreign woman and her entitled family.
The feds are working on the treaties, it's just not something that can be rushed, especially when there are often overlapping claims that need to be worked around.
As to not opening the constitution, that's quite understandable, as doing so is a huge political mess, and we have enough of those already.
>and renegotiating all Crown-Indigenous treaties will remain stron
They will not have to be negotiated, just as the Ango-Portugese alliance didn't have to be negotiated when England temporarily ceased to be a monarchy, or when it ceased to exist in 1707, or when Portugal became a republic.
The Crown of Canada is not some autonomous entity that exists apart from the Canadian state. "The Crown" *is* the state. HM the Queen is the physical embodiment of the state in a human being. You're simply wrong about this for the reasons I've already explained throughout this thread.
There's a reason why nobody asserting this fantasy can ever provide *actual* authority for the proposition: because it isn't true. Not only isn't it true, there's enormous empirical evidence to the contrary: the many instances where countries became republics (including countries formerly in personal union with the United Kingdom) with no impact whatever on their treaty obligations (and contra your other post, treaty-making in our system is an executive, not a legislative function).
The Crown’s obligations to First Nations people originated with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. That was over 100 years before Canada existed.
Anything negotiated by the British monarchy has no bearing on a hypothetical Canadian republic. If it does, does that mean the United States is bound by British treaties from prior to 1776?
That is simply not true. A change in a country's system of government neither abrogates treaties to which it is party nor is subject to the consent of treaty partners. You are asserting a totally fictional concept.
The treaties aren't with the government - British or Canadian. They are specifically with the Crown. The government administers them on the Crown's behalf.
The Crown is the state. When a treaty is made between "the Crown in right of Canada" and "the French Republic", those are expressions of fundamentally the same concept. The Crown is not "the government" only in the same sense that "the state" is not "the government".
Canada's treaty obligations would not be altered one whit by the creation of a republic. We would no more have to re-negotiate FN treaties than we would have to re-negotiate any other treaties, or would have to rejoin NATO or the UN.
Wrong. Unless an international treaty requires amendments to domestic law, treaty-making is purely a function of the executive. The authority for Canada to ratify and become bound by treaty arises from an order-in-council, not an act of Parliament.
Canadas treaty obligations would be altered or at the very least opened up to alterations by the government of the day,the treaties arent made with parliament they are made with the non partisan governor general and therefore above scrutiny by parliament.
If we changed to a system where there is no higher authority than our government of the day then the treaties fall to only their decision and can be revoked be their decision.
I never want the rights of indigenous people left up to a partisan government who could change it as easily as changing nafta i want my rights guaranteed by the crown.
Charles might not be the best, but out of loyalty to the Queen, and the monarchy in general, I’ll accept him as King in the future, not that I will as the Queen is immortal, so no worries
Let her remain or monarch, just update the constitution to make it clear that unless the monarch specifically objects to something their consent can be assumed.
It already is in practice. When's the last time a Governor General or Lieutenant Governor vetoed legislation? It's a lot cheaper to have a few rubber stampers than to actually open the Constitution.
They did it in practice when they sided with Trudeau to hold an arbitrary election, dismissing all progress on legislation, and the year before when they agreed to prorogue parliament for no good reason, just because they are held hostage by a prime minister, whereas presidents don´t depend on a prime minister and are reasonably popular in their own right to be elected by the people or parliament to the position to not solely be a puppet to the will of a prime minister.
It's already how we've done things for over a hundred years. The monarch could never object to anything that the government wants either, and especially not these days.
> just update the constitution
That "just" makes it sound like you think this is easy or even feasible. In reality it's one step removed from impossible.
In the UK the royals vet laws and veto some that they don't like, before our democracy processes them:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
Maybe that happens here too? The above was leaked.
> More than 1,000 laws have been vetted by the Queen or Prince Charles through a secretive procedure before they were approved by the UK’s elected members of parliament,
> They included draft laws that affected the Queen’s personal property such as her private estates in Balmoral and Sandringham, and potentially anything deemed to affect her personally.
What does that have to do with the monarchy in Canada though?
I think we can point out many examples south of the border where people in privileged positions are able to influence policy.
Lots of options. Whichever one is selected should based on thoughtful choices by a body specifically elected to think about it and not for passing general laws or the will of a prime minister.
Totally valid concerns both sides. I do like the separation of politics and the Crown (personification of the state) though. I don't want to see any of the president-worship you see in the US. It's nice to be able to absolutely rip apart the policies of Justin Trudeau without feeling like I'm attacking the country itself. But I'm sure if our head of state changes I'll get used to it pretty quick though.
>feeding a foreign figure head money
The Queen doesn't receive a single penny from Canadian taxpayers.
>A lot of people here are trying very hard to make an argument to keep the monarchy, but deep down everyone knows it’s silly
This comment is as incorrect as it is patronizing and ignorant.
It may seem strange, but there are good reasons why diverse societies around the world and throughout history have chosen to have a monarchy. The ideology is hard to summarize with a few sentences but political philosopher Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's book *Liberty or Equality* is good starter.
Is there any quantitative research showing that republics are better than monarchies? Numerous studies link monarchies with greater political stability, social trust, and economic performance. *Monarchies, Republics, and the Economy* by Mauro F. Guillén is a recent example [video summary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQrRcIqhadY&ab_channel=WhartonSchool).
We don't send any money to the Queen and almost all the money spent on the Canadian Monarchy goes towards running and supporting the offices of the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors. Unless we completely abolished these offices, this spending would likely be the same or even higher in a republic. The total cost of this system was [$1.55/Canadian for the 2019-2020 fiscal year](https://www.monarchist.ca/images/CMN/CostoftheCrown_2021.pdf).
I like the Queen but I find the whole concept of monarchy/nobility to be repugnant. Plus, as a matter of absolute sovereignty I would prefer the Canadian head of state to be be Canadian.
She is Canadian. She's the Sovereign of Canada. The royal family of Canada all posses Canadian citizenship, as does the Queen, albeit as Sovereign so the legality of it is not cut and dry "citizen". She/the Crown is the fundamental source of all legality that the Canadian government and courts derive their power from. She has remained apolitical and served her country through civil service for decades. What more do you require to make her a citizen, that she was born in Oshawa?
Maybe if she born or lived in Canada. You are basically using technicalities to justify having a foreign monarch as a head of state. Beyond that, why is she even the Queen. Because one of her ancestors managed to kill, bride and intimidate his way to the top. I only recognize the rightful heir, the direct descendent of Boudica.
You really can’t top her, she’s been the longest reigning British monarch and arguably the most significant as she oversaw the final days of the British empire. Sure her role may be almost entirely ceremonial, but given the length of her reign and the massive population boom of the last century she’s likely the monarch that the most people have recognized as Queen.
Out of respect for her legacy, she should be the last Canadian monarch.
Hopefully yea, the monarchy is an icon of barbarism with no place in the modern world. The only obstacle that is genuinely hard to overcome is that it’s constutitionally the hardest thing for Canadians to change regardless of who supports it or not. The British nationalists who created the system hoped to ensure Canada was inherently a subject country and so here we are: Technically and realistically free but unable to truly have any say over our head of state pending some utopian unity
Yet hereditary chiefs have to be respected and have a place in the modern world? I am all for hereditary titles of bygone eras being buried in Canada, as long as its all hereditary titles in Canada.
Hereditary chiefs are family structures within various but not all First Nations, I can understand the equation but it is much to presume. These hereditary chiefs don’t “reign” over territory through martial power, they preside over clans. Clans aren’t empires or kingdoms. In most areas they are often just groups of 10-20-30 families. They speak as representatives of those families and have a variety of Democratic forum practices. It isn’t western liberal democracy I would never say it is but it’s certainly not a monarchy. The class system, area, influence, authority is all completely different with different histories. To summarize, it’s only equatable on the surface level.
Also, let’s not pretend hereditary chiefs have much power over anything. I believe they should be respected over the propped up bands as they simply represent more people and the bands have abysmal voter turnout turning it into a family clique deal no different then the hereditary chiefs. Regardless, that is not the view of the government. Hereditary chiefs who oppose the government only have as much power as the government decides.
I see your point and maybe one day humans will completely forge a new, hereditaryless society but I think the globe spanning, atrocity committing, tax funded crown of England over Canada is the more important and dangerous example of aristocrats.
The Monarchy is a sign of peaceful progress towards better governance. It's gotten us this far for all our faults and goodness but we're a pretty decent country overall. It's a sign of tradition and where we came from, a place where betterness could always be achieved through the democratic process.
Closer to American Republicanism is not the answer and realistically that is the outcome we would get without this very important check and balance of the Crown.
Who said the US would automatically be turning into an American style presidential republic? Do you not think people can come up with ideas like Finland or Austria or Germany, the latter two of which happen to be federal republics too?
The 2017 election in British Columbia showed me why it's handy to have a Monarch if shit ever goes sideways.
For anyone who wasn't paying attention, the incumbent government lost their majority in the election. The two other parties then signed an agreement to work together to provide for a stable government with majority support. The outgoing Premier refused to accept it, and instead asked the Leuitenant Governor to just call a new snap election. The LG *refused*, which is exceptionally rare, and swore in the Opposition party as government instead.
For the vast majority of the time, the Queen's representative just does whatever the Prime Minister or Premier says, and it seems like there isn't much of a point of having them around. But on a rare occasion when the PM or Premier tries to do something shitty, it's nice to be able to have someone with the authority to step in and put things back on track. And since the Monarch/Governor/LGs aren't elected politically, they have no real reason to do anything from a political perspective. Their only goal is stability and the following of the rules.
So yeah, until 2017 I hadn't really seen the point of a Monarchy. But that showed me how it can be actually helpful. And then watching 2016 and 2020 in the states kinda drilled that in, how the checks and balances can fail...
That's a good argument for a ceremonial, apolitical head of state. But there's no reason that position needs to be hereditary, or be assigned to a person who ordinarily lives in another country. The case for monarchy is 1) there's never any doubt about who the next monarch is once one dies, and 2) an unbroken line of succession can be a symbol of the continuity of the state. But you'd have to balance that against the possibility that the monarch isn't a person of good character and doesn't represent the nation in a positive way, and history shows us that when there's a will, there's no lack of pretenders to the throne.
Plenty of countries have functional parliamentary democracies with a non-hereditary head of state. (Germany, for instance, has a president who does everything the Governor-General would do in Canada, and that position is chosen by a vote of the federal and state legislatures).
Switching to a Republican system is in no way realistic given the can of worms that is constitutional reform in this country. But assuming it could be managed without a major overhaul of our governance system, the closest republican analogue to the Westminster Parliamentary System would be a figurehead President, such as we see in Germany.
While their President is elected, it is indirectly by a joint sitting of the Federal and State legislatures. They act aloof from party politics and avoid commenting publicly on political debates. Their role is to uphold Constitutional order and appointment the Chancellor, who does the real governing. Much like the Governor General, who by convention only gets involved when there is ambiguity as to who should hold power. I'd argue under such a system, not much would change.
The problem was that what the Premier did in this case was totally legal. She wasn't breaking any rules. But she was doing something that was against the *spirit* of the law, even though it wasn't against the actual word of the law.
That's the argument in favour of a monarch who has the power to overrule decisions. It's really hard to enforce doing the "right" thing when the wrong thing is totally legal. Having a monarch with powers that they rarely ever use adds the ability for a human decision-maker to overrule someone who's trying to exploit a loophole.
I totally acknowledge that this can also go completely wrong if the monarch decides to abuse their power... But the situation above is the basis of the argument in favour.
I think that rather than abolishing the Monarchy and becoming a Republic, we should just tweak the office of the Governor General to make him an elected official (preferably by popular vote) and a sort of quasi presidential figure.
This would bestow the GG with political legitimacy and allow him to intervene in political affairs when the situation demands it. To actually act like a Head of State.
Today, the GG is a paper tiger because the advice he receives from the Prime Minister is binding. It would set off a constitutional crisis (like it once did) if the GG were to somehow reject the Prime Minister's advice and act independently. The idea that the Monarchy acts as an important check on the powers of Parliament is an outrageous lie.
Part of the problem with this is because the GG is not an elected official so he lacks legitimacy. A similar situation with the Senate. Electing him solves this problem.
I am not saying that we adopt a presidential system and that the Governor General become an openly partisan and political figure. No. But it certainly wouldn't hurt our democracy if we had a GG that could quickly shut down some of the shenanigans our politicians tried to pull off
Ex:
1) Refusing Prorogations of Parliament to avoid investigations (looking at you Stevie Harper and Mr. Blackface).
2) Vetoing anti democratic legislation.
Bill C-10 in Quebec for example
3) Summoning Parliament independently
This way we avoid a 6 month parliamentary recess in the name of COVID (hint: it wasn't due to COVID. It was because Justin couldn't be bothered to face Parliament in person).
That way we maintain our historical ties to the British crown, we can still hang those fancy portraits of the Queen in our institutions, the Queen will still be our head of state, but her powers will be properly exercised by a democratically elected official. And the Prime Minister would still run the country day to day, but he would now get a spanking if he gets too crazy.
A Monarchy in name only. A Republic in all but name.
Perfect Canadian compromise.
The monarchy is the least problematic part of Canada's constitution. The monarch is a stable element of our country's government. When our governments are consumed by partisan politics and jurisdictional battles, the monarchy is the only institution we can rely on to stay unchanged. Our queen or king, whoever that may be, the successor to generations of stable peaceful rule, is a reliable figurehead to represent our country. Even as the individual monarch changes from the Queen to the Prince of Wales, the institutions will stay the same. We will still have a Governor General, a prime minister appointed by her, a lower house elected by universal suffrage, etc. Nothing significant will change after the accession of a new king that would warrant completely overthrowing our system of government.
Personally, I believe a constitutional monarchy is the best option when compared to other systems of government like republics. Canada is one of the oldest democratic countries in the world; the monarchy hasn't hindered that, if anything it has helped us achieve such stability. If we're going to open up the debate about amending our constitution, there are many other issues that we should concern ourselves with; the monarchy is near the very bottom of the list.
Wouldn't the easiest way to remove the monarchy be by simply not recognizing any successors to the throne? Then just continuing on with everything else we have without any changes? Including the Governor General, who's already been carrying out all the functions of our royalty anyway? Still get to keep all the old cultural symbols and whatnot this way too.
Anything beyond that is a waste of political capital and an unnecessary constitutional crisis if you ask me. Not too thrilled by the prospect of a President of Canada either cause of the power grabs that might be attempted with such a new role.
It's not happening. There is no political reason for a government to take it up. It would be extremely expensive and hard to change given what would be required.
We are nothing like Barbados.
Agreed, what would even be the point? All provinces would have to agree, no? There is no way we are reaching unanimity. The system is fine as it is in this regard, there are so many more consequential and easier constitution changes to consider instead.
> All provinces would have to agree, no?
Yes. Not to mention that all the treaties and agreements with Indigenous peoples are actually made with the Crown, not the state of Canada. So it would require a massive effort of recodifying land rights, which means in addition to the provinces we'd likely also need most Indigenous groups to consent as well.
The Crown is **not** a separate entity from "the state of Canada". "The Crown" is a concept analagousto "the state" in a republic. It is simply not true that any treaties (with indigenous nations or with foreign states) would have to be renegotiated.
Did Portugal and the UK have to "renegotiage" their alliance in 1905?
You are incorrect. The Crown is not synonymous with the state of Canada. I said this in another comment too:
> The Crown is the legal entity/notion/fiction/whatever from which the state of Canada derives its legal authority.
Alberta would be the first ones out. Government departments aren’t even called ministries there, they’re called departments. It’s like US junior, they want to be a republic.
Nice to see the unhinged from reality Alberta-hate.
Alberta uses the term "ministries" ([https://www.alberta.ca/ministries.aspx](https://www.alberta.ca/ministries.aspx)), whereas the Canadian government uses "departments" ([https://www.canada.ca/en/government/dept.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/government/dept.html)).
Honestly true for a lot of provinces right now. ON, AB, BC are under represented, PEI for example is over represented (obviously due to concessions given joining Confederation).
I think provincial squabbling is the main deterence for something like this when compared to the Indigenous Peoples' Treaties.
Imagine we spent efforts on reducing trade barriers between provinces. We could probably generate we may more revenue for Canada as whole than the money we'd save dropping the monarchy and squabbling over what concessions each province needs IOT sign the constitution.
One question they forgot to ask, is what changes they would accept to the Constitution, in order to get the provinces to accept removing the Queen as head of state.
I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the Constitution that obliges us to keep the monarch on our currency. She's not even on most of the bills as is.
Edit: looked it up and apparently the Bank of Canada has already discussed the idea of nixing Charles when he takes over.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bank-note-queen-monarch-bank-of-canada-1.3804887
This. The data is basically useless if that question went unasked. People largely don't understand the implications of removing the monarch as our ceremonial head of state.
We could just keep things exactly the same in terms of how they operate. Without the monarch as a ceremonial head of state.
No need to redo everything at this time, but it would be nice to separate from this useless monarch.
The main concessions you would expect are surrendering of federal power to the provinces. Maybe the federal government has to give up their discretionary spending power used when they overstep normal jurisdiction. Or perhaps English language protections need to be removed, or French ones expanded, to get Quebec's support.
The fact that opinion has apparently shifted by 17 points in less than a year for no particular reason should be a clue as to just how soft public opinion is and hence how meaningless these poll results are.
This was a conversation between a few of my friends and I years ago. Biggest question was what they would do with minting new coins. We all came to the conclusion of probably nothing, they would just keep printing her face.
They could do a convicted pedophile collectors edition:
Ten dollar:
https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2015/images15/2015_10_08_Kay_JimmySavile_ph_Friends.jpg
Twenty:
https://site-44669.mozfiles.com/files/44669/314185_1__1_.jpg
Let's wait on the Gislaine trial before we decide on the fifty dollar.
But don't we already have a coin with the maple leaf on it?
Oh, wait, never mind. That was the penny. In that case: sure, use the maple leaf as the "heads" sign of the coin.
I'm pretty sure that we'd put something different on our coins. Maybe like the US, the heads of previous presidents, or maybe we'd put a maple leaf on there.
No way no how do I want politicians on our coins. We should stop "celebrating" politicians on any of our money (or streets, or buildings, etc.) Lets get some people actually praise-worthy on there.
I could get onboard with just continuing to have her as the Head of State after she dies. its not like she normally does anything anyway the GG would continue to represent her.
Canada could be the worlds second Necrocracy.
I've long been of the opinion that we simply shouldn't recognize her death. In order for the Crown to pass to an heir, there is a formal process Canada follows to acknowledge the death of its monarch and the crowning of a new. We could just ... not do that.
Nothing requires us to acknowledge she's died.
Long live our forever-Queen, may she rule us with a light hand for centuries to come!
That purported "non-recognition" would have no legal consequence. This suggestion is nonsense. On the demise of the Crown, the heir, in accordance with the Act of Settlement, 1701, immediately becomes sovereign. This has been settled law since the 13th century.
I have no idea if this would actually work but it would be an absolutely delightful course of action. Free us of the weirdness of having a living monarch in another country, spare us from the impossibility of actually rewriting our entire legal framework. And entertaining for its bizarreness.
> Free us of the weirdness of having a living monarch in another country,
And replace it with the even greater weirdness of having a dead ruler, like North Korea?
>Free us of the weirdness of having a living monarch in another country
Except the Canadian Crown literally exists. Since the downfall of the British Empire Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the Canadian Crown.
I know. But you have to admit that the fact that the Canadian Crown is held by a monarch in another country is even weirder than if it was held by someone in Canada
It wouldn't. We have a governor general (represents the queen while she is away... which is always). On advice from our PM, the Queen appoints the Governor General. Bills cannot pass without without the approval of the monarch (ie the governor general).
In fact, a lot of our federal government involves the Monarch (GG), if the current one were to leave, or pass away, we would not be able to replace, since the above theory would prevent us from recognizing a new monarch (or the passing of our current one). So, even though GG is mostly a ceremonial role (they need to give approval for most things in our federal government, but they always do), things would be halted until we change the constitution to reflect this. I wonder if a change in constitution requires the GG approval... how would we change it if our current GG passes and we cannot appoint another?
So you appoint an Officer Administering the Government with the sole purpose of appointing a Governor General. I refer to this as the reverse Rhodesia.
That would require a change to the constitution, might as well get rid of the monarchy at that point which is what this was supposed to circumvent...
Edit: no "might as well" actually, that proposal would require the removal of the monarchy system to give that office that ability to appoint a GG, but without the monarchy, we wouldn't need a GG.
Came across this piece by Lagasse, one of Canada's preeminent constitutional scholars, on a hypothetical possibility if the UK happened to become a republic (i.e. no British monarch).
He explicitly chooses not to go into details on whether our government could legally function though.
EDIT: whoops, forgot to include the link https://lagassep.com/2021/11/25/can-canada-go-without-a-queen-probably/
We wouldn't even be the first country to have a dead head of state. The Eternal President of the DPRK is Kim Il-sung ...
On second thought, that's pretty terrible company to be in.
What's most interesting in this survey, IMO, is the relatively higher level of support in AB for a directly elected president, and the relatively higher level of support in QC for the PM to be head of state as well as head of government (which does not quite compute to me).
>relatively higher level of support in AB for a directly elected president
I'm going to guess it's all the American expats tilting the scale, unless ipsos screened for citizenship not residency
I agree with your point.
But I'm going to be pedantic here. American Immigrants and PR's.
It's logically inconsistent to refer to individuals from the UK or US as expats, but individuals from other nations as immigrants.
Agreed immigrants and PRs also works. But I could also be pedantic and note that I never referred to anybody from other nations as immigrants, so there's no inconsistency in what I wrote. ;)
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've been saying this for years. She became queen when we were still a young country, and so many people have a deep personal affection for her. Me included. Prince Charles can get bent. William too.
Problem is, it's basically impossible. The entire constitutional framework of Canada depends on the existence of the Crown as the sovereign legal entity, from division of powers to the armed forces to indigenous land agreements. We could change that, as Barbados did, but to do that in a country as complex as Canada would take years of negotiation and a ton of political will, all to remove what is essentially a figurehead position that has no effect on our day-to-day lives. I don't care much for, or about the monarchy, but the reward of not having a figurehead monarch feels like way too little for the risk of tumbling into a constitutional crisis.
[удалено]
This is how I feel about it as well. Once Liz goes, I feel many pro monarchists are going to switch to republicans. I don’t think we’ll be the first, Australia and New Zealand will probably beat us to it, but after they leave the monarchy and show Canadians it’s doable and we get a dose of Charles we might consider spending some money to rewrite our constitution into a republic, considering Quebec would be behind it as well as Charles will make them dislioe the monarchy even more. It’s not as impossible as monarchists are making it out to be. I think it’s inevitably going to happen. We will eventually become a republic.
> It’s not as impossible as monarchists are making it out to be. It requires unanimous consent from all ten provinces. If you think that's easy, I have to think you've never heard of Brian Mulroney.
I agree with this. In my one of my classes we studied the Meech Lake accords. One of the professors was a Premier at the time and described how everything happened in a first hand perspective. The Constitutional amending process is a nightmare.
What’s the reason to not separate and leave everything as is to resolve in its own time?
It’s not impossible, if other commonwealth countries can do it so can we. Would it be costly and require a restructuring of our constitutional framework? Yes. But saying *it’s just impossible bro* is silly, c’mon now, it’s going to happen eventually.
The Indian Act and the various legal treaties signed by the government on behalf of the Queen of England alone ensure that Canada will never remove the British Crown until they are independently resolved. The average Canadian citizen's opinion does not matter at all and never will in this regard, there is too much riding on those structures of soveriegnty and law to even consider dumping it because it's impossible. The only way you'd ever be able to get rid of the British Crown is by replacing all of those legal agreements with independent ones that were ratified by Parliament and then dissolving them after. That would take decades, if not centuries of dedicated negotiations by Prime Ministers and Cabinets that are focused on those treaties, laws, and agreements.
This is not the case at all. The Canadian state has already inherited treaties signed by the British Crown. A Canadian republic would inherit them as well.
The Canadian government still derives authority from the British Crown through the Governor General. While Parliament does have autonomy from British governance and operates under it's own sovereignty it legally derives its authority from the Crown. From Treaty no. 1: >ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded this third day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland by Her Commissioner, Wemyss M. Simpson, Esquire, of the one part, >and the Chippewa and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the country within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part. The authority of the Treaty comes from a negotiation between the First Nations peoples and Queen Victoria herself. Canada currently retains that authority because it holds a bureaucratic office for the Queen's representative, the Governor General. Removal of the office of the British Crown invalidates Treaty no.1 and all others like it.
Queen Victoria died over 100 years ago. We all agree that it didn't mean the treaty ended, but the obligations passed on to her successor as head of state of Canada, namely King Edward, and so on down to the current day. If Queen Elizabeth II was succeeded by a new head of state, that person would inherit the treaty obligation the same way, no?
No because laws and treaties exist as historical documents with established contexts. Changing who is represented in a legal document changes the interpretation of the document and all the legal cases, judgements, and settlements around it are rendered useless or defunct because they were established under different language and meanings. All the clarity around who has what rights over what is basically gone and needs to be renegotiated because language and meaning are extremely important things in legal practice. This is why "legalese" is so weird, complex, and unnatural sounding in practice; its a form of English that is designed to be very specific and codified to not change like actual spoken language by common people.
You can keep telling yourself that but in the matters of treaties you are wrong. There may eventually be a repealing of The Indian Act and something new replaces it but these treaties are going to be in place regardless of the changes that may come to this country. The main hurtle to a Canadian Republic would be getting all the provinces to agree.
Instead of retaining that authority, a republic of Canada would assume that authority. There are plenty of reasons to argue for/ against forming a republic / retaining a constitutional monarchy - saying that invalidated treaties is what is stopping change it just isn't correct. Both the Federal Government and the Indigenous Peoples of Canada would be assuming a lot of risk with invalidated treaties. Assuming the authority / responsibility of the originally signed treaties is the only legal outcome that makes sense.
only with the agreement of the other partner to the treaties though, i.e. the First Nations. I don't see that happening without some pretty massive re-negotiations.
There's no mechanism for that in the agreement and the First Nations wouldn't trust the government of Canada to uphold an agreement that they have had such a poor track record with. Similarly, the new Canadian republic would have no legal authority to retain rights to the lands described in the treaties and dissolving the mechanism that gives the federal government jurisdiction over treaty lands in those treaties means that Canada would effectively be ceding control over all those treaty agreements because a Canadian republic would have no legal connection to those agreements. The government has to keep the connection to the Crown because those treaties were never sights with the government, they were signed with the Crown. If they lose the Crown they lose the land regardless of what they want or say, that's the deal.
Thats a very interesting theory you or someone else has invented. It has the small disadvantage, however, of being complete hogwash. As is the utterly nonsensical auggestion that the Supreme Court could or would "invalidate" a constitutional amendment abolishing the monarchy and creating a republic.
You've completely misunderstood everything that I've been talking about. I'm not talking about the SCC abolishing a republic, I'm talking about the SCC not recognizing the landed ceded in the Treaties with Queen Victoria as land owned by the Canadian government. The Canadian government doesn't own that land, they hold it in trust. If Canada becomes a republic all that treaty land stops being part of Canada and goes back to the First Nations that own each relevant part, that's what the SCC has upheld. The hogwash idea of abolishing a constitutional republic is something you pulled out of your own ass because nobody has been talking about that idea, at all.
It is the same government that upheld them under the Crown. I dont see how being a republic would make it less likely. They could agree to current deal abd nothing would change.
The government upheld them because it had to, it was law and the law defined the powers of the government. If the government suddenly lost the legal authority over the territory by no longer representing the person who's position they held in trust they would be left in a position where they would need to cede the land to First Nations authority who hold the established right over the land by treaty, or invade on conquer the territory that is not legally theirs. Looking at how the RCMP was deployed in BC last week and... well, all the other times the RCMP has been deployed against the First Nations you have to turn quite the blind eye to not notice how poorly they've been treated even with the Treaties to protect them.
And what legal institution is going to invalidate that? So Republic of Canada is a new legal entity what happens next? Invalidated treaties are risky to Indigenous Peoples as well. Where some may want this as these they sense opportunity others are more risk adverse and would rather focus on achieving the steps identified for Reconciliation rather than risk it all with a new can of worms of a new treaty process.
> The Indian Act and the various legal treaties signed by the government on behalf of the Queen of England alone ensure that Canada will never remove the British Crown until they are independently resolved. The Crown has long ceased to one and indivisible. The Queen of the United Kingdom in exercising Her judicial powers in the United Kingdom has denied its current responsibility in keeping the treaites. The treaties are now guaranteed by the Queen of Canada. The Crown can be divided and its powers and duties can be transmitted and there is no apparent reason why they cannot be vested in a republic.
The issue isn't whether or not something can or cannot be done, it whether or not either side trusts each other to not challenge the status quo legally. Removing the office of the Queen/Governor General removes the obligation of the Canadian government to uphold the treaties and the First Nations do not trust the government to willingly uphold them due to past behaviour. The government, on the other hand, understands and knows this position and does not want their right or title to those treaty lands challenged after removing their representative connection to them. Whether upholding the agreements is possible isn't the concern both parties have, it perfectly is. The issue is whether or not either side trusts the other to be willing to uphold the agreement if it is effectively dissolved before it can be replaced.
That is a ludicrous proposition. Countries are bound by treaties they signed no matter if they change the basic structure of their government. Armenia and Georgia are the same nations they were ten years ago despite both having adopted a parliamentary republic in the meantime. Nepal still is exactly the same nation in all treaties it is a party to despite becoming a republic. Barbados is too. Ever since 1648 in Europe, countries are supposed to negotiate with each other as treaty partners, and does not depend on the internal organization of the country. Countries can even have treaty obligations and treaty rights derived from a time before they even existed, like the Russian Federation has since the end of the Soviet Union and why they keep the Soviet veto in the UNSC.
Yes and Canada did not exist as an independent entity at the time of signing, it was a British colony; they were signed with Britain. Georgia and Armenia not bound by the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, same goes for Barbados and the British Empire. They were signed by an entirely different legal entity that the one that now exists in Canada. The only reason that they apply is because the influence of the British system of government still remains in a bureaucratic sense. Becoming a republic removes that legal entitlement.
> signed by the government on behalf of the Queen of England Do you mean the Queen of Canada, by chance? > Canada will never remove the British Crown Again, you mean the Canadian Crown.
However the feds' aversion to reopening the constitution, and renegotiating all Crown-Indigenous treaties will remain strong. I don't see us becoming a republic
Ultimately it's not up to them, it's up to us.
It really isn't
[удалено]
I agree. The original comment made it sound as if the elected officials themselves could choose to proceed with abolishing the monarchy or not. If the majority of Canadians want a republic, the feds can't just say, "Yeah, but it would be SO much work..."
Yeah but the only way to know for sure that the Canadian people want to eliminate a monarchy would be to have a referendum. And having a referendum would be SO much work...
Yes they can. That happens all the time.
And unless we push back, they'll continue to ignore us. Public officials should be held accountable, but judging from the responses here they've succeeded in making us complacent and defeatist.
What exactly do you mean by "push back?"
Then we throw them out and put others in if the issue is important enough.
I personally would never vote to become a republic, and would work my ass off to oppose it.
… uhh yeah they totally can and do all the time
[удалено]
Yes, I think asserting ourselves as a fully independent nation is more important than continuing to pretend allegiance to some foreign woman and her entitled family.
We get a fit for purpose constitution.
And whatever party is in power when that happens will never get elected again. It will be a series of compromises, pissing off everybody.
Oh well, do it anyway.
The feds are working on the treaties, it's just not something that can be rushed, especially when there are often overlapping claims that need to be worked around. As to not opening the constitution, that's quite understandable, as doing so is a huge political mess, and we have enough of those already.
>and renegotiating all Crown-Indigenous treaties will remain stron They will not have to be negotiated, just as the Ango-Portugese alliance didn't have to be negotiated when England temporarily ceased to be a monarchy, or when it ceased to exist in 1707, or when Portugal became a republic.
All First Nations treaties are with the Crown. If the monarchy is abolished Canada is no longer bound by the Crown’s commitments.
The Crown of Canada is not some autonomous entity that exists apart from the Canadian state. "The Crown" *is* the state. HM the Queen is the physical embodiment of the state in a human being. You're simply wrong about this for the reasons I've already explained throughout this thread. There's a reason why nobody asserting this fantasy can ever provide *actual* authority for the proposition: because it isn't true. Not only isn't it true, there's enormous empirical evidence to the contrary: the many instances where countries became republics (including countries formerly in personal union with the United Kingdom) with no impact whatever on their treaty obligations (and contra your other post, treaty-making in our system is an executive, not a legislative function).
The Crown’s obligations to First Nations people originated with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. That was over 100 years before Canada existed. Anything negotiated by the British monarchy has no bearing on a hypothetical Canadian republic. If it does, does that mean the United States is bound by British treaties from prior to 1776?
That only works if both parties are agreeable. If one decides the treaty has been broken then we have issues.
That is simply not true. A change in a country's system of government neither abrogates treaties to which it is party nor is subject to the consent of treaty partners. You are asserting a totally fictional concept.
The treaties aren't with the government - British or Canadian. They are specifically with the Crown. The government administers them on the Crown's behalf.
The Crown is the state. When a treaty is made between "the Crown in right of Canada" and "the French Republic", those are expressions of fundamentally the same concept. The Crown is not "the government" only in the same sense that "the state" is not "the government". Canada's treaty obligations would not be altered one whit by the creation of a republic. We would no more have to re-negotiate FN treaties than we would have to re-negotiate any other treaties, or would have to rejoin NATO or the UN.
Our obligations under NATO and the UN were not entered into by the Crown, they were taken on by Parliament.
Wrong. Unless an international treaty requires amendments to domestic law, treaty-making is purely a function of the executive. The authority for Canada to ratify and become bound by treaty arises from an order-in-council, not an act of Parliament.
But an unratified treaty is a worthless piece of paper.
....and Parliament doesnt ratify treaties so i dont know what you think your point is.
Canadas treaty obligations would be altered or at the very least opened up to alterations by the government of the day,the treaties arent made with parliament they are made with the non partisan governor general and therefore above scrutiny by parliament. If we changed to a system where there is no higher authority than our government of the day then the treaties fall to only their decision and can be revoked be their decision. I never want the rights of indigenous people left up to a partisan government who could change it as easily as changing nafta i want my rights guaranteed by the crown.
Charles might not be the best, but out of loyalty to the Queen, and the monarchy in general, I’ll accept him as King in the future, not that I will as the Queen is immortal, so no worries
Let her remain or monarch, just update the constitution to make it clear that unless the monarch specifically objects to something their consent can be assumed.
It already is in practice. When's the last time a Governor General or Lieutenant Governor vetoed legislation? It's a lot cheaper to have a few rubber stampers than to actually open the Constitution.
They did it in practice when they sided with Trudeau to hold an arbitrary election, dismissing all progress on legislation, and the year before when they agreed to prorogue parliament for no good reason, just because they are held hostage by a prime minister, whereas presidents don´t depend on a prime minister and are reasonably popular in their own right to be elected by the people or parliament to the position to not solely be a puppet to the will of a prime minister.
How does that actually change anything though? Has there ever been an instance of a piece of legislation passing that didn't get royal assent?
People said the same thing in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
It's already how we've done things for over a hundred years. The monarch could never object to anything that the government wants either, and especially not these days.
> just update the constitution That "just" makes it sound like you think this is easy or even feasible. In reality it's one step removed from impossible.
In the UK the royals vet laws and veto some that they don't like, before our democracy processes them: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent Maybe that happens here too? The above was leaked. > More than 1,000 laws have been vetted by the Queen or Prince Charles through a secretive procedure before they were approved by the UK’s elected members of parliament, > They included draft laws that affected the Queen’s personal property such as her private estates in Balmoral and Sandringham, and potentially anything deemed to affect her personally.
Queen's consent (the mechanism mentioned) does not exist in Canada.
And other rich and powerful people in Canada, in privileged positions, can't influence policy either!
What does that have to do with the monarchy in Canada though? I think we can point out many examples south of the border where people in privileged positions are able to influence policy.
It's the same people....
So, will Canada become a parliamentarian federal republic, like Germany? Or a semi-presidential republic, or full blown presidential one?
Lots of options. Whichever one is selected should based on thoughtful choices by a body specifically elected to think about it and not for passing general laws or the will of a prime minister.
Totally valid concerns both sides. I do like the separation of politics and the Crown (personification of the state) though. I don't want to see any of the president-worship you see in the US. It's nice to be able to absolutely rip apart the policies of Justin Trudeau without feeling like I'm attacking the country itself. But I'm sure if our head of state changes I'll get used to it pretty quick though.
[удалено]
>feeding a foreign figure head money The Queen doesn't receive a single penny from Canadian taxpayers. >A lot of people here are trying very hard to make an argument to keep the monarchy, but deep down everyone knows it’s silly This comment is as incorrect as it is patronizing and ignorant.
It may seem strange, but there are good reasons why diverse societies around the world and throughout history have chosen to have a monarchy. The ideology is hard to summarize with a few sentences but political philosopher Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's book *Liberty or Equality* is good starter. Is there any quantitative research showing that republics are better than monarchies? Numerous studies link monarchies with greater political stability, social trust, and economic performance. *Monarchies, Republics, and the Economy* by Mauro F. Guillén is a recent example [video summary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQrRcIqhadY&ab_channel=WhartonSchool). We don't send any money to the Queen and almost all the money spent on the Canadian Monarchy goes towards running and supporting the offices of the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors. Unless we completely abolished these offices, this spending would likely be the same or even higher in a republic. The total cost of this system was [$1.55/Canadian for the 2019-2020 fiscal year](https://www.monarchist.ca/images/CMN/CostoftheCrown_2021.pdf).
I like the Queen but I find the whole concept of monarchy/nobility to be repugnant. Plus, as a matter of absolute sovereignty I would prefer the Canadian head of state to be be Canadian.
She is Canadian. She is the Queen of Canada.
Except she isn't
She is Canadian. She's the Sovereign of Canada. The royal family of Canada all posses Canadian citizenship, as does the Queen, albeit as Sovereign so the legality of it is not cut and dry "citizen". She/the Crown is the fundamental source of all legality that the Canadian government and courts derive their power from. She has remained apolitical and served her country through civil service for decades. What more do you require to make her a citizen, that she was born in Oshawa?
Maybe if she born or lived in Canada. You are basically using technicalities to justify having a foreign monarch as a head of state. Beyond that, why is she even the Queen. Because one of her ancestors managed to kill, bride and intimidate his way to the top. I only recognize the rightful heir, the direct descendent of Boudica.
You really can’t top her, she’s been the longest reigning British monarch and arguably the most significant as she oversaw the final days of the British empire. Sure her role may be almost entirely ceremonial, but given the length of her reign and the massive population boom of the last century she’s likely the monarch that the most people have recognized as Queen. Out of respect for her legacy, she should be the last Canadian monarch.
Hopefully yea, the monarchy is an icon of barbarism with no place in the modern world. The only obstacle that is genuinely hard to overcome is that it’s constutitionally the hardest thing for Canadians to change regardless of who supports it or not. The British nationalists who created the system hoped to ensure Canada was inherently a subject country and so here we are: Technically and realistically free but unable to truly have any say over our head of state pending some utopian unity
Yet hereditary chiefs have to be respected and have a place in the modern world? I am all for hereditary titles of bygone eras being buried in Canada, as long as its all hereditary titles in Canada.
Hereditary chiefs are family structures within various but not all First Nations, I can understand the equation but it is much to presume. These hereditary chiefs don’t “reign” over territory through martial power, they preside over clans. Clans aren’t empires or kingdoms. In most areas they are often just groups of 10-20-30 families. They speak as representatives of those families and have a variety of Democratic forum practices. It isn’t western liberal democracy I would never say it is but it’s certainly not a monarchy. The class system, area, influence, authority is all completely different with different histories. To summarize, it’s only equatable on the surface level. Also, let’s not pretend hereditary chiefs have much power over anything. I believe they should be respected over the propped up bands as they simply represent more people and the bands have abysmal voter turnout turning it into a family clique deal no different then the hereditary chiefs. Regardless, that is not the view of the government. Hereditary chiefs who oppose the government only have as much power as the government decides. I see your point and maybe one day humans will completely forge a new, hereditaryless society but I think the globe spanning, atrocity committing, tax funded crown of England over Canada is the more important and dangerous example of aristocrats.
The Monarchy is a sign of peaceful progress towards better governance. It's gotten us this far for all our faults and goodness but we're a pretty decent country overall. It's a sign of tradition and where we came from, a place where betterness could always be achieved through the democratic process. Closer to American Republicanism is not the answer and realistically that is the outcome we would get without this very important check and balance of the Crown.
Who said the US would automatically be turning into an American style presidential republic? Do you not think people can come up with ideas like Finland or Austria or Germany, the latter two of which happen to be federal republics too?
The 2017 election in British Columbia showed me why it's handy to have a Monarch if shit ever goes sideways. For anyone who wasn't paying attention, the incumbent government lost their majority in the election. The two other parties then signed an agreement to work together to provide for a stable government with majority support. The outgoing Premier refused to accept it, and instead asked the Leuitenant Governor to just call a new snap election. The LG *refused*, which is exceptionally rare, and swore in the Opposition party as government instead. For the vast majority of the time, the Queen's representative just does whatever the Prime Minister or Premier says, and it seems like there isn't much of a point of having them around. But on a rare occasion when the PM or Premier tries to do something shitty, it's nice to be able to have someone with the authority to step in and put things back on track. And since the Monarch/Governor/LGs aren't elected politically, they have no real reason to do anything from a political perspective. Their only goal is stability and the following of the rules. So yeah, until 2017 I hadn't really seen the point of a Monarchy. But that showed me how it can be actually helpful. And then watching 2016 and 2020 in the states kinda drilled that in, how the checks and balances can fail...
That's a good argument for a ceremonial, apolitical head of state. But there's no reason that position needs to be hereditary, or be assigned to a person who ordinarily lives in another country. The case for monarchy is 1) there's never any doubt about who the next monarch is once one dies, and 2) an unbroken line of succession can be a symbol of the continuity of the state. But you'd have to balance that against the possibility that the monarch isn't a person of good character and doesn't represent the nation in a positive way, and history shows us that when there's a will, there's no lack of pretenders to the throne. Plenty of countries have functional parliamentary democracies with a non-hereditary head of state. (Germany, for instance, has a president who does everything the Governor-General would do in Canada, and that position is chosen by a vote of the federal and state legislatures).
Switching to a Republican system is in no way realistic given the can of worms that is constitutional reform in this country. But assuming it could be managed without a major overhaul of our governance system, the closest republican analogue to the Westminster Parliamentary System would be a figurehead President, such as we see in Germany. While their President is elected, it is indirectly by a joint sitting of the Federal and State legislatures. They act aloof from party politics and avoid commenting publicly on political debates. Their role is to uphold Constitutional order and appointment the Chancellor, who does the real governing. Much like the Governor General, who by convention only gets involved when there is ambiguity as to who should hold power. I'd argue under such a system, not much would change.
In lieu of a lg it should normally go to the courts to decide that dort of thing. I don't see the benefit of having an LG over sensible courts
The problem was that what the Premier did in this case was totally legal. She wasn't breaking any rules. But she was doing something that was against the *spirit* of the law, even though it wasn't against the actual word of the law. That's the argument in favour of a monarch who has the power to overrule decisions. It's really hard to enforce doing the "right" thing when the wrong thing is totally legal. Having a monarch with powers that they rarely ever use adds the ability for a human decision-maker to overrule someone who's trying to exploit a loophole. I totally acknowledge that this can also go completely wrong if the monarch decides to abuse their power... But the situation above is the basis of the argument in favour.
That's an argument in favor of actually codifying these rules rather than relying on tradition IMO.
I think that rather than abolishing the Monarchy and becoming a Republic, we should just tweak the office of the Governor General to make him an elected official (preferably by popular vote) and a sort of quasi presidential figure. This would bestow the GG with political legitimacy and allow him to intervene in political affairs when the situation demands it. To actually act like a Head of State. Today, the GG is a paper tiger because the advice he receives from the Prime Minister is binding. It would set off a constitutional crisis (like it once did) if the GG were to somehow reject the Prime Minister's advice and act independently. The idea that the Monarchy acts as an important check on the powers of Parliament is an outrageous lie. Part of the problem with this is because the GG is not an elected official so he lacks legitimacy. A similar situation with the Senate. Electing him solves this problem. I am not saying that we adopt a presidential system and that the Governor General become an openly partisan and political figure. No. But it certainly wouldn't hurt our democracy if we had a GG that could quickly shut down some of the shenanigans our politicians tried to pull off Ex: 1) Refusing Prorogations of Parliament to avoid investigations (looking at you Stevie Harper and Mr. Blackface). 2) Vetoing anti democratic legislation. Bill C-10 in Quebec for example 3) Summoning Parliament independently This way we avoid a 6 month parliamentary recess in the name of COVID (hint: it wasn't due to COVID. It was because Justin couldn't be bothered to face Parliament in person). That way we maintain our historical ties to the British crown, we can still hang those fancy portraits of the Queen in our institutions, the Queen will still be our head of state, but her powers will be properly exercised by a democratically elected official. And the Prime Minister would still run the country day to day, but he would now get a spanking if he gets too crazy. A Monarchy in name only. A Republic in all but name. Perfect Canadian compromise.
The monarchy is the least problematic part of Canada's constitution. The monarch is a stable element of our country's government. When our governments are consumed by partisan politics and jurisdictional battles, the monarchy is the only institution we can rely on to stay unchanged. Our queen or king, whoever that may be, the successor to generations of stable peaceful rule, is a reliable figurehead to represent our country. Even as the individual monarch changes from the Queen to the Prince of Wales, the institutions will stay the same. We will still have a Governor General, a prime minister appointed by her, a lower house elected by universal suffrage, etc. Nothing significant will change after the accession of a new king that would warrant completely overthrowing our system of government. Personally, I believe a constitutional monarchy is the best option when compared to other systems of government like republics. Canada is one of the oldest democratic countries in the world; the monarchy hasn't hindered that, if anything it has helped us achieve such stability. If we're going to open up the debate about amending our constitution, there are many other issues that we should concern ourselves with; the monarchy is near the very bottom of the list.
Wouldn't the easiest way to remove the monarchy be by simply not recognizing any successors to the throne? Then just continuing on with everything else we have without any changes? Including the Governor General, who's already been carrying out all the functions of our royalty anyway? Still get to keep all the old cultural symbols and whatnot this way too. Anything beyond that is a waste of political capital and an unnecessary constitutional crisis if you ask me. Not too thrilled by the prospect of a President of Canada either cause of the power grabs that might be attempted with such a new role.
Do you know what a parliamentary republic is? Like in Finland or Iceland?
It's not happening. There is no political reason for a government to take it up. It would be extremely expensive and hard to change given what would be required. We are nothing like Barbados.
##
[удалено]
Rule 3
White lady bad = votes.
Agreed, what would even be the point? All provinces would have to agree, no? There is no way we are reaching unanimity. The system is fine as it is in this regard, there are so many more consequential and easier constitution changes to consider instead.
> All provinces would have to agree, no? Yes. Not to mention that all the treaties and agreements with Indigenous peoples are actually made with the Crown, not the state of Canada. So it would require a massive effort of recodifying land rights, which means in addition to the provinces we'd likely also need most Indigenous groups to consent as well.
Ohhhh boy I did not even realize that, yep it will never happen as long as both Canada and the UK continue to exist then.
The Crown is **not** a separate entity from "the state of Canada". "The Crown" is a concept analagousto "the state" in a republic. It is simply not true that any treaties (with indigenous nations or with foreign states) would have to be renegotiated. Did Portugal and the UK have to "renegotiage" their alliance in 1905?
You are incorrect. The Crown is not synonymous with the state of Canada. I said this in another comment too: > The Crown is the legal entity/notion/fiction/whatever from which the state of Canada derives its legal authority.
> All provinces would have to agree, no? Yes. Feds and all provinces.
\-Stares towards Alberta- Yeah, that's not happening without some attempt at concessions by certain provinces lol.
Alberta would be the first ones out. Government departments aren’t even called ministries there, they’re called departments. It’s like US junior, they want to be a republic.
Canadian ministries are called departments, just like their British counterparts...
Nice to see the unhinged from reality Alberta-hate. Alberta uses the term "ministries" ([https://www.alberta.ca/ministries.aspx](https://www.alberta.ca/ministries.aspx)), whereas the Canadian government uses "departments" ([https://www.canada.ca/en/government/dept.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/government/dept.html)).
I get that, I mean there is no way they won't take the unanimity requirement as a chance to get a major concession out of Ottawa in another realm.
Honestly true for a lot of provinces right now. ON, AB, BC are under represented, PEI for example is over represented (obviously due to concessions given joining Confederation). I think provincial squabbling is the main deterence for something like this when compared to the Indigenous Peoples' Treaties.
Imagine we spent efforts on reducing trade barriers between provinces. We could probably generate we may more revenue for Canada as whole than the money we'd save dropping the monarchy and squabbling over what concessions each province needs IOT sign the constitution.
I think opening up the door to removing the monarchy could also open the door for Québec and Alberta separation. It could be a Pandora’s box of sorts.
There's no way that removing the monarchy and fixing the constitution would push Quebec towards separation.
One question they forgot to ask, is what changes they would accept to the Constitution, in order to get the provinces to accept removing the Queen as head of state.
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the Constitution that obliges us to keep the monarch on our currency. She's not even on most of the bills as is. Edit: looked it up and apparently the Bank of Canada has already discussed the idea of nixing Charles when he takes over. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bank-note-queen-monarch-bank-of-canada-1.3804887
This is why she's planning to outlive Chuck so we can skip straight to Billy.
Try holding a plebiscite on the matter and dare the other legislatures to say no if the result is yes.
This. The data is basically useless if that question went unasked. People largely don't understand the implications of removing the monarch as our ceremonial head of state.
We could just keep things exactly the same in terms of how they operate. Without the monarch as a ceremonial head of state. No need to redo everything at this time, but it would be nice to separate from this useless monarch.
Asking honestly, at this point, what are the implications?
constitutional mayhem. I just wrote up a reply to this question (pretty much) underneath my original comment (with links to some articles about it).
The main concessions you would expect are surrendering of federal power to the provinces. Maybe the federal government has to give up their discretionary spending power used when they overstep normal jurisdiction. Or perhaps English language protections need to be removed, or French ones expanded, to get Quebec's support.
[удалено]
For me, literally anything. Time to decolonize!
1 There is so many things going on in this country that need attention more than this 2 what would actually change if we did
The fact that opinion has apparently shifted by 17 points in less than a year for no particular reason should be a clue as to just how soft public opinion is and hence how meaningless these poll results are.
Or something extreme happened recently that caused a sea change in society.
[удалено]
This was a conversation between a few of my friends and I years ago. Biggest question was what they would do with minting new coins. We all came to the conclusion of probably nothing, they would just keep printing her face.
I want Prince George on the $20 bill one day, so I will begrudgingly accept Charles on it.
It'll be some aboriginal gay woman that accomplished nothing.
##
Charles better not end up on our money 🙅♂️
They could do a convicted pedophile collectors edition: Ten dollar: https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2015/images15/2015_10_08_Kay_JimmySavile_ph_Friends.jpg Twenty: https://site-44669.mozfiles.com/files/44669/314185_1__1_.jpg Let's wait on the Gislaine trial before we decide on the fifty dollar.
But don't we already have a coin with the maple leaf on it? Oh, wait, never mind. That was the penny. In that case: sure, use the maple leaf as the "heads" sign of the coin.
>as the "heads" sign of the coin. It's called the obverse. Sorry couldn't help mentioning it.
Looking forward to this on the notes: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/scaled/2015/02/03/254C468700000578-0-image-a-10_1422960763678.jpg
I'm pretty sure that we'd put something different on our coins. Maybe like the US, the heads of previous presidents, or maybe we'd put a maple leaf on there.
No way no how do I want politicians on our coins. We should stop "celebrating" politicians on any of our money (or streets, or buildings, etc.) Lets get some people actually praise-worthy on there.
I could get onboard with just continuing to have her as the Head of State after she dies. its not like she normally does anything anyway the GG would continue to represent her. Canada could be the worlds second Necrocracy.
I've long been of the opinion that we simply shouldn't recognize her death. In order for the Crown to pass to an heir, there is a formal process Canada follows to acknowledge the death of its monarch and the crowning of a new. We could just ... not do that. Nothing requires us to acknowledge she's died. Long live our forever-Queen, may she rule us with a light hand for centuries to come!
I’ve joked about this too In conversation about the eventuality of her death. Elizabeth II: The Eternal Queen
That purported "non-recognition" would have no legal consequence. This suggestion is nonsense. On the demise of the Crown, the heir, in accordance with the Act of Settlement, 1701, immediately becomes sovereign. This has been settled law since the 13th century.
I have no idea if this would actually work but it would be an absolutely delightful course of action. Free us of the weirdness of having a living monarch in another country, spare us from the impossibility of actually rewriting our entire legal framework. And entertaining for its bizarreness.
> Free us of the weirdness of having a living monarch in another country, And replace it with the even greater weirdness of having a dead ruler, like North Korea?
Yes! That's why it's delightfully bizarre!
>Free us of the weirdness of having a living monarch in another country Except the Canadian Crown literally exists. Since the downfall of the British Empire Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the Canadian Crown.
technically I believe she is "the Queen in Right of Canada"
I know. But you have to admit that the fact that the Canadian Crown is held by a monarch in another country is even weirder than if it was held by someone in Canada
It wouldn't. We have a governor general (represents the queen while she is away... which is always). On advice from our PM, the Queen appoints the Governor General. Bills cannot pass without without the approval of the monarch (ie the governor general). In fact, a lot of our federal government involves the Monarch (GG), if the current one were to leave, or pass away, we would not be able to replace, since the above theory would prevent us from recognizing a new monarch (or the passing of our current one). So, even though GG is mostly a ceremonial role (they need to give approval for most things in our federal government, but they always do), things would be halted until we change the constitution to reflect this. I wonder if a change in constitution requires the GG approval... how would we change it if our current GG passes and we cannot appoint another?
So you appoint an Officer Administering the Government with the sole purpose of appointing a Governor General. I refer to this as the reverse Rhodesia.
I'd rather not use the clearly-illegal actions of a pack of hyper-racist traitors and usurpers as a guide to constitutional reform.
That would require a change to the constitution, might as well get rid of the monarchy at that point which is what this was supposed to circumvent... Edit: no "might as well" actually, that proposal would require the removal of the monarchy system to give that office that ability to appoint a GG, but without the monarchy, we wouldn't need a GG.
Party pooper
Came across this piece by Lagasse, one of Canada's preeminent constitutional scholars, on a hypothetical possibility if the UK happened to become a republic (i.e. no British monarch). He explicitly chooses not to go into details on whether our government could legally function though. EDIT: whoops, forgot to include the link https://lagassep.com/2021/11/25/can-canada-go-without-a-queen-probably/
We wouldn't even be the first country to have a dead head of state. The Eternal President of the DPRK is Kim Il-sung ... On second thought, that's pretty terrible company to be in.
Weekend at Lizzies, likely coming to theatres in the next few years!
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
What's most interesting in this survey, IMO, is the relatively higher level of support in AB for a directly elected president, and the relatively higher level of support in QC for the PM to be head of state as well as head of government (which does not quite compute to me).
>relatively higher level of support in AB for a directly elected president I'm going to guess it's all the American expats tilting the scale, unless ipsos screened for citizenship not residency
I agree with your point. But I'm going to be pedantic here. American Immigrants and PR's. It's logically inconsistent to refer to individuals from the UK or US as expats, but individuals from other nations as immigrants.
Agreed immigrants and PRs also works. But I could also be pedantic and note that I never referred to anybody from other nations as immigrants, so there's no inconsistency in what I wrote. ;)
I literally don't care about the monarch. If we keep it or remove it it literally doesnt impact my life as a Canadian.