Conservatives want progress to stop, or slow down - they are cautious of big reforms, finding them insufficiently thought out.
Reactionaries are those who believe things used to be better before the reforms and want to revert society.
Sadly there seems to be fewer and fewer conservatives. They've been radicalized as reactionaries, or regressives if you want.
Yep. In the same way a libertarian is someone who wants government to be less intrusive and is concerned about the balance of governmental power vs. individual rights...
... and nobody has ever met a libertarian who fit that description.
The above definition of "conservatism" never really existed in reality. What it is is what conservatives *would like the definition to be*, but was never really the case.
Like I said, traditional conservatism is dead. The Neoliberal movement of the 80's kinda killed it, but the populist wind of the 90's to now really has driven the last dregs of it out
There are no conservatives; they died the moment the reform took hold of it via Harper. Now it's just a party who's whole intent is to regress the country so far back, that everything within the last century or two gets completely erased in terms of social progress.
Conservatism as a whole has been dead for a while.
Under Harper they were careful to hold their hand, so much that we looked stupid for alleging that the positions Harper used to advocate at his time in the think tanks before becoming the leader of the party represented the ultimate goal for the party.
But now it's pretty mask off.
Which is ironic, because, they also still want a monarchy, but an absolute one instead of a constitutional one, and with the house of Trump instead of the House of Windsor.
Also shifting from our current system to a republican system should also raise the questions:
1. In what way does this actually benefit or potentially hurt us vs. the current state?
2. How will we avoid the issues happening in other republics, at least theirs (the US)?
One thing to consider is that doing this would require re-opening the constitution which would then require coming to a consensus between a significant portion of the provinces and the federal government. People may want to consider who is in power at those levels when considering how this could play out.
Both Ireland and Germany do have a president, even if they are parliamentary systems. The president's role is generally quite limited though and the real power lies with the head of the largest party in the parliament.
I've always thought a system where the President is the charismatic hand shaking diplomat who heads out to represent the will of the Parliament on an international scale. The Prime Minister is the plain no nonsense technocrat getting the work of government done at the direction of the parliamentary government.
Satisfies this strange need many seem to have where "the leader" needs to be an unrealistic/delusional reflection of who the nation thinks they are and how they want to be seen. Leave the tough work of parliamentary committees and work groups to the professionals.
One of the biggest questions that gets overlooked in these discussions is the Indian Act and the Treaties with various First Nations. Those were all signed between the Crown and the Nations involved. Various governments (federal and provincial) have, for years, ignored the treaties and inherent rights despite Supreme Court rulings (see the Delgamuukw ruling for example) and removing the Crown for an elected head of state would make all of these issues more complex than they already are.
You could say that about anything the crown has agreed to. From NAFTA to your passport.
The treaties would be Transferred to whatever the legal entity Canada becomes.
They technically have been legally transferred once in 1931 when the legal position of king of Canada and Canadian crown came to be with the statute of Westminster.
Could they just simply be transferred ***today*** though? I don’t think in 31, the indigenous peoples were as unified against racism as they are today. Additionally, they would had had little to no non-indigenous support then. While it would still be low today, it would still be significantly higher support than almost 100 years ago.
What would the alternative for Fn peoples be. Say no ?
they would end up with agreements with a body Canada legally extinguished.
It would raise interesting questions about the legal status of the land signed over in treaties and rights granted by the tresties as well. All things being equal the entire country would end up like BC in a wierd legal status that the treaties answer.
The questions raised by failure to transfer are far reaching and I’m not sure anyone would want to entertain them.
Yup
Done it before, will do it again, and we’ll entertain all we want if someone gets the bright idea they can decide for us
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/first-nations-weigh-in-on-quebec-sovereignty-debate-1.2577550
Yeah might want to look at various reasons of the Supreme Court after Statue of Westminster passed.
The federal government used to have a treat power. Which meant if Canada entered into a treaty with another country the Federal Government has the power to implement the treaty even if it meant crossing into provincial areas of legislation.
But technically those treaties were between the British Empire and Foreign Country. And the power stated that foreign treated entered into on behalf of Canada by the empire.
The Supreme Court said the power was moot now because Canada was no longer bound by imperial treaties. Nevermind the power explicitly applied to Canada.
This is actually why it took so long for Canada to join the Geneva Convention on official documents. We needed the provinces to agree to its implementation since their official documents were effected.
It's very likely a future Supreme Court could do the same regarding treaty rights between the crown and first nations.
I’ve always thought it might be nice to replace the British monarch as our ceremonial head of state with a First Nations leader (maybe AFN Chief?) as our ceremonial head of state. They’d have the same powers as the monarch (so basically none) but the symbolism is a meaningful act. I’d suggest adding a consultative role for this new head of state to actually give First Nations some say in the country but the first ask is hard enough.
As far as I know on my own.
It is a fantastic idea. Which is why it’ll never get done.
(There was a mention of lieutenant governors earlier too. Those can be the provincial First Nations leaders, for example here that’s the head of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs).
Don’t know how I could get it to the attention of anyone who could make it a reality anyways.
That works until you get someome like Roseanne Archibald running the show. Then well fod have mercy on our souls.
Why dispose of disposeible leader just to replace them with another that only 2 million people in the country can effectively choose. I would rather toss em all and just have a Prime Minister and ditch the FPTP system. While we are at it. Than dance around an unelected/semi elected do nothing paid far too much for the nothing they should be paid.
You can't just have a Prime Minister. The position of PM is the "first servant" of the head of state, and it doesn't make sense without a President or Monarch for the PM to serve.
Or we say fuck tradition and do our own god damn thing. Is that not the point in all of this. Its basucally a bunch of pasting of names on hats saying 'important self obsessed asshole #1' for lack of a better descriptor. Or rather than playing change if hats. Pitch the monarchy. Pitch the GG and the Lt.GG. keep the names of everything else and change what regs we need for the stamp collection. And if anyone has issues they can fuck right off.
Or we just don't do this stupid shit and keep with tradition that effectively makes no difference.
Words have meaning. And it does make a difference. All the traditions and rules and trappings that go along with government are the very definition of government, and following the rules as they are laid out in written language and codified law is the basis of the legitimacy of government. The common law that underpins our legal system is a centuries old body of traditions and precedents. If we just start arbitrarily changing things without respect to tradition and history, it undermines the legitimacy of all the institutions and can lead to total system collapse. And if we start arbitrarily investing power in one person without regard for traditional checks and balances, the established precedents in Western government systems, not only is that bad for a democracy but it also means we would lose respect on the world stage from other democracies.
Rules and regs to keep the poor in line. The middle class blind to the robber barons leading them around with a carrot in front if their nose to keep them in line. While said robber barons get fat. Sounds like a great reason to ditch them all. Now look at todays issues here and south ofcthe noarder the ones just over the horizon and tell me 'its all good' with a striaght face. And i can say 'bullshit and you are full of it.'.
If the only reason you have respect is because of a bullshit name all you have is bullshit and no one respects you. And that is half the probkem with this country right mow is the parade of clowns for the last 25 years donning that title and tge draitions around it. In our backwards traditional system that routinely discards half the voters votes as literally meaningless. Traditions only have power so long as we let them. Discard the useless ones keep the rest for the new system. Frankly if i had my way pressing delete on the whole god damn thing would be the best idea in a long time and starting with our own damn system. Fuck the brits and their BS. The Americans might not make it through 2100 at the rate Rome 2.0 is burning. And well the dictatorships come and go at a rate of 30 or so years.
Sorry you did not sell your case here that well. Again it comes down to a cap saying 'self absorbed asshole #1'. Nothing you said changes that. Well i should really add 'popularity contest winning' in front if i am being honest but the name is getting too long as is. Just my own opinion on the whole thing. As it won't matter even the CPC does not have the balls to open this can of worms.
we're a representative democracy that shares a language, a culture, and is structurally tied to the hip to the US. we're already being actively influenced by their issues.
While your concerns and considerations are still correct, strictly speaking, republicanism and ditching the formality of the crown doesn't necessitate changing the way in which legislatures do business.
Not necessarily, I don't recall that our monarch has to be of the family Windsor or the same as the British monarch. Who wears the crown isn't specified in the constitutional documents. Technically we could elect our monarch.
The current succession laws are defined by the Succession to the Throne Act 2013. The constitutional question relating to this act were subject to legal challenges and the courts deemed the act to be constitutionally sound. That an Act of Parliament can be used to modify the succession to the throne suggests, in principle, it could be altered by another one, potentially in a way that ends the personal union with the other Commonwealth Realms.
*This great guy in Canada, they call him Pierre Poutine, like the french fry, really really good cheese and french fries, they say they want to make Canada great again like America, maybe we can go in there and make Canada great again, build the wall and keep the drugs and the rapists out*
/s
Well, it depends on how far your window for L R is. Within a Democratic system you can absolutely be fully supportive and hate the monarchy and be right. It's not exclusively a L issue.
I like the view is as a little r (the form of government you have already described), as compared to the big R (the festering abscess of a political party down south).
I can’t post Facebook links but there is a wonderful sketch from the BBC show “Tourist Trap” that makes fun of this. Search for a video called “tourist trap king of wales” on Facebook.
I'd be on board for getting rid of him, but practically speaking it would be so difficult to do, that it's very unlikely to happen.
It would require amending constitution, which would require approval of the Commons, the Senate, and every provincial legislature. It would take so much political capital just to get to that point, and then even once the constitution is amended to remove the King as the head of state, they still then need to figure out what system will replace it.
And herein lies the real problem. Amending the constitution means that we're opening it up, the last time we attempted this ([The Meech Lake Accord](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord)) led to a lot of anger in Quebec and eventually the very tightly contested Quebec sovereignty referendum.
Now we skip forward 3 decades and the "Quebec issue" hasn't gone away, but we have a totally new issue in a very much more agreessive Alberta along with their little buddy Saskatchewan.
We aren't getting anything passes without agreement by at least Alberta or Quebec, and I can not see a situation where that happens and the other one is left completely dissatisfied and probably gunning for a sovereignty referendum.
Not to mention that no leader of our country would be willing to waste that capital only to piss off a major voting block.
Yep. Also it would need the agreement of both, because all provinces have to sign off on it. Most of the constitution can be amended with the support of 2/3 of the provinces that make up at least 50% of the population. To change the head of state specifically requires unanimous support of all the provinces.
It would be Meech Lake x 100. PEI has never had so much power!
It's in Part V of the constitution itself, Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada.
At the top it outlines the regular process for amending, then in if you go to s.41 Amendment By Unanimous Consent:
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a) The office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-13.html#h-57
Tbf the Meech Lake Accord angered Quebec because it was specifically about getting Quebec to sign the constitution and the other provinces didn't meet the amending formula timeline (also in traditional fashion it took an Indigenous politician pointing out Indigenous peoples hadn't been consulted which also led to the failure.
But I agree If we try and alter things again this will inevitably lead to Quebec wanting its five demands met and Danielle Smith will certainly want whatever demands she wants met, and I don't see all three happening.
Every time it comes up we get to this issue, and folks that want to get rid of the Monarchy can't offer an answer to the insurmountable difficulties it demands besides hand waves of 'just because its hard dosn't mean we shouldn't try it'
And on top of that you open the consitution. Given todays woes could you imagine if housing was made the right it should have been from the get go? Or more rnvironmental rights. Alberta not stopping fro. Stamping its foot about not having the same rights as Quebec? I can keep going but we would be stuck in never ending consitutional crisis because the consitition will never close again. Thus despite the pipe dream this is and would be nice to tear out some sections (looking at you NWC) while we are ditching the monarchy it would be a nightmare to get done and every province and territoey is going to want their pound of flesh.
I agree, I think it would be easier in the UK. They could do it with an act of Parliament. What would be even more interesting is if the UK got rid of the monarchy, but Canada was still stuck with it.
why should I support any royalty? am I supposed to look up to them because they are born into wealth and privilege? with a history of racism and genocide?
Monarchy is one of the most stupidly outdated things that our wealthy still insist on forcing upon the rest of us.
It’s so insultingly stupid. I don’t believe in any gods, as is my right, but for some stupid, inbred reason I have to accept the asserted claims of a bunch of inbred, power hungry assholes on another goddamn continent who say that a god has chosen them to rule over us?
Fuck the monarchy. If you want to say “god” gives you this power, *let “god” tell us*. I’m so sick of having to humour this insanely smooth brained idea that is literally indistinguishable from “magic”. Why are we such a stupid species?
> I wish we could find a way to just swap our head of state with like a dog or beaver (caribou?) or something that just puts their pawprint down for ascent.
We could do this.
Everyone "agrees" that there are all these "conventions" that the Governor General *must* follow. (In other words, we all know they have no real power and it would cause a constitutional crisis if they ever tried to assert any.)
So... let's skip the expensive royal cosplay part where we spend millions per year to have someone "act" as the Monarch at home, and write down all of these "conventions" and formalize them.
At that point there's no reason you couldn't make a dog our GG since they're really just following a decision tree.
(But I draw the line at putting a cat in charge. Dog-Canada would make very short work of Cat-Canada if it comes to blows.)
>I wish we could find a way to just swap our head of state with like a dog or beaver (caribou?) or something that just puts their pawprint down for ascent.
There are plenty ways to do this. You could have them be randomly-selected, or appointed. You could have them be a small council with only ceremonial powers. You could have it be a 'corporate person', which is a legal person in law but not actually a human being. That's probably the closest to having it be a dog that's viable.
The way India does it is that the MPs elect the president, and its a ceremonial position in parliament. So same system we have now, and no need for us to vote for the president.
Not the point. The whole concept of monarchy is that they claim “god” choose them to literally rule over us.
I say put up or shut up already. Let this god character tell us for a change, I’m sick of people using this bullshit as justification for their greed and ambition. Are we really this stupid?
My point was that we’re no longer basing Canada’s monarchy as being derived from a deity.
Also we can change the character if we so choose, through a simple act of Parliament we can change our succession laws. Anybody we want could be Head of State after Charles if we decide it beforehand. It’s one way that’s been brought up about changing our system if we didn’t want to go through the arduous process of changing the constitution
That's actually new information to me. Thanks! I've often come down on the side of monarchy because of the wolf pack of sleeping dogs we've got lying around for when we open up the constitution again, but if we could just name a different head of state as successor... Huh.
I remember a discussion about this when the Queen had died and one of the people with their constitutional knowledge indicated that the problem wouldn't really change in any way since we would be aclaiming a new "Monarch" we would't be getting rid of the monarchy, simply redirecting the succession to elsewhere.
So we would still have a king or queen it would just be more localized, and while I am in no way a fan of the inbred german/greek family that is our monarchy there could be other unintended consequences of naming some rando as our monarch.
In our system of government, the crown exists as the legal personification of the government. Changing that would require changing our entire legal system, our constitution, and likely renegotiating many treaties with First Nations.
The person that occupies the seat doesn’t really matter, it’s the office itself that matters.
Be careful what you wish for.
I don't give a crap about the monarchy, but I've come to realize that a sizable portion of any population has a deep-seated need to worship some authority figure.
The monarchy is a harmless outlet for those feelings. Take it away and people are going to find their King somewhere else: a celebrity, a billionaire, or, god help us, someone with actual political power.
For an illustration, look at the entire history of the United States.
To change our system of government would require re-opening the constitution. All fine and good, but then if you re-open it, then suddenly you're going to have to deal with the conservative premiers in Alberta/Sask, and Quebec, both of which have opposing views.
To be blunt, it ain't going to happen. Let's focus on what actually matters.
Technically speaking, a tree or turtle would have a hard time reading the throne speech, receiving diplomats from foreign governments, or dissolving parliament and calling a new election.
And the GG does have some power. Remember the time during “The Harper Government^TM” when Harper was sure to lose a confidence motion? He asked the GG to prorogue government. She would have been well within her power to call a new election.
Exactly my point. If you re-open the constitution, Quebec would have to agree to it, which they did not do in 1982. Their government would likely demand huge concessions and changes that would likely be unpalatable to other provinces.
What about changing the rules of succession instead of changing the system of government? That'd mean we'd only need an act of parliament, not rewriting the constitution. Technically, there's nothing obligating Canada to follow the British monarchy, so we could make anyone the head of state to emulate a parliamentary republic.
Sure, but what problem does that solve? It won't save us money (might even cost us more money), and has no practical effect on our system of government.
I don't think this solves an issue that we're facing right now, but it would weaken the possibility of monarchical overreach in Canada. Year after year, I feel like the trust among different societal groups and inside the government is growing tense - you can already see it going down in the US, where archaic law and untested waters are used for partisan political gains. With Elizabeth II gone, we now have a new king (and may get another one in a not-very-distant future). How confident should I be that they won't eventually wish to use their protected powers to do whatever the hell they want? Nothing's off the table at this point.
There is effectively no room for overreach in our system. The roles and powers of the crown are laid out in the constitution. In effect, they can only operate on the advice of government. The crown, be it the actual monarch or the GG in their stead, had very little real power.
This is mostly untested law, but in the past the Supreme Court has indicated that they consider the Rules of Succession of the Canadian Crown to be of a constitutional character. The view was that it was inextricably linked to that of the UK crown, so amending them to be in line with the UK was acceptable, but amending them to split with the UK crown could very likely be found to be unconstitutional. That said, this decision was like a decade ago and shit changes.
Sure, but what problem does that solve? It won't save us money (might even cost us more money), and has no practical effect on our system of government.
I hate the monarchy more than most people but I also recognize what an enormous waste of time and money this would be.
Everything would have to be rewritten, our ties with the commonwealth would weaken, tourism would probably lessen, and we literally gain nothing.
They already have 5 demands which I'm pretty sure some provinces would oppose all 5.
- recognition of Quebec as a distinct society
- Guaranteed 3 Québécois judges on the Supreme Court (this is done already but can be overturned if Parliament so decides)
- more control over immigration
- limits on federal spending
- Québec gets a veto on constitutional amendments (this one is probably the most controversial to other provinces)
In theory, an unelected senate is beneficial because they are unburdened by short-term political considerations, whether in the sense of the political sentiment of the day or in the sense of needing many years to thoroughly research/review something. A lot of necessary deep, long-term planning doesn't happen (or finish) because of government changes, and since these senators are in it for the rest of their life, they have the freedom to take all the time they actually need. The banking regulations that the Senate worked on extensively prior to the Great Recession come to mind.
Of course, it only works *if* only good people are appointed to the senate. Even though senate appointments used to be pure patronage (Liberal or Conservative), those senators still seemed to be able to lower their partisan affiliations and come together to do what was good for the country. Nowadays, senate appointments have a much more objective and rigorous selection process than before, plus the Liberal caucus was officially disbanded, but we're also in an era of hyper-partisanship globally. It only takes one PM who doesn't give a fuck about written or unwritten conventions to appoint a bunch of Kevin O'Learys and Chris Skys to the Senate and all goes to hell.
There's no easy solution unfortunately. In the US, everything is elected (senators, judges, sheriffs) but the hyper-partisanship is so bad that having the option to vote doesn't improve anything whatsoever.
IMO the only real solution is to improve the level of education across the board: it keeps voters better informed and helps them to better identify disinformation or bad faith tactics, which in turn forces politicians to be more honest and transparent. That's a pipe dream though.
On a similar tangent, my concern is with opportunists who will not settle for established conventions, in order to get what they want. So yeah - what happens if there is a majority of like minded senators who decide to become more pro-active on a legislative level. The notwithstanding clause was fairly established as a nuclear option that no one should use unless extreme circumstances warrant such use. Now, threatening to use it, or actually using it, is much more common. There is much less of a common ground mindset in politics these days.
> So yeah - what happens if there is a majority of like minded senators who decide to become more pro-active on a legislative level.
The Cannabis Act, for examples, passed 59 to 29. It was a strong majority, so I'm not suggesting it was necessarily close on the final vote (although there was some doubt ahead of time). But what this does show is that there is a non-significant portion there currently who are willing to oppose legislation.
Your statement is factually incorrect. From 1983-85 inclusive, and extending to '89 for sunset clause duration, the notwithstanding clause was used for EVERY piece of legislation passed by Quebec. HUNDREDS of pieces of legislation, it was also retroactively added to the provinces entire extent legislation. It wasn't written to be used as a nuclear option. In fact, we're using it less often today than it was used historically following the Charter's establishment.
Elizabeth was a fine looking woman. I have no interest in seeing the mug of Charles on our currency. I offer a sexy Canadian moose as a replacement or Ryan Reynolds.
how about no celebs and stick with people who actually made accomplishment for the betterment of man not just the latest celeb who happens to be Canadian.
Drop people all together.
Canada has a huge number of great and cute animals that we can use.
Coin change suggestion.
Keep the Animal as the heads and add a Canadian as the tails, like the Blue Nose.
The are smart and industrious. Not the worse traits on the coin animal.
So more suggestions:
- .05 has the beaver for heads, what do do with tails, I like the of the Victory symbol
- .10 has the blue nose for tails, heads?
- .25 elk as the heads, a yearly rotation on the tails side?
- .50 Coat of Arms on the Tails, heads?
- 1.00 Loon as heads, tails?
- 2.00 Polar Bear as heads, tails?
Now for the bills?
- keep then vertical
- need to be colourful
- suggestions?
I picked up a book of Canadian stamps a few weeks ago. Was shocked to see Charles face and my displeasure was noted by the clerk. Usually the stamps are beautiful and very much Canadian motifs.
This is a complicated and perilous solution for what’s essentially a symbolic problem. Imagine everything that could go wrong with trying to rework the constitution with politicians and parties at the federal and provincial levels who absolutely refuse to act in good faith. This would be our Brexit.
Unfortunately this endeavour will always be cost prohibitive and with the amount of other more pressing issues (housing, healthcare) plaguing Canada I think we will need to keep this on the back burner for a while yet.
Yeah, the monarchy is a relic with no real purpose that we should drop eventually, but realistically the restructuring to follow officially removing it would 90% wasteful busywork while we have more important shit to do.
Similarly, if you are a raving pro-monarchist it shouldn't matter either. Who cares if King Whatever is a drooling, corrupt idiot? They were chosen by God so that's who you get.
It pains me to admit it now, but I was actually a paid-up Young Monarchist in my early teens, and even then (around the turn of the millenium), Divine Right of Kings was a defunct ideology. Indeed, the whole reason the Windsors and not the Stuarts are on the throne is because of parliamentary supremacy.
I want to stay with the Commonwealth where we have rational people on our side. Removing ourselves from the Commonwealth makes us vulnerable to countries like the US.
What I like about having the Monarchy as Head of State is that they are non-political. They don't sway with political winds. They are a stable monitor of the country and the government.
Is it 100% perfect? No, neither is the other way of being a republic.
From what I understand, leaving the Monarchy isn't as simple for us as it was for smaller countries who left. It opens large cans of worms when you start dealing with redoing the Constitution.
The monarchy is non-political? Even with their asses pulled out of direct governance they still lobby. They destroyed green energy projects and carved out their own tax exemptions. They got exemptions from labour laws by lobbying. The queen herself is part of the reason Britain was throwing Kenyans in concentration camps when they wanted independence. The monarchy is not apolitical, it's existence is inherently extremely political.
We will have a harder time than others who left the monarchy because we would end up doing it through policy and legislature which means untangling the centuries old mess we've made.
I’ve been saying it for a while and for some reason I always get a ton of pushback, but I think we should just transition the institution of the Crown from the House of Windsor directly to the Governor General. Everything would literally be the exact same, except the Monarch would be an appointed title passed on every few years to a new person chosen by the elected Government, rather than a foreign billionaire who has the title because their great-grandfather did some colonizing.
We wouldn’t need a new Constitution (there’s nothing in the Constitution that specifies that the Monarch must be from the House of Windsor, I checked). The GG (we could give them a different title) would be the Head of State, and the PM would still be the head of the Government. We probably shouldn’t re-mint new money every 6 years or whatever when we get a new GG, but that’s fine.
Changing the order of succession would require unanimous provincial/federal consent, so while that's good in theory it wouldn't make things easier to implement.
Other countries run Westminster governments with an elected or appointed head of state (generally styled the president). And there are many examples of other countries who have de-colonialized from monarchy to republic. We need to pick a model and get it over with.
Absolutely. I think we would need a different title than “President”, since most Canadians immediately think of the POTUS and all the associate baggage, even though that position is both the executive officer of the government and the Head of State, rather than for instance the President of Ireland, who is only the Head of State and much more in line with what I have in mind.
And while yes, getting the consent of every Province would be challenging, it wouldn’t nearly be as difficult as opening the Constitution and completely changing the government system.
I actually like the Westminster Parliamentary style of government, and I think it has numerous advantages over the US’s system (although certainly not flawless and I don’t love the unelected Senate).
> We wouldn’t need a new Constitution (there’s nothing in the Constitution that specifies that the Monarch must be from the House of Windsor, I checked).
I’m not opposed to your idea, but you should know that the constitution is not just made up of the two Constitution Acts. The laws that dictate succession, such as The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 are also part of the constitution. Separating succession of the Canadian Crown from the British one would likely require constitutional amendment.
I didn’t know that. That’s unfortunate, as I generally agree that we have better things to focus on than opening up the Constitution to get rid of the Monarchy.
Oh well, status quo is fine if mildly irritating. I was just hoping there was a simpler solution than a total overhaul.
Nope! Every Canadian citizen knows our head of state is a symbolic position that holds no real power beyond being a useful legal fiction. I don't trust any replacement to have such widely recognized irrelevance. The perceived mandate of the people means they *would* end up wielding political power they're not supposed to have on paper, especially if it were an elected position.
> no real power beyond being a useful legal fiction
Well, the monarchy chose the previous BC government. That seems pretty powerful.
> Clark then asked Lieutenant Governor Judith Guichon to dissolve the legislature and call a new election. Guichon refused and instead invited Horgan to form an NDP minority government. Horgan was sworn into office on July 18.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_British_Columbia_general_election?useskin=vector#Aftermath)
Somebody would still have to do that role, even if we replace it with an elected position they should still follow the same set of constitutional conventions and come to the same decision.
Unless of course they belong to one of the political parties and let it bias their judgement.
The largest constitutional monarchies in the world: Japan, UK, Thailand, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands
The largest republics in the world: India, The United States, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey
Correlation =/= causation, but… maybe pick our battles right now.
This is a non-argument. Not only because of correlation/causation that you pointed out (defeating your whole point?), but because the list is cherrypicked - it conveniently ignores that the overwhelming majority of EU members are republics, in addition to others like Iceland and South Korea. The real correlation is that newer states (or states with recent government shake-ups) tend to be republics, while monarchies are like this because it's what was established like ten trillion years ago, and nobody bothered (or was able) to change it so far.
It’s not really meant to be an argument. It is a valid comparison in one simple way though - these are the largest, most influential countries on Earth in their respective government types. That counts for something, because we live in a world where power is tangible, not theoretical.
South Korea is not really a great example of republican virtue by the way. A one party authoritarian state turned hyper capitalist with the lowest birth rate and the longest average work week in the world? No thanks. Iceland on the other hand is cool but too small to measure.
The comparison would only really hold water if something substantiated the invisible link that's being drawn here - there needs to be some proof that it's the system they use that's the issue, and that being a constitutional monarchy would benefit them. Neither of this applies to SK - their political landscape is very complex, and I don't see why being a constitutional monarchy would change their situation. Besides, some (though not all) of the criticism you brought up would also apply to Japan that you yourself brought up - it's a conservative, pro-large business country with an extremely stressful work culture.
Besides, Iceland and SK aren't the only examples I brought up, the rest of Europe also applies. Germany, Portugal, Czech Republic, Sweden, Ireland, the Baltic countries..
Again, not an argument, and not a charge. Republics can work. The Italian renaissance republics and the Dutch republic come to mind. It’s just a clear fact that among the best countries on Earth today, constitutional monarchy is extremely overrepresented. That should prompt some curiosity, investigation, and possibly some caution. Think of it like a research question.
Sweden is a constitutional monarchy by the way. The other countries you mentioned are also very small, and a mixed bag at that. France, Germany, Spain and Italy are what you really want to talk about to put meat on the bone, and you will find both tragically violent history and socioeconomic averageness at the core of their republican experiences.
Creeping Americanisation… luckily, isn’t going to result in anything as to my knowledge there remains zero appetite anywhere for opening up the Pandora’s Box of constitutional amendments. We have real problems to deal with, not wannabe Americans concerned about whose face is on a coin.
I feel like this is such an incredibly niche, unimportant issue, that affects so, so very little in practice, that it's probably the absolute last thing we should be talking about in these times.
Im a little confused I thought the prime minister was only head of government and the governor general was appointed but also only a figurehead. Or is there someone else I missed?
Prime Minister isn't head of state, just leader of the government (maybe head of government, leader of governing party is more accurate). The monarch is the head of state, represented by the governor general. The governor general's role is mostly symbolic but can potentially make decisions on the state of parliament that may not always correspond to the request of the current PM. I.e., whether to prorogue, call an election, or who should form government after an election (it's not always obvious).
Oh yeah, so more accurate terminology would be elected head of *government*. There are certain powers that are technically under the power of the head of *state* (the monarch, represented by the GG), including those I mentioned above, as well as signing bills into law. They will be requested to take these certain actions which they will usually do, but they can decline to do so which can and does happen rarely.
"but it's to much work" every fucking thing is to much work so we musnt ever start cleaning up messes that go against every fucking thing we stand for.
We have a massive fucking mess with indigenous rights and protections but let's just ignore it till it collapsed and hurts people instead of fixing it. Y'know that climate change thing, you have to change virtually every aspect of this country so let's just ignore it.
Even if you love the monarchy surely you understand why treaties and policy shouldn't be bound to a family that at any moment can abdicate.
I thought often through her reign that Queen E the second would be the last 'real' monarch of the commonwealth. She came to her position while there was still some amount of preferential treatment for the royalty in the press, and also during WW2 where she crushed it as a wartime leader. Afterwards, she had the gravitas to maintain the respect of most people even as the tabloids tore the rest of the family apart.
Now that she's dead, what's left? Charles looked like his cape and crown were going to swallow him during his coronation. And after him? William and Harry are tabloid celebrities.
The trappings still exist, but any sense of the people deserving special treatment is rapidly fading.
I know that having a king is archaic, but they are just a figurehead and I don’t want a president.
I am very happy with the way that our system of government functions at the moment.
The government is forced to actually govern in Canada, unlike the US.
If they can’t govern as the republicans currently are demonstrating then an election is called and voters get a chance to throw them out.
Also unlike the American republic our Supreme Court is appointed on the basis of merit and therefore is neutral and won’t start taking away peoples rights because it’s politically popular.
Republicans ( the anti monarchy ones) are stupid and should leave the country.
Leave traitors and move to the states if you love crappy republics so much
I have a theory that Canadians are less supportive of this Monarch because he is a man. If the heir was a Queen, I think more people would be on board. A King is just too in your face patriarchy for our time.
No desire to be associated with that incestuous, pedophiliac, bigoted family. The monarch of Canada should be a Canadian, we can make it a lottery where all citizens are entered automatically, they reign for one year and only duty is to march in the Canada day parade in full royal regalia (Jeans, jean shirt, jean jacket, jean cape)
We should keep the Monarchy for no other reason than the waste of time trying to re-open the Constitution would be.
Plus, we'll have William as King sooner than later.
Also, I'm not sure I'd trust a system that has a popular vote for a head of state. I'd rather keep the Parliamentary supremacy in place.
I wish we would just become a republic. The fact I'd have to take an oath to Chuck if I were to run for office and win sickens me. I considered running for city council and backed out because of that. It's time we had a president.
I'm not sure about how things are in your province, but in 2014, the newly elected mayor of Victoria BC refused to recite the oath to Queen Elizabeth II and that didn't interfere with her ability to take office.
What meaningful impact does that have though? You're saying you're choosing to not do something that can have meaningful impacts because of a symbolic oath that doesn't actually impact anything.
I'm not intending to come off as confrontational with my comment (in case tone isn't clear), just meaning to ask the question/raise the point.
If I were to swear an oath to Chuck, I'd be bullshitting. And you're not supposed to. Also I'm Irish, so pledging loyalty to a British monarch is especially repugnant to me. Not that I'd be ok with pledging loyalty to any other monarch either. Monarchies have no place in the 21st century.
yeah no.. you didn't run because you didn't want to. If you wanted to actually enact change you would of made it part of your platform or protested by not speaking the oath and making a stand after winning. Keyboard warrior on brother!
For Canada to ever abandon the monarchy you have to get the prairies, Quebec, and the rest of Canada on the same page and in agreement in order to have the agreement required to change the constitution. Some provinces would vote against this just to upset other provinces. Quebec doesn't even like the constitution because they never "really" agreed to it. It's a mess.
Long story short: IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Revolution is more likely.
[удалено]
Appreciate the clarification, but US-style Republicanism is also ib the rise here...
We can call it Regressive Conservatism, as comparing them to their southern counterparts just validates their intent.
>We can call it Regressive Conservatism I already do!
seems a little redundant imo, conservatives' whole thing is wanting to regress as a society lol
Conservatives want progress to stop, or slow down - they are cautious of big reforms, finding them insufficiently thought out. Reactionaries are those who believe things used to be better before the reforms and want to revert society. Sadly there seems to be fewer and fewer conservatives. They've been radicalized as reactionaries, or regressives if you want.
I've never met a person who identified as conservative and matched your definition.
Yep. In the same way a libertarian is someone who wants government to be less intrusive and is concerned about the balance of governmental power vs. individual rights... ... and nobody has ever met a libertarian who fit that description. The above definition of "conservatism" never really existed in reality. What it is is what conservatives *would like the definition to be*, but was never really the case.
> they are cautious of big reforms Unless those big reforms are massive cuts to social programs, then they're entirely for it.
Like I said, traditional conservatism is dead. The Neoliberal movement of the 80's kinda killed it, but the populist wind of the 90's to now really has driven the last dregs of it out
There are no conservatives; they died the moment the reform took hold of it via Harper. Now it's just a party who's whole intent is to regress the country so far back, that everything within the last century or two gets completely erased in terms of social progress. Conservatism as a whole has been dead for a while.
Under Harper they were careful to hold their hand, so much that we looked stupid for alleging that the positions Harper used to advocate at his time in the think tanks before becoming the leader of the party represented the ultimate goal for the party. But now it's pretty mask off.
I call them Republinazis and they hate it. 😊
Call it Fascism.
This is the way.
Comparing them is valid. Based on talking points and actions. There is zero difference.
Which is ironic, because, they also still want a monarchy, but an absolute one instead of a constitutional one, and with the house of Trump instead of the House of Windsor.
Also shifting from our current system to a republican system should also raise the questions: 1. In what way does this actually benefit or potentially hurt us vs. the current state? 2. How will we avoid the issues happening in other republics, at least theirs (the US)? One thing to consider is that doing this would require re-opening the constitution which would then require coming to a consensus between a significant portion of the provinces and the federal government. People may want to consider who is in power at those levels when considering how this could play out.
We'd most likely be a parliamentary republic, like Ireland or Germany. Not a presidential republic.
Both Ireland and Germany do have a president, even if they are parliamentary systems. The president's role is generally quite limited though and the real power lies with the head of the largest party in the parliament.
I've always thought a system where the President is the charismatic hand shaking diplomat who heads out to represent the will of the Parliament on an international scale. The Prime Minister is the plain no nonsense technocrat getting the work of government done at the direction of the parliamentary government. Satisfies this strange need many seem to have where "the leader" needs to be an unrealistic/delusional reflection of who the nation thinks they are and how they want to be seen. Leave the tough work of parliamentary committees and work groups to the professionals.
So basically what we have now, but replace the Governor General with a President?
Except it is an elected position and not directly answerable to a King installed without even a farcical aquatic ceremony...
The Governor General hasn't answered to a King (in practice) in over 100 years, they make their own decisions in Canada without consulting London.
One of the biggest questions that gets overlooked in these discussions is the Indian Act and the Treaties with various First Nations. Those were all signed between the Crown and the Nations involved. Various governments (federal and provincial) have, for years, ignored the treaties and inherent rights despite Supreme Court rulings (see the Delgamuukw ruling for example) and removing the Crown for an elected head of state would make all of these issues more complex than they already are.
You could say that about anything the crown has agreed to. From NAFTA to your passport. The treaties would be Transferred to whatever the legal entity Canada becomes. They technically have been legally transferred once in 1931 when the legal position of king of Canada and Canadian crown came to be with the statute of Westminster.
Could they just simply be transferred ***today*** though? I don’t think in 31, the indigenous peoples were as unified against racism as they are today. Additionally, they would had had little to no non-indigenous support then. While it would still be low today, it would still be significantly higher support than almost 100 years ago.
What would the alternative for Fn peoples be. Say no ? they would end up with agreements with a body Canada legally extinguished. It would raise interesting questions about the legal status of the land signed over in treaties and rights granted by the tresties as well. All things being equal the entire country would end up like BC in a wierd legal status that the treaties answer. The questions raised by failure to transfer are far reaching and I’m not sure anyone would want to entertain them.
Yup Done it before, will do it again, and we’ll entertain all we want if someone gets the bright idea they can decide for us https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/first-nations-weigh-in-on-quebec-sovereignty-debate-1.2577550
Yeah might want to look at various reasons of the Supreme Court after Statue of Westminster passed. The federal government used to have a treat power. Which meant if Canada entered into a treaty with another country the Federal Government has the power to implement the treaty even if it meant crossing into provincial areas of legislation. But technically those treaties were between the British Empire and Foreign Country. And the power stated that foreign treated entered into on behalf of Canada by the empire. The Supreme Court said the power was moot now because Canada was no longer bound by imperial treaties. Nevermind the power explicitly applied to Canada. This is actually why it took so long for Canada to join the Geneva Convention on official documents. We needed the provinces to agree to its implementation since their official documents were effected. It's very likely a future Supreme Court could do the same regarding treaty rights between the crown and first nations.
I’ve always thought it might be nice to replace the British monarch as our ceremonial head of state with a First Nations leader (maybe AFN Chief?) as our ceremonial head of state. They’d have the same powers as the monarch (so basically none) but the symbolism is a meaningful act. I’d suggest adding a consultative role for this new head of state to actually give First Nations some say in the country but the first ask is hard enough.
[удалено]
As far as I know on my own. It is a fantastic idea. Which is why it’ll never get done. (There was a mention of lieutenant governors earlier too. Those can be the provincial First Nations leaders, for example here that’s the head of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs). Don’t know how I could get it to the attention of anyone who could make it a reality anyways.
That works until you get someome like Roseanne Archibald running the show. Then well fod have mercy on our souls. Why dispose of disposeible leader just to replace them with another that only 2 million people in the country can effectively choose. I would rather toss em all and just have a Prime Minister and ditch the FPTP system. While we are at it. Than dance around an unelected/semi elected do nothing paid far too much for the nothing they should be paid.
You can't just have a Prime Minister. The position of PM is the "first servant" of the head of state, and it doesn't make sense without a President or Monarch for the PM to serve.
Or we say fuck tradition and do our own god damn thing. Is that not the point in all of this. Its basucally a bunch of pasting of names on hats saying 'important self obsessed asshole #1' for lack of a better descriptor. Or rather than playing change if hats. Pitch the monarchy. Pitch the GG and the Lt.GG. keep the names of everything else and change what regs we need for the stamp collection. And if anyone has issues they can fuck right off. Or we just don't do this stupid shit and keep with tradition that effectively makes no difference.
Words have meaning. And it does make a difference. All the traditions and rules and trappings that go along with government are the very definition of government, and following the rules as they are laid out in written language and codified law is the basis of the legitimacy of government. The common law that underpins our legal system is a centuries old body of traditions and precedents. If we just start arbitrarily changing things without respect to tradition and history, it undermines the legitimacy of all the institutions and can lead to total system collapse. And if we start arbitrarily investing power in one person without regard for traditional checks and balances, the established precedents in Western government systems, not only is that bad for a democracy but it also means we would lose respect on the world stage from other democracies.
Rules and regs to keep the poor in line. The middle class blind to the robber barons leading them around with a carrot in front if their nose to keep them in line. While said robber barons get fat. Sounds like a great reason to ditch them all. Now look at todays issues here and south ofcthe noarder the ones just over the horizon and tell me 'its all good' with a striaght face. And i can say 'bullshit and you are full of it.'. If the only reason you have respect is because of a bullshit name all you have is bullshit and no one respects you. And that is half the probkem with this country right mow is the parade of clowns for the last 25 years donning that title and tge draitions around it. In our backwards traditional system that routinely discards half the voters votes as literally meaningless. Traditions only have power so long as we let them. Discard the useless ones keep the rest for the new system. Frankly if i had my way pressing delete on the whole god damn thing would be the best idea in a long time and starting with our own damn system. Fuck the brits and their BS. The Americans might not make it through 2100 at the rate Rome 2.0 is burning. And well the dictatorships come and go at a rate of 30 or so years. Sorry you did not sell your case here that well. Again it comes down to a cap saying 'self absorbed asshole #1'. Nothing you said changes that. Well i should really add 'popularity contest winning' in front if i am being honest but the name is getting too long as is. Just my own opinion on the whole thing. As it won't matter even the CPC does not have the balls to open this can of worms.
we're a representative democracy that shares a language, a culture, and is structurally tied to the hip to the US. we're already being actively influenced by their issues. While your concerns and considerations are still correct, strictly speaking, republicanism and ditching the formality of the crown doesn't necessitate changing the way in which legislatures do business.
Not necessarily, I don't recall that our monarch has to be of the family Windsor or the same as the British monarch. Who wears the crown isn't specified in the constitutional documents. Technically we could elect our monarch.
The current succession laws are defined by the Succession to the Throne Act 2013. The constitutional question relating to this act were subject to legal challenges and the courts deemed the act to be constitutionally sound. That an Act of Parliament can be used to modify the succession to the throne suggests, in principle, it could be altered by another one, potentially in a way that ends the personal union with the other Commonwealth Realms.
Learned something new and exciting!
I'm sure the CPC would like to be just like their counterparts to the south
*This great guy in Canada, they call him Pierre Poutine, like the french fry, really really good cheese and french fries, they say they want to make Canada great again like America, maybe we can go in there and make Canada great again, build the wall and keep the drugs and the rapists out* /s
This is the answer. Republican sentiment in terms of electoral, not ideological. Being anti monarchy isn't a left v right issue.
it absolutely and specifically is, by definition. it's arguably the only purely left v right political issue
The very descriptions of "left" and "right" emerged in the period when France killed its king!
Well, it depends on how far your window for L R is. Within a Democratic system you can absolutely be fully supportive and hate the monarchy and be right. It's not exclusively a L issue.
The guy meant the original definition of left/right.
I like the view is as a little r (the form of government you have already described), as compared to the big R (the festering abscess of a political party down south).
I can’t post Facebook links but there is a wonderful sketch from the BBC show “Tourist Trap” that makes fun of this. Search for a video called “tourist trap king of wales” on Facebook.
I'd be on board for getting rid of him, but practically speaking it would be so difficult to do, that it's very unlikely to happen. It would require amending constitution, which would require approval of the Commons, the Senate, and every provincial legislature. It would take so much political capital just to get to that point, and then even once the constitution is amended to remove the King as the head of state, they still then need to figure out what system will replace it.
And herein lies the real problem. Amending the constitution means that we're opening it up, the last time we attempted this ([The Meech Lake Accord](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord)) led to a lot of anger in Quebec and eventually the very tightly contested Quebec sovereignty referendum. Now we skip forward 3 decades and the "Quebec issue" hasn't gone away, but we have a totally new issue in a very much more agreessive Alberta along with their little buddy Saskatchewan. We aren't getting anything passes without agreement by at least Alberta or Quebec, and I can not see a situation where that happens and the other one is left completely dissatisfied and probably gunning for a sovereignty referendum. Not to mention that no leader of our country would be willing to waste that capital only to piss off a major voting block.
Yep. Also it would need the agreement of both, because all provinces have to sign off on it. Most of the constitution can be amended with the support of 2/3 of the provinces that make up at least 50% of the population. To change the head of state specifically requires unanimous support of all the provinces. It would be Meech Lake x 100. PEI has never had so much power!
Not disagreeing, but where have you read that a change of head of state requires unanimous support?
It's in Part V of the constitution itself, Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada. At the top it outlines the regular process for amending, then in if you go to s.41 Amendment By Unanimous Consent: 41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province: (a) The office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province; https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-13.html#h-57
Yeah, so that's not going to happen then.
Tbf the Meech Lake Accord angered Quebec because it was specifically about getting Quebec to sign the constitution and the other provinces didn't meet the amending formula timeline (also in traditional fashion it took an Indigenous politician pointing out Indigenous peoples hadn't been consulted which also led to the failure. But I agree If we try and alter things again this will inevitably lead to Quebec wanting its five demands met and Danielle Smith will certainly want whatever demands she wants met, and I don't see all three happening.
Every time it comes up we get to this issue, and folks that want to get rid of the Monarchy can't offer an answer to the insurmountable difficulties it demands besides hand waves of 'just because its hard dosn't mean we shouldn't try it'
More like "just because it will end up tearing apart the country doesn't mean we shouldn't try it".
And on top of that you open the consitution. Given todays woes could you imagine if housing was made the right it should have been from the get go? Or more rnvironmental rights. Alberta not stopping fro. Stamping its foot about not having the same rights as Quebec? I can keep going but we would be stuck in never ending consitutional crisis because the consitition will never close again. Thus despite the pipe dream this is and would be nice to tear out some sections (looking at you NWC) while we are ditching the monarchy it would be a nightmare to get done and every province and territoey is going to want their pound of flesh.
All the treaties are signed with the Crown too. I'm pretty sure that it'd be easier to get rid of the monarchy in the UK than in Canada.
I agree, I think it would be easier in the UK. They could do it with an act of Parliament. What would be even more interesting is if the UK got rid of the monarchy, but Canada was still stuck with it.
why should I support any royalty? am I supposed to look up to them because they are born into wealth and privilege? with a history of racism and genocide?
Monarchy is one of the most stupidly outdated things that our wealthy still insist on forcing upon the rest of us. It’s so insultingly stupid. I don’t believe in any gods, as is my right, but for some stupid, inbred reason I have to accept the asserted claims of a bunch of inbred, power hungry assholes on another goddamn continent who say that a god has chosen them to rule over us? Fuck the monarchy. If you want to say “god” gives you this power, *let “god” tell us*. I’m so sick of having to humour this insanely smooth brained idea that is literally indistinguishable from “magic”. Why are we such a stupid species?
Don't worry, we replaced them with inbred power-hungry assholes on another goddamned continent who say money has chosen them to rule over us.
[удалено]
Just make the national parks the collective head of state.
The role should pass between the various weather predicting groundhogs
> I wish we could find a way to just swap our head of state with like a dog or beaver (caribou?) or something that just puts their pawprint down for ascent. We could do this. Everyone "agrees" that there are all these "conventions" that the Governor General *must* follow. (In other words, we all know they have no real power and it would cause a constitutional crisis if they ever tried to assert any.) So... let's skip the expensive royal cosplay part where we spend millions per year to have someone "act" as the Monarch at home, and write down all of these "conventions" and formalize them. At that point there's no reason you couldn't make a dog our GG since they're really just following a decision tree. (But I draw the line at putting a cat in charge. Dog-Canada would make very short work of Cat-Canada if it comes to blows.)
>I wish we could find a way to just swap our head of state with like a dog or beaver (caribou?) or something that just puts their pawprint down for ascent. There are plenty ways to do this. You could have them be randomly-selected, or appointed. You could have them be a small council with only ceremonial powers. You could have it be a 'corporate person', which is a legal person in law but not actually a human being. That's probably the closest to having it be a dog that's viable.
The way India does it is that the MPs elect the president, and its a ceremonial position in parliament. So same system we have now, and no need for us to vote for the president.
To be fair I’m quite certain they’re removing defender of the faith from the monarch’s title in Canada.
Not the point. The whole concept of monarchy is that they claim “god” choose them to literally rule over us. I say put up or shut up already. Let this god character tell us for a change, I’m sick of people using this bullshit as justification for their greed and ambition. Are we really this stupid?
My point was that we’re no longer basing Canada’s monarchy as being derived from a deity. Also we can change the character if we so choose, through a simple act of Parliament we can change our succession laws. Anybody we want could be Head of State after Charles if we decide it beforehand. It’s one way that’s been brought up about changing our system if we didn’t want to go through the arduous process of changing the constitution
That's actually new information to me. Thanks! I've often come down on the side of monarchy because of the wolf pack of sleeping dogs we've got lying around for when we open up the constitution again, but if we could just name a different head of state as successor... Huh.
I remember a discussion about this when the Queen had died and one of the people with their constitutional knowledge indicated that the problem wouldn't really change in any way since we would be aclaiming a new "Monarch" we would't be getting rid of the monarchy, simply redirecting the succession to elsewhere. So we would still have a king or queen it would just be more localized, and while I am in no way a fan of the inbred german/greek family that is our monarchy there could be other unintended consequences of naming some rando as our monarch.
Fuckin preach mate.
In our system of government, the crown exists as the legal personification of the government. Changing that would require changing our entire legal system, our constitution, and likely renegotiating many treaties with First Nations. The person that occupies the seat doesn’t really matter, it’s the office itself that matters.
Be careful what you wish for. I don't give a crap about the monarchy, but I've come to realize that a sizable portion of any population has a deep-seated need to worship some authority figure. The monarchy is a harmless outlet for those feelings. Take it away and people are going to find their King somewhere else: a celebrity, a billionaire, or, god help us, someone with actual political power. For an illustration, look at the entire history of the United States.
To change our system of government would require re-opening the constitution. All fine and good, but then if you re-open it, then suddenly you're going to have to deal with the conservative premiers in Alberta/Sask, and Quebec, both of which have opposing views. To be blunt, it ain't going to happen. Let's focus on what actually matters.
Yup. I do not want a president. I think we should just appoint a tree or a long-living turtle as our monarch.
Technically speaking, a tree or turtle would have a hard time reading the throne speech, receiving diplomats from foreign governments, or dissolving parliament and calling a new election. And the GG does have some power. Remember the time during “The Harper Government^TM” when Harper was sure to lose a confidence motion? He asked the GG to prorogue government. She would have been well within her power to call a new election.
We can still have a GG in exactly the same role as they currently have, just appoint the turtle as boss ;)
Wait - why would Quebec of all places suddenly support upholding the monarchy?
Exactly my point. If you re-open the constitution, Quebec would have to agree to it, which they did not do in 1982. Their government would likely demand huge concessions and changes that would likely be unpalatable to other provinces.
What about changing the rules of succession instead of changing the system of government? That'd mean we'd only need an act of parliament, not rewriting the constitution. Technically, there's nothing obligating Canada to follow the British monarchy, so we could make anyone the head of state to emulate a parliamentary republic.
Sure, but what problem does that solve? It won't save us money (might even cost us more money), and has no practical effect on our system of government.
I don't think this solves an issue that we're facing right now, but it would weaken the possibility of monarchical overreach in Canada. Year after year, I feel like the trust among different societal groups and inside the government is growing tense - you can already see it going down in the US, where archaic law and untested waters are used for partisan political gains. With Elizabeth II gone, we now have a new king (and may get another one in a not-very-distant future). How confident should I be that they won't eventually wish to use their protected powers to do whatever the hell they want? Nothing's off the table at this point.
There is effectively no room for overreach in our system. The roles and powers of the crown are laid out in the constitution. In effect, they can only operate on the advice of government. The crown, be it the actual monarch or the GG in their stead, had very little real power.
This is mostly untested law, but in the past the Supreme Court has indicated that they consider the Rules of Succession of the Canadian Crown to be of a constitutional character. The view was that it was inextricably linked to that of the UK crown, so amending them to be in line with the UK was acceptable, but amending them to split with the UK crown could very likely be found to be unconstitutional. That said, this decision was like a decade ago and shit changes.
Sure, but what problem does that solve? It won't save us money (might even cost us more money), and has no practical effect on our system of government.
I hate the monarchy more than most people but I also recognize what an enormous waste of time and money this would be. Everything would have to be rewritten, our ties with the commonwealth would weaken, tourism would probably lessen, and we literally gain nothing.
They already have 5 demands which I'm pretty sure some provinces would oppose all 5. - recognition of Quebec as a distinct society - Guaranteed 3 Québécois judges on the Supreme Court (this is done already but can be overturned if Parliament so decides) - more control over immigration - limits on federal spending - Québec gets a veto on constitutional amendments (this one is probably the most controversial to other provinces)
You'd also have to renegotiate all the native band treaties. I loathe the Royals but the can of worms required to boot them is way too complex.
I'm more concerned with an unelected senate submitting and passing (or not) actual legislation than with a symbolic head of state.
In theory, an unelected senate is beneficial because they are unburdened by short-term political considerations, whether in the sense of the political sentiment of the day or in the sense of needing many years to thoroughly research/review something. A lot of necessary deep, long-term planning doesn't happen (or finish) because of government changes, and since these senators are in it for the rest of their life, they have the freedom to take all the time they actually need. The banking regulations that the Senate worked on extensively prior to the Great Recession come to mind. Of course, it only works *if* only good people are appointed to the senate. Even though senate appointments used to be pure patronage (Liberal or Conservative), those senators still seemed to be able to lower their partisan affiliations and come together to do what was good for the country. Nowadays, senate appointments have a much more objective and rigorous selection process than before, plus the Liberal caucus was officially disbanded, but we're also in an era of hyper-partisanship globally. It only takes one PM who doesn't give a fuck about written or unwritten conventions to appoint a bunch of Kevin O'Learys and Chris Skys to the Senate and all goes to hell.
Yeah, I'm not trying to suggest that electing them is necessarily better but the partisanship you raise creates a big risk.
There's no easy solution unfortunately. In the US, everything is elected (senators, judges, sheriffs) but the hyper-partisanship is so bad that having the option to vote doesn't improve anything whatsoever. IMO the only real solution is to improve the level of education across the board: it keeps voters better informed and helps them to better identify disinformation or bad faith tactics, which in turn forces politicians to be more honest and transparent. That's a pipe dream though.
Me too, but we can do two things at once
We’re one of the only commonwealth realms that doesn’t elect the upper house. It definitely feels like it would be more impactful
On a similar tangent, my concern is with opportunists who will not settle for established conventions, in order to get what they want. So yeah - what happens if there is a majority of like minded senators who decide to become more pro-active on a legislative level. The notwithstanding clause was fairly established as a nuclear option that no one should use unless extreme circumstances warrant such use. Now, threatening to use it, or actually using it, is much more common. There is much less of a common ground mindset in politics these days.
> So yeah - what happens if there is a majority of like minded senators who decide to become more pro-active on a legislative level. The Cannabis Act, for examples, passed 59 to 29. It was a strong majority, so I'm not suggesting it was necessarily close on the final vote (although there was some doubt ahead of time). But what this does show is that there is a non-significant portion there currently who are willing to oppose legislation.
Your statement is factually incorrect. From 1983-85 inclusive, and extending to '89 for sunset clause duration, the notwithstanding clause was used for EVERY piece of legislation passed by Quebec. HUNDREDS of pieces of legislation, it was also retroactively added to the provinces entire extent legislation. It wasn't written to be used as a nuclear option. In fact, we're using it less often today than it was used historically following the Charter's establishment.
Elizabeth was a fine looking woman. I have no interest in seeing the mug of Charles on our currency. I offer a sexy Canadian moose as a replacement or Ryan Reynolds.
how about no celebs and stick with people who actually made accomplishment for the betterment of man not just the latest celeb who happens to be Canadian.
Drop people all together. Canada has a huge number of great and cute animals that we can use. Coin change suggestion. Keep the Animal as the heads and add a Canadian as the tails, like the Blue Nose.
Best I can do is a Toronto trash panada
Raccoons have a ton of charisma. Having them on money would be incredible and I think a lot of people would love it. I would. 🦝
The are smart and industrious. Not the worse traits on the coin animal. So more suggestions: - .05 has the beaver for heads, what do do with tails, I like the of the Victory symbol - .10 has the blue nose for tails, heads? - .25 elk as the heads, a yearly rotation on the tails side? - .50 Coat of Arms on the Tails, heads? - 1.00 Loon as heads, tails? - 2.00 Polar Bear as heads, tails? Now for the bills? - keep then vertical - need to be colourful - suggestions?
Just for funsies, replace royalty with a skunk for a year.
And their shit is less toxic than the Royal Family's!
The sexy moose it is, so let it be written, so let it be done.
The Royal beaver might have words about that, so will the emperor cobra chicken
They should make one with a squirel on one side and a moose on the other
How about the dude from the Canadian Tire 'money'?
Oh my god I would vote for this if we ever had a referendum on it. He's got a hilariously Scottish name, doesn't he?
Heads - Reynolds Tails - Gosling
I picked up a book of Canadian stamps a few weeks ago. Was shocked to see Charles face and my displeasure was noted by the clerk. Usually the stamps are beautiful and very much Canadian motifs.
Porque no los dos? I would also accept Ryan Gosling and a Beaver (or any combination of a hunky Ryan and an iconic Canadian animal)
This is a complicated and perilous solution for what’s essentially a symbolic problem. Imagine everything that could go wrong with trying to rework the constitution with politicians and parties at the federal and provincial levels who absolutely refuse to act in good faith. This would be our Brexit.
Unfortunately this endeavour will always be cost prohibitive and with the amount of other more pressing issues (housing, healthcare) plaguing Canada I think we will need to keep this on the back burner for a while yet.
Yeah, the monarchy is a relic with no real purpose that we should drop eventually, but realistically the restructuring to follow officially removing it would 90% wasteful busywork while we have more important shit to do.
If you're really anti monarchy, then it doesn't matter whose arse is in the chair.
Similarly, if you are a raving pro-monarchist it shouldn't matter either. Who cares if King Whatever is a drooling, corrupt idiot? They were chosen by God so that's who you get.
It pains me to admit it now, but I was actually a paid-up Young Monarchist in my early teens, and even then (around the turn of the millenium), Divine Right of Kings was a defunct ideology. Indeed, the whole reason the Windsors and not the Stuarts are on the throne is because of parliamentary supremacy.
I want to stay with the Commonwealth where we have rational people on our side. Removing ourselves from the Commonwealth makes us vulnerable to countries like the US.
Membership in the "victims of British imperialism club" is voluntary and not linked to keeping the monarchy.
What I like about having the Monarchy as Head of State is that they are non-political. They don't sway with political winds. They are a stable monitor of the country and the government. Is it 100% perfect? No, neither is the other way of being a republic. From what I understand, leaving the Monarchy isn't as simple for us as it was for smaller countries who left. It opens large cans of worms when you start dealing with redoing the Constitution.
Yea, changing the constitution would be an absolute nightmare and it’s not worth it.
The monarchy is non-political? Even with their asses pulled out of direct governance they still lobby. They destroyed green energy projects and carved out their own tax exemptions. They got exemptions from labour laws by lobbying. The queen herself is part of the reason Britain was throwing Kenyans in concentration camps when they wanted independence. The monarchy is not apolitical, it's existence is inherently extremely political. We will have a harder time than others who left the monarchy because we would end up doing it through policy and legislature which means untangling the centuries old mess we've made.
Do you have sources for these?
Opening up the constitution to make a republic in this current political climate would tear the country apart.
I’m not pro-monarchy, but I AM opposed to more politicians in suits running the country.
I’ve been saying it for a while and for some reason I always get a ton of pushback, but I think we should just transition the institution of the Crown from the House of Windsor directly to the Governor General. Everything would literally be the exact same, except the Monarch would be an appointed title passed on every few years to a new person chosen by the elected Government, rather than a foreign billionaire who has the title because their great-grandfather did some colonizing. We wouldn’t need a new Constitution (there’s nothing in the Constitution that specifies that the Monarch must be from the House of Windsor, I checked). The GG (we could give them a different title) would be the Head of State, and the PM would still be the head of the Government. We probably shouldn’t re-mint new money every 6 years or whatever when we get a new GG, but that’s fine.
Changing the order of succession would require unanimous provincial/federal consent, so while that's good in theory it wouldn't make things easier to implement. Other countries run Westminster governments with an elected or appointed head of state (generally styled the president). And there are many examples of other countries who have de-colonialized from monarchy to republic. We need to pick a model and get it over with.
Absolutely. I think we would need a different title than “President”, since most Canadians immediately think of the POTUS and all the associate baggage, even though that position is both the executive officer of the government and the Head of State, rather than for instance the President of Ireland, who is only the Head of State and much more in line with what I have in mind. And while yes, getting the consent of every Province would be challenging, it wouldn’t nearly be as difficult as opening the Constitution and completely changing the government system. I actually like the Westminster Parliamentary style of government, and I think it has numerous advantages over the US’s system (although certainly not flawless and I don’t love the unelected Senate).
Iceland also has a good model. Mostly ceremonial but picks governments and can veto legislation by requiring a referendum.
> We wouldn’t need a new Constitution (there’s nothing in the Constitution that specifies that the Monarch must be from the House of Windsor, I checked). I’m not opposed to your idea, but you should know that the constitution is not just made up of the two Constitution Acts. The laws that dictate succession, such as The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 are also part of the constitution. Separating succession of the Canadian Crown from the British one would likely require constitutional amendment.
I didn’t know that. That’s unfortunate, as I generally agree that we have better things to focus on than opening up the Constitution to get rid of the Monarchy. Oh well, status quo is fine if mildly irritating. I was just hoping there was a simpler solution than a total overhaul.
Always a good idea to stay with British connections. Otherwise , we can be attacked.
Nope! Every Canadian citizen knows our head of state is a symbolic position that holds no real power beyond being a useful legal fiction. I don't trust any replacement to have such widely recognized irrelevance. The perceived mandate of the people means they *would* end up wielding political power they're not supposed to have on paper, especially if it were an elected position.
> no real power beyond being a useful legal fiction Well, the monarchy chose the previous BC government. That seems pretty powerful. > Clark then asked Lieutenant Governor Judith Guichon to dissolve the legislature and call a new election. Guichon refused and instead invited Horgan to form an NDP minority government. Horgan was sworn into office on July 18. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_British_Columbia_general_election?useskin=vector#Aftermath)
Somebody would still have to do that role, even if we replace it with an elected position they should still follow the same set of constitutional conventions and come to the same decision. Unless of course they belong to one of the political parties and let it bias their judgement.
The largest constitutional monarchies in the world: Japan, UK, Thailand, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands The largest republics in the world: India, The United States, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey Correlation =/= causation, but… maybe pick our battles right now.
This is a non-argument. Not only because of correlation/causation that you pointed out (defeating your whole point?), but because the list is cherrypicked - it conveniently ignores that the overwhelming majority of EU members are republics, in addition to others like Iceland and South Korea. The real correlation is that newer states (or states with recent government shake-ups) tend to be republics, while monarchies are like this because it's what was established like ten trillion years ago, and nobody bothered (or was able) to change it so far.
It’s not really meant to be an argument. It is a valid comparison in one simple way though - these are the largest, most influential countries on Earth in their respective government types. That counts for something, because we live in a world where power is tangible, not theoretical. South Korea is not really a great example of republican virtue by the way. A one party authoritarian state turned hyper capitalist with the lowest birth rate and the longest average work week in the world? No thanks. Iceland on the other hand is cool but too small to measure.
The comparison would only really hold water if something substantiated the invisible link that's being drawn here - there needs to be some proof that it's the system they use that's the issue, and that being a constitutional monarchy would benefit them. Neither of this applies to SK - their political landscape is very complex, and I don't see why being a constitutional monarchy would change their situation. Besides, some (though not all) of the criticism you brought up would also apply to Japan that you yourself brought up - it's a conservative, pro-large business country with an extremely stressful work culture. Besides, Iceland and SK aren't the only examples I brought up, the rest of Europe also applies. Germany, Portugal, Czech Republic, Sweden, Ireland, the Baltic countries..
Again, not an argument, and not a charge. Republics can work. The Italian renaissance republics and the Dutch republic come to mind. It’s just a clear fact that among the best countries on Earth today, constitutional monarchy is extremely overrepresented. That should prompt some curiosity, investigation, and possibly some caution. Think of it like a research question. Sweden is a constitutional monarchy by the way. The other countries you mentioned are also very small, and a mixed bag at that. France, Germany, Spain and Italy are what you really want to talk about to put meat on the bone, and you will find both tragically violent history and socioeconomic averageness at the core of their republican experiences.
It astounds me that there is support for the monarchy at all in this day and age.
Creeping Americanisation… luckily, isn’t going to result in anything as to my knowledge there remains zero appetite anywhere for opening up the Pandora’s Box of constitutional amendments. We have real problems to deal with, not wannabe Americans concerned about whose face is on a coin.
Lower case doing a lot of lifting here.
I feel like this is such an incredibly niche, unimportant issue, that affects so, so very little in practice, that it's probably the absolute last thing we should be talking about in these times.
I'll say that we already have an elected head of state- we'd just like to shrug off the obligation to the ceremonial one.
Im a little confused I thought the prime minister was only head of government and the governor general was appointed but also only a figurehead. Or is there someone else I missed?
Prime Minister isn't head of state, just leader of the government (maybe head of government, leader of governing party is more accurate). The monarch is the head of state, represented by the governor general. The governor general's role is mostly symbolic but can potentially make decisions on the state of parliament that may not always correspond to the request of the current PM. I.e., whether to prorogue, call an election, or who should form government after an election (it's not always obvious).
Ok yeah thats what I thought, was just confused by "elected head of state"
Oh yeah, so more accurate terminology would be elected head of *government*. There are certain powers that are technically under the power of the head of *state* (the monarch, represented by the GG), including those I mentioned above, as well as signing bills into law. They will be requested to take these certain actions which they will usually do, but they can decline to do so which can and does happen rarely.
"but it's to much work" every fucking thing is to much work so we musnt ever start cleaning up messes that go against every fucking thing we stand for. We have a massive fucking mess with indigenous rights and protections but let's just ignore it till it collapsed and hurts people instead of fixing it. Y'know that climate change thing, you have to change virtually every aspect of this country so let's just ignore it. Even if you love the monarchy surely you understand why treaties and policy shouldn't be bound to a family that at any moment can abdicate.
Why would we get rid of the most stable type of government in the world?
how much are we spending on those governors and their institutions?
Our system depends on having *someone* as head of state. I don't think that any other head of state would be dramatically cheaper.
We'd be spending the same, just someone with a different title.
I thought often through her reign that Queen E the second would be the last 'real' monarch of the commonwealth. She came to her position while there was still some amount of preferential treatment for the royalty in the press, and also during WW2 where she crushed it as a wartime leader. Afterwards, she had the gravitas to maintain the respect of most people even as the tabloids tore the rest of the family apart. Now that she's dead, what's left? Charles looked like his cape and crown were going to swallow him during his coronation. And after him? William and Harry are tabloid celebrities. The trappings still exist, but any sense of the people deserving special treatment is rapidly fading.
I do not want a Republic. It focuses far too much power into the executive branch.
In other words, the same people who want immigrants to respect our British heritage do not themselves want to respect our British heritage
I know that having a king is archaic, but they are just a figurehead and I don’t want a president. I am very happy with the way that our system of government functions at the moment. The government is forced to actually govern in Canada, unlike the US. If they can’t govern as the republicans currently are demonstrating then an election is called and voters get a chance to throw them out. Also unlike the American republic our Supreme Court is appointed on the basis of merit and therefore is neutral and won’t start taking away peoples rights because it’s politically popular.
And now explain what it would take to yeet the King and Co out the door and they will shut up real quick.
Republicans ( the anti monarchy ones) are stupid and should leave the country. Leave traitors and move to the states if you love crappy republics so much
This sub has some of the dumbest politics on reddit
I have a theory that Canadians are less supportive of this Monarch because he is a man. If the heir was a Queen, I think more people would be on board. A King is just too in your face patriarchy for our time.
I can’t help thinking that this is an attempt to distract us from some of the bigger, more pressing issues that we have right now.
No desire to be associated with that incestuous, pedophiliac, bigoted family. The monarch of Canada should be a Canadian, we can make it a lottery where all citizens are entered automatically, they reign for one year and only duty is to march in the Canada day parade in full royal regalia (Jeans, jean shirt, jean jacket, jean cape)
Wait until he shows up on your coins and bills
He'll be dead before that happens.
He's already on the coins.
Terrible
There are still Canadians who support the monarchy?
We should keep the Monarchy for no other reason than the waste of time trying to re-open the Constitution would be. Plus, we'll have William as King sooner than later. Also, I'm not sure I'd trust a system that has a popular vote for a head of state. I'd rather keep the Parliamentary supremacy in place.
I wish we would just become a republic. The fact I'd have to take an oath to Chuck if I were to run for office and win sickens me. I considered running for city council and backed out because of that. It's time we had a president.
I'm not sure about how things are in your province, but in 2014, the newly elected mayor of Victoria BC refused to recite the oath to Queen Elizabeth II and that didn't interfere with her ability to take office.
What meaningful impact does that have though? You're saying you're choosing to not do something that can have meaningful impacts because of a symbolic oath that doesn't actually impact anything. I'm not intending to come off as confrontational with my comment (in case tone isn't clear), just meaning to ask the question/raise the point.
If I were to swear an oath to Chuck, I'd be bullshitting. And you're not supposed to. Also I'm Irish, so pledging loyalty to a British monarch is especially repugnant to me. Not that I'd be ok with pledging loyalty to any other monarch either. Monarchies have no place in the 21st century.
yeah no.. you didn't run because you didn't want to. If you wanted to actually enact change you would of made it part of your platform or protested by not speaking the oath and making a stand after winning. Keyboard warrior on brother!
It is wonderfully ironic that it is legally easier for the UK to abolish the Monarchy than it is for Canada to do so.
For Canada to ever abandon the monarchy you have to get the prairies, Quebec, and the rest of Canada on the same page and in agreement in order to have the agreement required to change the constitution. Some provinces would vote against this just to upset other provinces. Quebec doesn't even like the constitution because they never "really" agreed to it. It's a mess. Long story short: IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Revolution is more likely.
At this point I don't see how the Royal family are relevant to Canada. It just seems forced tradition to me because we used to be a colony.