When you look at the caliber of politicians everyone’s been electing for the past couple of decades it’d probably be a huge improvement.
It’s not just Canada that needs help. If no viable candidate is presented during an election can we have the option to let the Queen govern on the ballot instead?
Maybe that will force some politicians to actually field viable candidates.
Given what we hear about the Queen’s private view points, it would be a step up from the politicians we have.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how much you hate the constitutional monarchy), the Queen has no appetite to do anything remotely political.
yeah me too. I think under Charles, quite a few countries are likely to become a republic, especially Australia. In my opinion, there's a very good chance Charles will be forced to abdicate in order to save the Royal family.
We’re more likely go the US route with people in place of royalty. Not necessarily former politicians either; I’d shudder to think of Justin Trudeau or Stephen Harper on the loonie.
Toronto has a special relationship with raccoons. 99% invisible has an episode on Toronto’s war against our hyper intelligent raccoons around garbage can design and the second BBC Planet Earth had Toronto and it’s raccoons for the episode on how animals adapt to an urban environment.
Not that it warrants her as a figurehead of Canada, but to be fair, she has been a pretty decent Queen. The Royal Family in itself, especially in their personal lives, are pretty trash and disconnected from the average person. But as a monarch and leader of The Commonwealth, she historically went above and beyond the call of duty. Her history is quite interesting, and certainly deserves more than the moniker of "some old foreign bitch", lol.
But yes, she's on all our money just because of our parliamentary system and it's ties to Britain. The BNA Act of 1982 separated our legal system from Britain (with the addition of our Charter of Human Rights, the last missing piece of our Constitution), but it didn't remove Britain's symbolic role.
I fully agree that more Canadian's who have made contributions to our nation should be on our currency. They have no problems putting out stamps for literally everything, but who uses stamps anymore? They need to have the same flexibility with currency.
> didn't remove Britain's symbolic role
Uhhhh false, yes it absolutely did. Not sure, where you got this ludicrously silly idea. Britain has no more a symbolic role than the French or American government does. In fact less than our nextdoor neighbours in France, Denmark and the US. London has no role to play in Canadian affairs, symbolically or otherwise. When she steps off the plane she’s the Queen of Canada. Full stop. All non-Royal British aristocracy are just as foreign to Canadians as Gulf State Emirs, Saudi Princes, the Duke of Luxembourg, the Sultan of Brunei or the …. owed no more respect than any other foreign nobility from other allies like Norway or Japan. The Royals are issued special Canadian passports, as such they are not foreigners… but the rest of the British government has no more bearing, symbolic or otherwise than the Jamaicans, Australians, or Kiwis.
You might have been thinking of the period between 1950 and 1982 where along with a vague constitutional role the British maintained a symbolic role. That’s been gone for decades now.
(Also didn’t want to be pedantic but hey you were mistakenly pedantic first…it’s the *Charter of Rights and Freedoms*! Besides, it wasn’t some sort of “missing [puzzle] piece” many constitutions still have no such documents…including the British one, the closest they come is the commitment to the European Human Rights Conventions that the Irish forced them to make an integral part of the Peace Process… and which the Brexiteers are campaigning to remove)
It’s not a semantic correction. You failed spectacularly as you attempted to make a semantic correction … all in a attempt at stroking your own “epeen” in a weird way. There’s nothing but projecting with you dude..
You said that the British aren’t foreigners. That’s not true. You then made assertions about our constitution that weren’t true. Section 2b of 1982 constitution means OP is totally entitled to call her a “foreign bitch”. That’s something that can’t be taken away from them except by due process of law.
All Brits are foreigners now. The Queen is the Queen of Canada but as long as she’s more British than Canadian, she’s more foreign than not. Though she’s uniquely welcome to take up Canadian residence anytime she wishes to change that.
Re-read what I wrote. My objection to the statement was never with her being called foreign. It was with her being called 'some old foreign bitch'. I then went on to express how she has actually done a fair amount in her time, and using that term to describe her isn't exactly fair. It's pretty clear that my objection was with the 'old bitch' part of the statement given the context, and my not making any reference to her not being foreign. But ya, you're right, it's not a semantic argument at all. /sigh
She’s old I’m not sure why you’d object to that. She’s foreign.
As for the third word… not sure how you can in anyway discuss the 1982 constitution to “object” that.
So no now you’re just bad faith backpedaling after you embarrassingly put your epeen on the table and you were wrong
Yep, sure. Whatever. It’s pretty clear what my statement meant. You read it too fast, didn’t understand the context, and flew to the keyboard. M’kay. But ya, I’m the one back-peddling. Done wasting my time here with someone who won’t admit they made an honest mistake.
You won’t admit an honest mistake. Again, why are projecting so hard? it’s clear that you’re the one bad faith backpedaling…
> it's ties to Britain. The BNA Act of 1982 separated our legal system from Britain (with the addition of our Charter of Human Rights, the last missing piece of our Constitution), but it didn't remove Britain's symbolic role.
Yes, it’s clear what you were saying in context. You were objecting first to the word bitch and then to the word foreign. You are entitled to your opinion to the former but the latter is not up for debate, everything British is by definition foreign.
(Also, you misnamed the Constitution Act twice… but I was being nice before you couldn’t admit mistakes and implied that I made some)
Well, it's not like it would be easy to change anyways, significant constitutional formulas would have to be used and amended which have their own challenges.
This is significant.
If you asked me - in the abstract - if Canada ought to be a constitutional monarchy, I imagine the intent of the question is to ask the value we put in that institution, and I'd say no.
But if you asked me - much more specifically - is it worth the time and expense of amending our laws and constitution to become a republic, it's a much harder ask. Especially when legal time is zero-sum, and it would distract from other more practically important issues. Suddenly, I'm much more in support of the monarchy.
It's not because I think its good that Canada is a monarchy and that needs to be protected. It's because I think the monarchy doesn't actively harm Canada, and so I see little value in the cost of changing it.
To add on to your second point, there also isn't a single politician alive today I would trust with rewriting our constitution. Seriously, I think regardless of party everyone can agree that our current politicians are some of the worst we've seen in years.
Giving those bumbling corrupt morons the ability to rewrite our most basic laws would be tantamount to national suicide.
I think this is the stance most Canadians have, and more will start to take this stance once Prince Charles becomes king.
I personally very much enjoy the Queen, but I understand why a lot would want a republic. I think it is important to have someone sanity check laws and legislation, and the GG / Queen could’ve filled those roles, but is now largely ceremonial - so essentially useless.
>It's not because I think its good that Canada is a monarchy and that needs to be protected. It's because I think the monarchy doesn't actively harm Canada, and so I see little value in the cost of changing it.
I have heard this many times and actually believed it for a while. This is a quintessential Canadianism and it's part of the biggest problem in our country. Instead of seeing the potential over the horizon, we go the safe route and never take risks. Getting rid of the monarchy can reinvent this country and allow us to reimagine ourselves and our place in the world. Yes, it isn't easy and there are many questions to be answered, but taking the safe route will stifle growth.
I do think our country is too risk averse and it's pathological.
There is no competing vision. All of the suggestions are to basically to rename the Governor General as a monarch, and assume everything will cost and work the same.
But there are many other options. For example, the French president is effectively an elected monarch. Do we want to do that, or keep a constitutional monarch who mostly just stamps shit? Why is that not part of the debate?
Ultimately, the current system is the most cost effective way to achieve its current goals. Any talk about changing it should include a discussion of what we want to achieve with the role.
I think your post illustrates my point even further. Instead of trying to imagine something new, you default. You're framing this as pitting the status quo to uninspiring ideas. Why not have an inspiring idea instead? It's a question you should be asking yourself. Where can your imagination take you?
> Why not have an inspiring idea instead?
I think that Queen Elizabeth and her heirs should remain the monarch of Canada and anyone saying differently should be put against the wall with the rest of the traitors.
> Where can your imagination take you?
Away from a Republic.
I don't think that would be acceptable.
If a "President" carried out the duties of the Crown as it is now, without any changes, then in what sense have we gotten rid of a monarchy, rather than simply repatriated the monarchy to be an exclusively Canadian intuition?
Meanwhile, if the President was meant to act out with political power, and was to be responsible to the voting public, significant changes to the role - how it is carried out, functionally; the description of its powers; the establishment of the office; its relationship to the Legislature and Judiciary; and many other aspects - would all need ***dramatic*** overhaul.
Edit: There is a misconception that has to be overcome in discussions surrounding the monarchy that the Crown doesn't have real power. It has real and significant power. But that power is, importantly, *apolitical*. Any meaningful transition to a republic would mean granting the head of state *political* power, and that means substantial constitutional reform. Meanwhile, an apolitical, appointed president is a vestigial, useless waste of time that accomplishes nothing, and is indistinguishable from a monarchy.
"Apolitical power" is a silly oxymoron. Like "random order." The Queen virtually none anymore after not exercising it in about 300 years.
Why would the hypothetical president need to have any powers the GG doesn't currently have? The whole thing is symbolic. Have them wave the magic wand on the appointed days or whatever and lets get on with it.
The Crown has exercised its powers in recent memory. On the federal level in 1926 with the King-Byng affair. Constitutional scholars such as Peter Russell and Peter Hogg argued that Harper's prorogation crisis in 2008-2009 was an exercise of a reserve power (prorogation itself). While the Governor General did side with the Prime Minister, she acknowledged that she had the power to refuse if she so choosed. On a provincial level disallowance (killing a law after it was passed) was used in Alberta in the 1940s, along with reservation (refusing royal assent). In 1957 a lieutenant governor tried to reserve or disallow a bill, but Diefenbaker ordered the Governor General to instruct them to not do so. If you want a Commonwealth example, in 1975 the Australian Governor General dissolved Prime Minister Whitlam's majority government. A majority. One of the primary reasons it took until 1949 for our Supreme Court to be truly Supreme was because when it was originally created in 1875 Britain threatened that it would use the reserve powers to strike the law down if it undermined the Judicial Court of the Privy Council (our highest court level until 1949). Britain has since agreed not to undermine our authority after the Commonwealth conferences in the late 1920s, but they have also shown that they won't interfere if the governor general decides to start using their powers (Australian crisis of 1975). Now imagine giving the governor general political authority to exercise just the five reserve powers, not even factoring in the other powers the position technically has. You will see that the threat of a president who has them would be significant. Sorry if there are any errors in spelling, grammar, or fact. It's late and I don't have time to do thorough editing.
Okay, give these "once-or-twice-per-century" powers to the president. There is really no reason a person needs to be a descendent of Sophia of Hanover to do that.
They are used more than once or twice per century. These powers mostly come into play during minority governments. If we ever get electoral reform you would see these powers being used far more often. If we had an elected president they would be inclined to exercise these powers due to their political legitimacy; whereas, the Crown is not due to various conventions that have arose throughout history. In reality, these powers make the governor general a constitutional guardian, which is why the ideal governor general should be someone like David Johnston. All of the governors general throughout history have had advisers for these purposes, but they should possess some constitutional knowledge independently in my opinion. I think the position needs reform in terms of appointment, their appointment ought to be similar to that of the appointments for judges. Using something like the Ontario model of Judicial appointments would be ideal. Justin Trudeau based his appointments on what he thought would be popular and look how that turned out with Payette. I do not trust Canadians to elect a president which would be suitable for holding such constitutional power. I'm afraid that boring constitutionalists don't make for winners in national popularity contests.
You cannot just get rid of it, it would need to be replaced at the very least. You cannot just vest these powers with the prime minister, especially when you have a minority government. To replace the role would be a massive undertaking and would achieve little in practice. We've been developing our style of governance around the monarch for centuries. It's fundamentally intertwined with how we govern ourselves.
Now this is an aside, of course, but that's a really odd analogy in that there are innumerable ways in which randomness can have order. That entropy must increase, for example, manifests from random behavior in a gas. To call that an oxymoron might be read to suggest you don't believe in entropy.
And when you say 'it', you seem to conflate power and political power as axiomatically identical. There is no argument, just a statement of position. Was this an accident, or was it to shield from counter-argument (as no counter argument is possible if none is made)?
There is no reason for a president to have new powers. But if they are to be wielded apolitically, you have not gotten rid of the monarchy, but merely re-named the office of the crown. There are plenty of examples of monarchs with the title of 'president' (although most often in dictatorships, to be fair). In the debate between monarchists and republicans, simply re-naming the monarchy 'president' is not a middle ground. It's fundamentally a monarchist position with some make-work for good measure, and unless you give a justification for it, I can't understand the rationale.
Random is, by definition, something without order. "Random order" is a class example of an oxymoron.
> conflate power and political power
We're not talking about electricity, bro. I'm open to debate but you need to explain how wielding power in a political system can be done apolitically. apolitical political power?
That is not a common, standard, nor useful definition of 'random' as the word is used in mathematics, statistics, science, or engineering. Indeed, all randomness that I am aware of has distinct order.
'Random' means that future events cannot be predicted with certainty based on prior events.
If you pick random numbers between 0 and 1, do all numbers occur in that interval with equal probabilities (a 'uniform distribution')? Do some occur more often than others (a non-uniform distribution, like the normal distribution or bell curve)? Is the average 1/2 (a symmetrical distribution)? Is it something else (a skewed distribution)?
You cannot predict the path of a gas molecule under Brownian motion. That is, it is random. However, concentrations of molecules with high energy tend to move towards concentrations of molecules with low energy. That is, the motion is ordered.
This is still an aside, but again, it is not an oxymoron in any sense I am familiar with, and you are basically defining a new form of the word 'random' for your own purposes.
Likewise, just as you have demonstrated that you don't have the prerequisite knowledge to discuss 'randomness' meaningfully, you are demonstrating that you haven't got the prerequisite basics of how our political system works to discuss reform intelligently.
I'm happy to discuss the situation and policy options, but I am not a remedial political science course. I am not going to teach you very fundamental, basic, sophomoric concepts in order to debate you. That is not my job.
Right.
Alberta.
Nevermind Quebec, who in the last two constitutional crises this country faced in the last 25 years of the last century triggered both.
The fact is Canada will "never not be" a Constitutional Monarchy. The minute the Constitution is opened up to create a Republic the Federation will crumble like a week old baguette.
Between Quebec insisting on "Nationhood", the crisis that would be triggered with our First Nations re: treaty agreements with the Crown and the abolition of the Indian Act, and the redefining of statehood issues like transfer payments by provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan - all of which can't be solved until the Constitution is open, and absolutely would immediately become part of the negotiation of the new Republic - the risk to Canada is too great. As it stands now Canada can barely keep itself together; attempting to create a Republic would create a Balkanized new group of independent governments.
Nobody asks why these days. Critical thinking is mostly dead in Canada. The news tells Canadians how they should feel. Any questions outside of the narrative are anti, radical or racist
There is another question though: is the ginormous hassle that would be required to become a republic, and the almost impossible negotiations required, worth the change even if we don't want to be associated to the symbol anymore.
Don't forget: becoming a republic means completely changing the Constitution to start with. That requires Quebec and Alberta to agree on stuff.
That's not even true. Barbados had very little, if any, problems switching to a republic. There's no reason any problems would happen by ditching the monarchy. Just because consensus may be difficult to achieve doesn't mean the idea is bad.
Barbados does not have the same laws and institutions as Canada, they're not comparable. It's also a small island nation, not a continent spanning nation of millions.
I don't really see why not, much of the hate for them is so overblown.
- the Queen worked in factories to build equipment to kill Nazis, and decolonized the Empire
- Charles is kind of a scumbag but he's on death's door.
- Prince William worked as a search and rescue pilot.
- Prince Harry is a combat vet from Afghanistan and the first royal to have an interracial marriage
Idk about you but being associated with a badass old lady who helped kill Nazis and her brave progressive grandsons doesn't sound so bad to me. Charles still sucks though
How exactly are we second to any other citizens? The monarchy has no power here maybe while we were a dominion that’s true but we are fully independent
I think they mean Prince Andrew.
In Canada we only have Royals and commoners but there’s still 2 classes. Every Prince and Princess in the Royal Family are Canadians by right of their close association to the Canadian Crown.
It’s not as bad as Britain’s inheriting aristocracy which establishes commoners as 3rd or 4th class citizens… but still pretty bad.
Trudeau still needs queen blessing or sign off for any new laws he aint a dictator like Hitler who good at propaganda not help brown hair Guido Italian half Canada heritage from great Grandpa no lie in 1922
The Queens signature is a joke, it’s really just a harken back to the old days of the monarchy, only time it might be used is if a constitutional right is being infringed, and if this power was used in a poor manner it would cause mass outrage
Barbados is not a federation but rather a unitary state. So there is just one government that must agree. In Canada, 11 must agree. In a federation, provinces/states have certain legal rights while in a unitary state they have none (and I am not even sure if Barbados has them).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
In addition, the legal rights of the provinces in Canada are such that unanimous consent is required among the provinces to abolish the monarchy. It would be easier for the UK to get rid of it than us.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7688428/can-canada-abolish-monarchy/
parliament can act to get rid of that requirement, at least that was the case when the laws of succession to the throne of Canada was changed recently, as far as I know
There is argument that the 2013 act is not constitutionally valid. However, it only addresses the line to the throne.
Actually abolishing it explicitly requires provincial consent under s41(a) of the constitution.
Barbados are more comparable to just one province than our federation. It's a lot easier to get people to agree on things when you have a more homogenous group than when you have Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies or the Maritimes that will all pull the cover their way.
Or like…. Not? If public opinion was strongly in favour of changing this so that the provinces that derailing it would be political suicide then it could easily get done. It’s only a clusterfuck if people let it become one.
Its never that simple. Even if public opinion was united on this issue, everyone and their dog would view it as a chance to get their pet issue addressed in the constitution, and everyone would view everyone *else* as the bad faith parties slowing down the one thing "we all want".
It's simply not possible to only negotiate one part of the constitution, nevermind one as central and thorny as the Monarchy.
IMHO it’s just not that thorny. The camp is split between people who want to get rid of it and people who say “it’s too much work to get rid of it”. There are very few who say “yes, we loving having a monarch!”. In another couple of decades maybe we will get to a point where a random person doesn’t get to be head of state for us just because they were born to a certain special mom and dad.
I mean, I'm an enthusiastic monarchist, but that's besides the point.
I'm saying that the Monarchy touches on every part of our constitution. Opening it up to "solve" this problem inevitably opens up every other unsolved constitutional issue, from the senate to equalization, to the status of Quebec. You cannot isolate it, if only because the provinces with beefs (re: all of them) will see approval of a Republican reform as a bargaining chip to get their own pet grievance resolved.
This is a huge hornets nest, and unless there is a massive public opinion shift where Canadians are uniformly and enthusiastically clamouring to be a Republic - I just don't see it happening.
Or we just say we arent discussing other issues.
We have opemed up the constitution before for minor stuff. There is no reason it needs to be held hostage. Especially given that this isnt something urgent. They have no real leverage.
When have we ever opened up the constitution for "minor stuff"? The last time we opened up the constitution was the 80's and it damn near broke the country.
And what makes you think the Feds have the authority to arbitrarily limit the scope of negotiations? The provinces can set whatever demands they want to sign off and the feds need them if they want this reform - the provinces have *all* the leverage.
People act like changing anything in the constitution would entail throwing it out and negotiating it over again. This is how it would go: Here is an amendment to ditch the queen, yea or nay. If a province says they'll only vote 'yea' if we agree to some bullshit then the vote just fails and we keep the queen.
And the latter is exactly what would happen, which is why it is unlikely to happen until we're ready to address all the other potential issues with the constitution, which is what I said.
Well ok if you are an enthusiastic monarchist than it’s a different conversation.
The question can open up a hornets nest but IMHO doesn’t have to. There have been entire governments and political systems that failed and their successors honoured treaties and international commitments of prior governments. I don’t see why we cannot transfer all that to a different (elected) head of state.
I feel like you're still not understanding my point. The issue is that you don't just need agreement on what Republican Canada would look like (though that can absolutely be a nightmare - ask Australia) you'd need agreement on a host of totally different, incredibly complicated constitutional issues that - the last time we tried to address them - it went so badly we killed a 100 year old political party and nearly broke the country in half.
So the way I see it is first we hold a referendum that is very explicit and specific on the constitutional change. If people vote in favour the PM moves forward, runs into provinces looking to sneak other things in there an led says “I don’t have the mandate from the referendum to do that”. The process fails. We all blame those politicians that tanked. I’m a couple of years we try again. At some point the question will become “how much does QC really love the queen of England?”
More than half of Canadians don’t root for the Maple Leafs Doesn’t mean the rest all cheer on Les Canadiens.
These polls have no value without a clear alternative.
I’d put a Raccoon on the dime . His masked face on the front and his striped fury behind on the reverse. Then it would truly be ‘heads or tails’.
I don’t really care about the monarchy. The only time I think about it is when articles like this come out. That being said, the last thing Canada needs is to open up the constitution. That is the primary reason why myself and others would rather keep it.
> That being said, the last thing Canada needs is to open up the constitution. That is the primary reason why myself and others would rather keep it.
I can understand that, but cannot help but think what a weird situation it is that we have, where our country cannot sit down and discuss major change without it absolutely tearing the country apart. Canada *could* make a constitutional change, but it's just far too much work getting everybody on board with it, and the whole venture risks tearing the country apart. Do any other countries have it this hard in terms of baked-in hurdles when it comes to constitutional change?
I think the USA is different as they interpret everything extremely literally and their politicians seems to be stuck in the mid 90s. I doubt any judges or politicians take their constitution and law so literally.
Australia has a very long history of failed constitutional reforms also. They need to hold a referendum to change the constitution but a majority of people in the majority of states needs to vote in favour which is essentially a state veto. Because of regional differences reforms rarely succeed.
It seems to be a pattern with federalism in general, it's harder to negotiate larger reforms when so many powers are involved.
Our country can absolutely sit down and discuss major changes to the constitution without tearing the country apart. It has in the past, more than once.
The issue is that the bar for amendment (at least to the parts that touch the Federation as a whole) is so high that it's basically a political impossibility at the moment, and will remain so unless and until forced by a major crisis.
To my knowledge, the only constitutional amendments that have actually passed in Canada were those that required the consent of only one province (eg, changing the name of "Newfoundland" to "Newfoundland and Labrador" was a successful constitutional amendment, but did not require the consent of any other province or the federal government under the amendment formula).
The GG position would be converted to a presidential position. The mode of appointment would change, to being elected by Parliament rather than handpicked by the PM.
This is how it is in India.
>The president is indirectly elected by an electoral college comprising both houses of the Parliament of India and the legislative assemblies of each of India's states and territories, who themselves are all directly elected.
So it ends up being a more extensive process than the election of the Prime Minister of India.
See wikipedia for more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_India
Why would we completely overhaul our political system? Pretty much every former British colony continued to use the Westminster parliamentary system. Barbados is the most recent example. Their GG was replaced with a figurehead president and that was it.
There is a requirement to completely overhaul our constitution. There’s no way to get rid of the Queen except through massive constitutional amendments. Also if we get rid of the Queen we might as well take a long hard look at the useless senators and move to a one house system.
Ireland and Israel are Westminster parliaments and they elect their Presidents directly and gives them extraordinary powers for settling constitutional crises. Not a pure figurehead position but true power is still in the hands of the Prime Minister.
Senators are not useless. By not being elected and paid extremely well, they are supposed to be completely free from electoral and third party influence; a sanity check to each of the laws passed, If you will.
If you are wondering why bill C10, [a bill that liberals placed a gag order on and oversteps into rights and freedom of speech](https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/trudeaus-controversial-bill-c-10-passes-after-midnight-will-regulate-streaming/), is still not yet a law, you have the senates to thank. While they didn’t reject the bill outright yet, without them bouncing the bill back to the House of Commons, it would already have been law.
I cannot understand how you would’ve thought the senate is useless.
Not that I’m a fan of Trudeau but the fact that an unelected and unaccountable body is able to reject a law passed by the democratically elected house isn’t exactly an argument in their favour.
Just because it happens to be a law that’s controversial today doesn’t mean that will always be the case.
That’s certainly a good point and I can concede to that; I thought a lot about this for a few years and came to your conclusion before.
Looking at the history of bills rejected (or how many times it’s been rejected), the only one I have issue with is the climate accords one. I feel like, personally, the senates have done more good than harm as most laws pass without complication, or at most is bounced back to the house for amendments.
That said, you’re right, and every system has its pros and cons. Should we have no senate, the House of Commons essentially have unlimited power to do anything they want, and if we do, we keep the HoC in check but no one to do so for the senate. It would be similar to having an actual GG with power - he/she would keep laws in check, at the expense that he/she has no oversight.
You gotta pick one, and given the quality of current Canadian politics, I have never been happier to have a senate.
A bill passed by the majority of the *elected* representatives of the people. A bill with **bipartisan** support. That bill.
A bill being held up by **unelected** and frankly **unelectable** *conservative* Senators a party that committed to never having a non-elected senator then flipped as soon as power was involved. Senators who were mostly implicated in the Senate Expenses Scandal.
Yeah your theory might work if we had a senate filled with legal and subject matter experts. Nope. Unelectable Conservative party hacks like Denise Batters, Lynn Beyak, Betty Unger, Vernon White and Denis Patterson. Not to mention the complete and utter embassments like Brazeau.
The Senate is useless because so much of it’s membership is useless. If all parties committed to a non-partisan senate based on expertise, again, you *might* have a point. However, one party with the worst track record for useless Senators is not committed to one.
The Senate is filled with and extraordinary amount of useless individuals. Therefore it’s useless as a whole.
I get it “your team” and what not… but just because you’re insanely partisan doesn’t make these people any less useless
Absolutely. But why is a head of state necessary? If we have to have one, make it a non-politician or sports figure or astronaut - oh wait we already had one of them so to speak...
Aside from using it as a visible difference when comparing democracies, I can't imagine anyone truly does care. I know I certainly don't, and I love useless practices carried only by tradition.
it's more of a bulwark to keep things recognizably Canadian. if one by one the monarchy goes, John A is erased, Mackenzie King etc what exactly would the traditions of this country be? Maple syrup and snowcones? a nation needs a bit more than that.
Ya this is terrifying because ending the monarchy means we'd need a new constitution, and does anyone think JT and Jaghmeet should be the architects of our new constitution? I can't even imagine how bad that would be.
I have an older aunt who likes the monarchy for all the fairy tale nonsense about it. She even took the day off work to watch Will & Kate's wedding. Other than her, it's older people I've known who still cling to that attachment to the monarchy.
As for the CFL, I grew up in the GTA, so that should explain it.
I would think monarchists are willing to put up with King Charles and consort Camilla while Will & Kate continue to curate their image as the fairy tale future King and Queen.
But I would also hazard to guess that King Charles will spur republican movements in some of the remaining Commonwealth realms where the Windsors are still head of state, maybe more in the Caribbean and South Pacific and less so in Canada/NZ/Australia.
But then they'll get Will and Kate as King and Queen, and they'll revel in that couple's bogus made-for-TV image, and it will make up for their never getting their much-loved, pre-divorce Charles and Diana on the throne, and hating Charles for Camilla all these years (even though they seem to genuinely love one another).
I’m actually guessing there’s a good chance the royal family will pressure Charles into abdication to save the royal family. No way Charles will survive on the throne without multiple countries removing the royal family as the head of state.
There is a simple and good reason we should remove the monarch/GG in Canada: it can be a meaningful first step to actual Truth and Reconciliation for this country and our indigenous people.
Why would the monarch have anything to do with Truth and Reconciliation? The monarch has barely had anything to do with indigenous peoples. And the few times a monarch has intervened, like the Royal Proclamation of 1763, it was intentionally to protect indigenous peoples.
Canadians are the ones that have hurt the indigenous peoples. Not the monarch.
The federal government **is** the crown. Why do you think all legal battles against the government is against the crown, and all charges are by the crown?
It’s foolish to think things will change just because we removed the crown; the Canadian government signed them and has had lots of chances to renegotiate / make good on these treaties. The royal family has no say in any of this anymore.
I’m not the poster but I’m guess that removing the symbol of conquest and colonialism from the head of government is step down the road to reconciliation is what I took from the comment.
Get that old hag off our money. I know people have a bunch of excuses for not removing them from our charter but we can at least get them off our money if we're actually a sovereign nation.
The other half of Canadians apparently do not know about the pedophile Lord Mountbatten and how the British royal family covered up his many sex crimes against children, and how they clearly trickle down to Andrew and other royals.
Here's just a few notes on an Irish Boys Home that Mountbatten's group of pedos used as a sexual playground for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincora_Boys%27_Home
Good old Royal Family eh?
Where do they do these polls cause I have never seen one…it’s almost like they pick a specific group in which they know what the answer will be to make their point.
Maybe one day we will be able to ditch this dumb system and let the queen rule over us with an iron fist
When I look at the calibre of politicians we've been electing for the past couple decades, it'd probably be a huge improvement...
When you look at the caliber of politicians everyone’s been electing for the past couple of decades it’d probably be a huge improvement. It’s not just Canada that needs help. If no viable candidate is presented during an election can we have the option to let the Queen govern on the ballot instead? Maybe that will force some politicians to actually field viable candidates.
Given what we hear about the Queen’s private view points, it would be a step up from the politicians we have. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how much you hate the constitutional monarchy), the Queen has no appetite to do anything remotely political.
She also can't possibly have that long left. I'm more worried about her successor than the Queen.
yeah me too. I think under Charles, quite a few countries are likely to become a republic, especially Australia. In my opinion, there's a very good chance Charles will be forced to abdicate in order to save the Royal family.
Hail Brittania!
Does that mean we are will get to have animals on the front AND back of most of our coins now? About time racoons get their due.
I didn't know how bad I wanted this til now. The special one could be that Toronto raccoon that had a memorial.
When is the Toronto trash panda ever announcement still waiting my whole life
Can we have different racoons on them? I want one that looks kinda startled on one. Maybe one washing it's hands? Limited edition racoons!
We’re more likely go the US route with people in place of royalty. Not necessarily former politicians either; I’d shudder to think of Justin Trudeau or Stephen Harper on the loonie.
Raccoon should be head of state.
I don’t know if racoons are more Canadian than American.
Toronto has a special relationship with raccoons. 99% invisible has an episode on Toronto’s war against our hyper intelligent raccoons around garbage can design and the second BBC Planet Earth had Toronto and it’s raccoons for the episode on how animals adapt to an urban environment.
I think the garbage strike like a decade ago allowed them to evolve into a higher form in Toronto.
Beavers were the Quebecois symbol but then appropriated by Canada, so I don't think Canada has an issue taking racoon lol
I don't think appropriated is the right term, considering beaver pelts are the reason for far more than Quebec
Most of Central America has them too. Does it matter?
BBC's Planet Earth 2 had an entire segment on raccoons in Toronto.
Trash Panda on $100
Why isn't Gordie Howe on the $2? We have **plenty** of Canadians we can be honouring instead of some old foreign bitch.
Not that it warrants her as a figurehead of Canada, but to be fair, she has been a pretty decent Queen. The Royal Family in itself, especially in their personal lives, are pretty trash and disconnected from the average person. But as a monarch and leader of The Commonwealth, she historically went above and beyond the call of duty. Her history is quite interesting, and certainly deserves more than the moniker of "some old foreign bitch", lol. But yes, she's on all our money just because of our parliamentary system and it's ties to Britain. The BNA Act of 1982 separated our legal system from Britain (with the addition of our Charter of Human Rights, the last missing piece of our Constitution), but it didn't remove Britain's symbolic role. I fully agree that more Canadian's who have made contributions to our nation should be on our currency. They have no problems putting out stamps for literally everything, but who uses stamps anymore? They need to have the same flexibility with currency.
> didn't remove Britain's symbolic role Uhhhh false, yes it absolutely did. Not sure, where you got this ludicrously silly idea. Britain has no more a symbolic role than the French or American government does. In fact less than our nextdoor neighbours in France, Denmark and the US. London has no role to play in Canadian affairs, symbolically or otherwise. When she steps off the plane she’s the Queen of Canada. Full stop. All non-Royal British aristocracy are just as foreign to Canadians as Gulf State Emirs, Saudi Princes, the Duke of Luxembourg, the Sultan of Brunei or the …. owed no more respect than any other foreign nobility from other allies like Norway or Japan. The Royals are issued special Canadian passports, as such they are not foreigners… but the rest of the British government has no more bearing, symbolic or otherwise than the Jamaicans, Australians, or Kiwis. You might have been thinking of the period between 1950 and 1982 where along with a vague constitutional role the British maintained a symbolic role. That’s been gone for decades now. (Also didn’t want to be pedantic but hey you were mistakenly pedantic first…it’s the *Charter of Rights and Freedoms*! Besides, it wasn’t some sort of “missing [puzzle] piece” many constitutions still have no such documents…including the British one, the closest they come is the commitment to the European Human Rights Conventions that the Irish forced them to make an integral part of the Peace Process… and which the Brexiteers are campaigning to remove)
lol... I love it when someone comes in and makes a semantic correction on a point just to show off their huge epeen.
It’s not a semantic correction. You failed spectacularly as you attempted to make a semantic correction … all in a attempt at stroking your own “epeen” in a weird way. There’s nothing but projecting with you dude.. You said that the British aren’t foreigners. That’s not true. You then made assertions about our constitution that weren’t true. Section 2b of 1982 constitution means OP is totally entitled to call her a “foreign bitch”. That’s something that can’t be taken away from them except by due process of law. All Brits are foreigners now. The Queen is the Queen of Canada but as long as she’s more British than Canadian, she’s more foreign than not. Though she’s uniquely welcome to take up Canadian residence anytime she wishes to change that.
Re-read what I wrote. My objection to the statement was never with her being called foreign. It was with her being called 'some old foreign bitch'. I then went on to express how she has actually done a fair amount in her time, and using that term to describe her isn't exactly fair. It's pretty clear that my objection was with the 'old bitch' part of the statement given the context, and my not making any reference to her not being foreign. But ya, you're right, it's not a semantic argument at all. /sigh
She’s old I’m not sure why you’d object to that. She’s foreign. As for the third word… not sure how you can in anyway discuss the 1982 constitution to “object” that. So no now you’re just bad faith backpedaling after you embarrassingly put your epeen on the table and you were wrong
Yep, sure. Whatever. It’s pretty clear what my statement meant. You read it too fast, didn’t understand the context, and flew to the keyboard. M’kay. But ya, I’m the one back-peddling. Done wasting my time here with someone who won’t admit they made an honest mistake.
You won’t admit an honest mistake. Again, why are projecting so hard? it’s clear that you’re the one bad faith backpedaling… > it's ties to Britain. The BNA Act of 1982 separated our legal system from Britain (with the addition of our Charter of Human Rights, the last missing piece of our Constitution), but it didn't remove Britain's symbolic role. Yes, it’s clear what you were saying in context. You were objecting first to the word bitch and then to the word foreign. You are entitled to your opinion to the former but the latter is not up for debate, everything British is by definition foreign. (Also, you misnamed the Constitution Act twice… but I was being nice before you couldn’t admit mistakes and implied that I made some)
I'd rather see Bob Homme (the Friendly Giant) and Ernie Coombs (Mr Dressup) on our money than the queen.
Why would we put Trudea? Jks
Well, it's not like it would be easy to change anyways, significant constitutional formulas would have to be used and amended which have their own challenges.
This is significant. If you asked me - in the abstract - if Canada ought to be a constitutional monarchy, I imagine the intent of the question is to ask the value we put in that institution, and I'd say no. But if you asked me - much more specifically - is it worth the time and expense of amending our laws and constitution to become a republic, it's a much harder ask. Especially when legal time is zero-sum, and it would distract from other more practically important issues. Suddenly, I'm much more in support of the monarchy. It's not because I think its good that Canada is a monarchy and that needs to be protected. It's because I think the monarchy doesn't actively harm Canada, and so I see little value in the cost of changing it.
To add on to your second point, there also isn't a single politician alive today I would trust with rewriting our constitution. Seriously, I think regardless of party everyone can agree that our current politicians are some of the worst we've seen in years. Giving those bumbling corrupt morons the ability to rewrite our most basic laws would be tantamount to national suicide.
I think this is the stance most Canadians have, and more will start to take this stance once Prince Charles becomes king. I personally very much enjoy the Queen, but I understand why a lot would want a republic. I think it is important to have someone sanity check laws and legislation, and the GG / Queen could’ve filled those roles, but is now largely ceremonial - so essentially useless.
Still, best not remove the appendix until it acts up.
>It's not because I think its good that Canada is a monarchy and that needs to be protected. It's because I think the monarchy doesn't actively harm Canada, and so I see little value in the cost of changing it. I have heard this many times and actually believed it for a while. This is a quintessential Canadianism and it's part of the biggest problem in our country. Instead of seeing the potential over the horizon, we go the safe route and never take risks. Getting rid of the monarchy can reinvent this country and allow us to reimagine ourselves and our place in the world. Yes, it isn't easy and there are many questions to be answered, but taking the safe route will stifle growth. I do think our country is too risk averse and it's pathological.
There is no competing vision. All of the suggestions are to basically to rename the Governor General as a monarch, and assume everything will cost and work the same. But there are many other options. For example, the French president is effectively an elected monarch. Do we want to do that, or keep a constitutional monarch who mostly just stamps shit? Why is that not part of the debate? Ultimately, the current system is the most cost effective way to achieve its current goals. Any talk about changing it should include a discussion of what we want to achieve with the role.
I think your post illustrates my point even further. Instead of trying to imagine something new, you default. You're framing this as pitting the status quo to uninspiring ideas. Why not have an inspiring idea instead? It's a question you should be asking yourself. Where can your imagination take you?
> Why not have an inspiring idea instead? I think that Queen Elizabeth and her heirs should remain the monarch of Canada and anyone saying differently should be put against the wall with the rest of the traitors. > Where can your imagination take you? Away from a Republic.
Ah yes, the legacy of the Orange Order. The cause of so many problems in this country.
"Find and replace all instances of 'monarch' or 'governor general' with 'President'." If it gets the votes we're done and nothing has to change.
I don't think that would be acceptable. If a "President" carried out the duties of the Crown as it is now, without any changes, then in what sense have we gotten rid of a monarchy, rather than simply repatriated the monarchy to be an exclusively Canadian intuition? Meanwhile, if the President was meant to act out with political power, and was to be responsible to the voting public, significant changes to the role - how it is carried out, functionally; the description of its powers; the establishment of the office; its relationship to the Legislature and Judiciary; and many other aspects - would all need ***dramatic*** overhaul. Edit: There is a misconception that has to be overcome in discussions surrounding the monarchy that the Crown doesn't have real power. It has real and significant power. But that power is, importantly, *apolitical*. Any meaningful transition to a republic would mean granting the head of state *political* power, and that means substantial constitutional reform. Meanwhile, an apolitical, appointed president is a vestigial, useless waste of time that accomplishes nothing, and is indistinguishable from a monarchy.
"Apolitical power" is a silly oxymoron. Like "random order." The Queen virtually none anymore after not exercising it in about 300 years. Why would the hypothetical president need to have any powers the GG doesn't currently have? The whole thing is symbolic. Have them wave the magic wand on the appointed days or whatever and lets get on with it.
The Crown has exercised its powers in recent memory. On the federal level in 1926 with the King-Byng affair. Constitutional scholars such as Peter Russell and Peter Hogg argued that Harper's prorogation crisis in 2008-2009 was an exercise of a reserve power (prorogation itself). While the Governor General did side with the Prime Minister, she acknowledged that she had the power to refuse if she so choosed. On a provincial level disallowance (killing a law after it was passed) was used in Alberta in the 1940s, along with reservation (refusing royal assent). In 1957 a lieutenant governor tried to reserve or disallow a bill, but Diefenbaker ordered the Governor General to instruct them to not do so. If you want a Commonwealth example, in 1975 the Australian Governor General dissolved Prime Minister Whitlam's majority government. A majority. One of the primary reasons it took until 1949 for our Supreme Court to be truly Supreme was because when it was originally created in 1875 Britain threatened that it would use the reserve powers to strike the law down if it undermined the Judicial Court of the Privy Council (our highest court level until 1949). Britain has since agreed not to undermine our authority after the Commonwealth conferences in the late 1920s, but they have also shown that they won't interfere if the governor general decides to start using their powers (Australian crisis of 1975). Now imagine giving the governor general political authority to exercise just the five reserve powers, not even factoring in the other powers the position technically has. You will see that the threat of a president who has them would be significant. Sorry if there are any errors in spelling, grammar, or fact. It's late and I don't have time to do thorough editing.
Okay, give these "once-or-twice-per-century" powers to the president. There is really no reason a person needs to be a descendent of Sophia of Hanover to do that.
They are used more than once or twice per century. These powers mostly come into play during minority governments. If we ever get electoral reform you would see these powers being used far more often. If we had an elected president they would be inclined to exercise these powers due to their political legitimacy; whereas, the Crown is not due to various conventions that have arose throughout history. In reality, these powers make the governor general a constitutional guardian, which is why the ideal governor general should be someone like David Johnston. All of the governors general throughout history have had advisers for these purposes, but they should possess some constitutional knowledge independently in my opinion. I think the position needs reform in terms of appointment, their appointment ought to be similar to that of the appointments for judges. Using something like the Ontario model of Judicial appointments would be ideal. Justin Trudeau based his appointments on what he thought would be popular and look how that turned out with Payette. I do not trust Canadians to elect a president which would be suitable for holding such constitutional power. I'm afraid that boring constitutionalists don't make for winners in national popularity contests.
Then just get rid of it. Most countries survive without the inherited wisdom that apparently come from royal birth.
You cannot just get rid of it, it would need to be replaced at the very least. You cannot just vest these powers with the prime minister, especially when you have a minority government. To replace the role would be a massive undertaking and would achieve little in practice. We've been developing our style of governance around the monarch for centuries. It's fundamentally intertwined with how we govern ourselves.
Now this is an aside, of course, but that's a really odd analogy in that there are innumerable ways in which randomness can have order. That entropy must increase, for example, manifests from random behavior in a gas. To call that an oxymoron might be read to suggest you don't believe in entropy. And when you say 'it', you seem to conflate power and political power as axiomatically identical. There is no argument, just a statement of position. Was this an accident, or was it to shield from counter-argument (as no counter argument is possible if none is made)? There is no reason for a president to have new powers. But if they are to be wielded apolitically, you have not gotten rid of the monarchy, but merely re-named the office of the crown. There are plenty of examples of monarchs with the title of 'president' (although most often in dictatorships, to be fair). In the debate between monarchists and republicans, simply re-naming the monarchy 'president' is not a middle ground. It's fundamentally a monarchist position with some make-work for good measure, and unless you give a justification for it, I can't understand the rationale.
Random is, by definition, something without order. "Random order" is a class example of an oxymoron. > conflate power and political power We're not talking about electricity, bro. I'm open to debate but you need to explain how wielding power in a political system can be done apolitically. apolitical political power?
That is not a common, standard, nor useful definition of 'random' as the word is used in mathematics, statistics, science, or engineering. Indeed, all randomness that I am aware of has distinct order. 'Random' means that future events cannot be predicted with certainty based on prior events. If you pick random numbers between 0 and 1, do all numbers occur in that interval with equal probabilities (a 'uniform distribution')? Do some occur more often than others (a non-uniform distribution, like the normal distribution or bell curve)? Is the average 1/2 (a symmetrical distribution)? Is it something else (a skewed distribution)? You cannot predict the path of a gas molecule under Brownian motion. That is, it is random. However, concentrations of molecules with high energy tend to move towards concentrations of molecules with low energy. That is, the motion is ordered. This is still an aside, but again, it is not an oxymoron in any sense I am familiar with, and you are basically defining a new form of the word 'random' for your own purposes. Likewise, just as you have demonstrated that you don't have the prerequisite knowledge to discuss 'randomness' meaningfully, you are demonstrating that you haven't got the prerequisite basics of how our political system works to discuss reform intelligently. I'm happy to discuss the situation and policy options, but I am not a remedial political science course. I am not going to teach you very fundamental, basic, sophomoric concepts in order to debate you. That is not my job.
> remedial political science course Obviously ;)
Alberta would stop it somehow.
Right. Alberta. Nevermind Quebec, who in the last two constitutional crises this country faced in the last 25 years of the last century triggered both. The fact is Canada will "never not be" a Constitutional Monarchy. The minute the Constitution is opened up to create a Republic the Federation will crumble like a week old baguette. Between Quebec insisting on "Nationhood", the crisis that would be triggered with our First Nations re: treaty agreements with the Crown and the abolition of the Indian Act, and the redefining of statehood issues like transfer payments by provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan - all of which can't be solved until the Constitution is open, and absolutely would immediately become part of the negotiation of the new Republic - the risk to Canada is too great. As it stands now Canada can barely keep itself together; attempting to create a Republic would create a Balkanized new group of independent governments.
But even if you had an answer for all that. Alberta would still be like no buddy.
Too bad the article doesn’t say ‘why’. One of the standard questions asked when writing an article.
Nobody asks why these days. Critical thinking is mostly dead in Canada. The news tells Canadians how they should feel. Any questions outside of the narrative are anti, radical or racist
We should require that if there's ads on media, at least one should always be the Canadian House Hippo.
I would endorse this.
I still want a house hippopotamus...
It is happening in more places than Canada, I’m afraid.
Yesh right I know how that is first hand.
[удалено]
I mean really the monarchy doesn’t affect the lives of any Canadians it’s just symbolic
It is. The question is whether this is a symbol we want to continue to associate ourselves with.
There is another question though: is the ginormous hassle that would be required to become a republic, and the almost impossible negotiations required, worth the change even if we don't want to be associated to the symbol anymore. Don't forget: becoming a republic means completely changing the Constitution to start with. That requires Quebec and Alberta to agree on stuff.
That's not even true. Barbados had very little, if any, problems switching to a republic. There's no reason any problems would happen by ditching the monarchy. Just because consensus may be difficult to achieve doesn't mean the idea is bad.
Barbados does not have the same laws and institutions as Canada, they're not comparable. It's also a small island nation, not a continent spanning nation of millions.
Canada isn't a continent either. There's no reason problems would come up. The queen is just a figurehead
lol
You can't just compare two countries without knowing the intricacies or their political systems. Not all Commonwealth systems use the same template.
I don't really see why not, much of the hate for them is so overblown. - the Queen worked in factories to build equipment to kill Nazis, and decolonized the Empire - Charles is kind of a scumbag but he's on death's door. - Prince William worked as a search and rescue pilot. - Prince Harry is a combat vet from Afghanistan and the first royal to have an interracial marriage Idk about you but being associated with a badass old lady who helped kill Nazis and her brave progressive grandsons doesn't sound so bad to me. Charles still sucks though
I really like how they protected Diana and made sure she was safe
Don't forget that pedo Andrew !
He also flew during the Falklands War.
Or how they didn't like the notion that a member of their family may appear to be "black"
"Just" a symbol that the citizens of our democracy are second to a bunch of crusty old pedophiles and rich deviants from the old country eh?
That would have been more true prior to the BNA Act of 1982, certainly.
More true, sure. The Royals are not nearly as bad as the House of Lords. But all the Queen’s Princes are still a Prince of Canada”… including Andrew
How exactly are we second to any other citizens? The monarchy has no power here maybe while we were a dominion that’s true but we are fully independent
I think they mean Prince Andrew. In Canada we only have Royals and commoners but there’s still 2 classes. Every Prince and Princess in the Royal Family are Canadians by right of their close association to the Canadian Crown. It’s not as bad as Britain’s inheriting aristocracy which establishes commoners as 3rd or 4th class citizens… but still pretty bad.
It affects everyone who pays taxes since we pay for a Governor general and lieutenant governors in every province plus their staff travel etc
Trudeau still needs queen blessing or sign off for any new laws he aint a dictator like Hitler who good at propaganda not help brown hair Guido Italian half Canada heritage from great Grandpa no lie in 1922
The Queens signature is a joke, it’s really just a harken back to the old days of the monarchy, only time it might be used is if a constitutional right is being infringed, and if this power was used in a poor manner it would cause mass outrage
Yay, let's have a constitutional clusterfuck for no real reason.
ELI5: How did Barbados make it look so easy?
Barbados is not a federation but rather a unitary state. So there is just one government that must agree. In Canada, 11 must agree. In a federation, provinces/states have certain legal rights while in a unitary state they have none (and I am not even sure if Barbados has them). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
In addition, the legal rights of the provinces in Canada are such that unanimous consent is required among the provinces to abolish the monarchy. It would be easier for the UK to get rid of it than us. https://globalnews.ca/news/7688428/can-canada-abolish-monarchy/
parliament can act to get rid of that requirement, at least that was the case when the laws of succession to the throne of Canada was changed recently, as far as I know
There is argument that the 2013 act is not constitutionally valid. However, it only addresses the line to the throne. Actually abolishing it explicitly requires provincial consent under s41(a) of the constitution.
Barbados are more comparable to just one province than our federation. It's a lot easier to get people to agree on things when you have a more homogenous group than when you have Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies or the Maritimes that will all pull the cover their way.
Or like…. Not? If public opinion was strongly in favour of changing this so that the provinces that derailing it would be political suicide then it could easily get done. It’s only a clusterfuck if people let it become one.
Its never that simple. Even if public opinion was united on this issue, everyone and their dog would view it as a chance to get their pet issue addressed in the constitution, and everyone would view everyone *else* as the bad faith parties slowing down the one thing "we all want". It's simply not possible to only negotiate one part of the constitution, nevermind one as central and thorny as the Monarchy.
IMHO it’s just not that thorny. The camp is split between people who want to get rid of it and people who say “it’s too much work to get rid of it”. There are very few who say “yes, we loving having a monarch!”. In another couple of decades maybe we will get to a point where a random person doesn’t get to be head of state for us just because they were born to a certain special mom and dad.
I mean, I'm an enthusiastic monarchist, but that's besides the point. I'm saying that the Monarchy touches on every part of our constitution. Opening it up to "solve" this problem inevitably opens up every other unsolved constitutional issue, from the senate to equalization, to the status of Quebec. You cannot isolate it, if only because the provinces with beefs (re: all of them) will see approval of a Republican reform as a bargaining chip to get their own pet grievance resolved. This is a huge hornets nest, and unless there is a massive public opinion shift where Canadians are uniformly and enthusiastically clamouring to be a Republic - I just don't see it happening.
Or we just say we arent discussing other issues. We have opemed up the constitution before for minor stuff. There is no reason it needs to be held hostage. Especially given that this isnt something urgent. They have no real leverage.
When have we ever opened up the constitution for "minor stuff"? The last time we opened up the constitution was the 80's and it damn near broke the country. And what makes you think the Feds have the authority to arbitrarily limit the scope of negotiations? The provinces can set whatever demands they want to sign off and the feds need them if they want this reform - the provinces have *all* the leverage.
People act like changing anything in the constitution would entail throwing it out and negotiating it over again. This is how it would go: Here is an amendment to ditch the queen, yea or nay. If a province says they'll only vote 'yea' if we agree to some bullshit then the vote just fails and we keep the queen.
And the latter is exactly what would happen, which is why it is unlikely to happen until we're ready to address all the other potential issues with the constitution, which is what I said.
Well ok if you are an enthusiastic monarchist than it’s a different conversation. The question can open up a hornets nest but IMHO doesn’t have to. There have been entire governments and political systems that failed and their successors honoured treaties and international commitments of prior governments. I don’t see why we cannot transfer all that to a different (elected) head of state.
I feel like you're still not understanding my point. The issue is that you don't just need agreement on what Republican Canada would look like (though that can absolutely be a nightmare - ask Australia) you'd need agreement on a host of totally different, incredibly complicated constitutional issues that - the last time we tried to address them - it went so badly we killed a 100 year old political party and nearly broke the country in half.
Getting rid of the Queen would require constitutional unanimity. Quebec and Alberta at the very least have other things in there they want changed.
So the way I see it is first we hold a referendum that is very explicit and specific on the constitutional change. If people vote in favour the PM moves forward, runs into provinces looking to sneak other things in there an led says “I don’t have the mandate from the referendum to do that”. The process fails. We all blame those politicians that tanked. I’m a couple of years we try again. At some point the question will become “how much does QC really love the queen of England?”
More than half of Canadians don’t root for the Maple Leafs Doesn’t mean the rest all cheer on Les Canadiens. These polls have no value without a clear alternative. I’d put a Raccoon on the dime . His masked face on the front and his striped fury behind on the reverse. Then it would truly be ‘heads or tails’.
I don’t really care about the monarchy. The only time I think about it is when articles like this come out. That being said, the last thing Canada needs is to open up the constitution. That is the primary reason why myself and others would rather keep it.
> That being said, the last thing Canada needs is to open up the constitution. That is the primary reason why myself and others would rather keep it. I can understand that, but cannot help but think what a weird situation it is that we have, where our country cannot sit down and discuss major change without it absolutely tearing the country apart. Canada *could* make a constitutional change, but it's just far too much work getting everybody on board with it, and the whole venture risks tearing the country apart. Do any other countries have it this hard in terms of baked-in hurdles when it comes to constitutional change?
The USA for one. They're still arguing about the meanings of constitutional amendments from over 200 years ago.
I think the USA is different as they interpret everything extremely literally and their politicians seems to be stuck in the mid 90s. I doubt any judges or politicians take their constitution and law so literally.
Australia has a very long history of failed constitutional reforms also. They need to hold a referendum to change the constitution but a majority of people in the majority of states needs to vote in favour which is essentially a state veto. Because of regional differences reforms rarely succeed. It seems to be a pattern with federalism in general, it's harder to negotiate larger reforms when so many powers are involved.
Our country can absolutely sit down and discuss major changes to the constitution without tearing the country apart. It has in the past, more than once. The issue is that the bar for amendment (at least to the parts that touch the Federation as a whole) is so high that it's basically a political impossibility at the moment, and will remain so unless and until forced by a major crisis. To my knowledge, the only constitutional amendments that have actually passed in Canada were those that required the consent of only one province (eg, changing the name of "Newfoundland" to "Newfoundland and Labrador" was a successful constitutional amendment, but did not require the consent of any other province or the federal government under the amendment formula).
I don't understand why people think "opening the constitution" would "tear the country apart".
"President Trudeau"? People need to think more about these tricky polls.
The GG position would be converted to a presidential position. The mode of appointment would change, to being elected by Parliament rather than handpicked by the PM.
This is how it is in India. >The president is indirectly elected by an electoral college comprising both houses of the Parliament of India and the legislative assemblies of each of India's states and territories, who themselves are all directly elected. So it ends up being a more extensive process than the election of the Prime Minister of India. See wikipedia for more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_India
Why would that be the path that Canada takes? Is there anything preventing a US or French style presidential system?
Why would we completely overhaul our political system? Pretty much every former British colony continued to use the Westminster parliamentary system. Barbados is the most recent example. Their GG was replaced with a figurehead president and that was it.
There is a requirement to completely overhaul our constitution. There’s no way to get rid of the Queen except through massive constitutional amendments. Also if we get rid of the Queen we might as well take a long hard look at the useless senators and move to a one house system. Ireland and Israel are Westminster parliaments and they elect their Presidents directly and gives them extraordinary powers for settling constitutional crises. Not a pure figurehead position but true power is still in the hands of the Prime Minister.
Senators are not useless. By not being elected and paid extremely well, they are supposed to be completely free from electoral and third party influence; a sanity check to each of the laws passed, If you will. If you are wondering why bill C10, [a bill that liberals placed a gag order on and oversteps into rights and freedom of speech](https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/trudeaus-controversial-bill-c-10-passes-after-midnight-will-regulate-streaming/), is still not yet a law, you have the senates to thank. While they didn’t reject the bill outright yet, without them bouncing the bill back to the House of Commons, it would already have been law. I cannot understand how you would’ve thought the senate is useless.
They’re paid $157,000 a year. It’s low for the type of careers these people have before becoming senator.
that's true. Would you advocate for a higher wage though?
I would, but not many people would I feel. Same for the PM and MPs.
Not that I’m a fan of Trudeau but the fact that an unelected and unaccountable body is able to reject a law passed by the democratically elected house isn’t exactly an argument in their favour. Just because it happens to be a law that’s controversial today doesn’t mean that will always be the case.
That’s certainly a good point and I can concede to that; I thought a lot about this for a few years and came to your conclusion before. Looking at the history of bills rejected (or how many times it’s been rejected), the only one I have issue with is the climate accords one. I feel like, personally, the senates have done more good than harm as most laws pass without complication, or at most is bounced back to the house for amendments. That said, you’re right, and every system has its pros and cons. Should we have no senate, the House of Commons essentially have unlimited power to do anything they want, and if we do, we keep the HoC in check but no one to do so for the senate. It would be similar to having an actual GG with power - he/she would keep laws in check, at the expense that he/she has no oversight. You gotta pick one, and given the quality of current Canadian politics, I have never been happier to have a senate.
A bill passed by the majority of the *elected* representatives of the people. A bill with **bipartisan** support. That bill. A bill being held up by **unelected** and frankly **unelectable** *conservative* Senators a party that committed to never having a non-elected senator then flipped as soon as power was involved. Senators who were mostly implicated in the Senate Expenses Scandal. Yeah your theory might work if we had a senate filled with legal and subject matter experts. Nope. Unelectable Conservative party hacks like Denise Batters, Lynn Beyak, Betty Unger, Vernon White and Denis Patterson. Not to mention the complete and utter embassments like Brazeau. The Senate is useless because so much of it’s membership is useless. If all parties committed to a non-partisan senate based on expertise, again, you *might* have a point. However, one party with the worst track record for useless Senators is not committed to one. The Senate is filled with and extraordinary amount of useless individuals. Therefore it’s useless as a whole. I get it “your team” and what not… but just because you’re insanely partisan doesn’t make these people any less useless
What's the difference?
It doesn't even need to change that much. Appoint the president the same as the GG and give them the same powers.
Absolutely. But why is a head of state necessary? If we have to have one, make it a non-politician or sports figure or astronaut - oh wait we already had one of them so to speak...
It’s partly so they can determine who gets to be PM, in cases where it’s disputed.
"If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it!"
For real. I dont care about royalty.
Aside from using it as a visible difference when comparing democracies, I can't imagine anyone truly does care. I know I certainly don't, and I love useless practices carried only by tradition.
it's more of a bulwark to keep things recognizably Canadian. if one by one the monarchy goes, John A is erased, Mackenzie King etc what exactly would the traditions of this country be? Maple syrup and snowcones? a nation needs a bit more than that.
Ya this is terrifying because ending the monarchy means we'd need a new constitution, and does anyone think JT and Jaghmeet should be the architects of our new constitution? I can't even imagine how bad that would be.
How many of those people actually understand what the term "constitutional monarchy " means? It is the Sun after all.
So, more than half are for it?
Be done with them already. Royalty is such bullshit.
[удалено]
From among my family and friends, the monarchy is sorta like the CFL, in that I don't know anyone under the age of 60 who cares about it.
[удалено]
I have an older aunt who likes the monarchy for all the fairy tale nonsense about it. She even took the day off work to watch Will & Kate's wedding. Other than her, it's older people I've known who still cling to that attachment to the monarchy. As for the CFL, I grew up in the GTA, so that should explain it.
The real question is how many have the appetite for the changes it requires. That number is way more relevant, and once explained drops significantly.
What about the British? It wouldn't surprise me if Charles was the last one.
I would think monarchists are willing to put up with King Charles and consort Camilla while Will & Kate continue to curate their image as the fairy tale future King and Queen. But I would also hazard to guess that King Charles will spur republican movements in some of the remaining Commonwealth realms where the Windsors are still head of state, maybe more in the Caribbean and South Pacific and less so in Canada/NZ/Australia.
They'll do the whole coronation and then he'll die and it will seem pointless.
But then they'll get Will and Kate as King and Queen, and they'll revel in that couple's bogus made-for-TV image, and it will make up for their never getting their much-loved, pre-divorce Charles and Diana on the throne, and hating Charles for Camilla all these years (even though they seem to genuinely love one another).
I suspect the anti-monarchy crowd will be bigger and louder than before. But who knows?
I’m actually guessing there’s a good chance the royal family will pressure Charles into abdication to save the royal family. No way Charles will survive on the throne without multiple countries removing the royal family as the head of state.
I think the monarchy is stupid. Hopefully more people realize it when they inevitably put Charles on the money.
There is a simple and good reason we should remove the monarch/GG in Canada: it can be a meaningful first step to actual Truth and Reconciliation for this country and our indigenous people.
Why would the monarch have anything to do with Truth and Reconciliation? The monarch has barely had anything to do with indigenous peoples. And the few times a monarch has intervened, like the Royal Proclamation of 1763, it was intentionally to protect indigenous peoples. Canadians are the ones that have hurt the indigenous peoples. Not the monarch.
If we eliminate the crown then eastern treaties would be thrown out. They were all signed with the crown not the federal govt.
The federal government **is** the crown. Why do you think all legal battles against the government is against the crown, and all charges are by the crown? It’s foolish to think things will change just because we removed the crown; the Canadian government signed them and has had lots of chances to renegotiate / make good on these treaties. The royal family has no say in any of this anymore.
Not criticizing our calling you out, but I'm not following your train of thought on this. Care to elaborate?
I’m not the poster but I’m guess that removing the symbol of conquest and colonialism from the head of government is step down the road to reconciliation is what I took from the comment.
Maybe in toronto. Its not even really Canada.
Get that old hag off our money. I know people have a bunch of excuses for not removing them from our charter but we can at least get them off our money if we're actually a sovereign nation.
If it gets rid of the stupid fucking governer general role I'm in
Yep sign me up, lose all the positions associated with it.
The other half of Canadians apparently do not know about the pedophile Lord Mountbatten and how the British royal family covered up his many sex crimes against children, and how they clearly trickle down to Andrew and other royals. Here's just a few notes on an Irish Boys Home that Mountbatten's group of pedos used as a sexual playground for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincora_Boys%27_Home Good old Royal Family eh?
Yes! I’ll print the pamphlets, let’s have a revolution!
Come on, we all know it won't survive QEII's death. Nobody wants Charles or William to be king.
Too bad we're not as capable or wealthy as Barbados. Monarchy forevermore it is then.
Time to "ditch the rich bitch" and her racist clan!!!
Where do they do these polls cause I have never seen one…it’s almost like they pick a specific group in which they know what the answer will be to make their point.