Canada and Monarchy

[ChazYEG]

The Queen is dead, Long live the King!

Now, I wonder, in light of the last polls on the matter, if there is political climate to push for the republicanization of Canada.
Thoughts?

 

[kcantor]

The Queen is dead, Long live the King!

Now, I wonder, in light of the last polls on the matter, if there is political climate to push for the republicanization of Canada.
Thoughts?

there are number of things that are particularly attractive about not being a republic, not the least of which is that our head of state is not actually someone like either justin trudeau or donald trump.

our attorney general is appointed to act as the crown's representative in canada while, as an added bonus, the monarchy provides each of the provinces with a lieutenant-governor who serves in a dual capacity: first as representative of the crown for all purposes of the provincial government; and secondly, as a federal officer in discharging certain functions on behalf of the federal government. the lieutenant-governor opens, prorogues and dissolves our legislative assemblies.

within the country, all executive, legislative and judicial power in and over Canada is vested in the monarch and the governor general and lieutenants general our the link to the crown. while their roles are largely ceremonial, they are also constitutional and as such they have the same prerogatives as the monarchy even if they are seldom exercised. simply by their existence they are a balancing force exercised by an impartial party.

 

[archited]

Canada from earliest times (from a European contact perspective) is inextricably linked to the Monarchy -- that and the British Commonwealth ties have served the Country well. I suspect -- and for good reason -- that there would be little mood to change.

 

[Glenco]

Changing the constitution in Canada would be very very difficult.

Every student in the UK were given a mug in commemoration of the coronation. I still have mine.

 

[quit]

The Queen is dead, Long live the King!

Now, I wonder, in light of the last polls on the matter, if there is political climate to push for the republicanization of Canada.
Thoughts?

Sounds expensive.

 

[ChazYEG]

Guys, I'm not advocating for it. I personally don't know how I feel about the monarchy, to be honest.

However, the last poll on the matter pointed out that a slim majority of the population might be willing to make the change after the Queen's passing (her personal popularity far exceeds the institution itself).

Hence my questioning whether there would be political climate for this or not.

 

[Gronk!]

I think @westcoastjos is right - it will be expensive and time-consuming. Apart from changing the constitution from the monarchy to a republic, there will be changes to everything: political systems, the offices of the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors, flags, military, legal system, RCMP, postage, the RAM and other museums, universities, schools, immigration, oaths, streets and highways, banks, financing, arts.

 

[BrettB]

Guys, I'm not advocating for it. I personally don't know how I feel about the monarchy, to be honest.

However, the last poll on the matter pointed out that a slim majority of the population might be willing to make the change after the Queen's passing (her personal popularity far exceeds the institution itself).

Hence my questioning whether there would be political climate for this or not.

I get your ambivalence. Unfortunately, opening up or eliminating the role of the Crown would require a re-write of the constitution (for example, neither the Prime Minister nor a Premier exists anywhere in the constitution) and we all know how good we are at coming together and forging national projects right now. We are pretty good, here in Canada, at evolving slowly, over time. I'd bet that's what will continue to happen.

Probably best to let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[kcantor]

^^

while I don’t disagree with any of what you pointed out, those are all, in the grand scheme of total government expenditures, not a big expense and many of them will be incurred in changing all of our government references from queen to king.

the biggest potential rush/cost from my perspective would be losing the institutional balance that the monarchy imposes on our form of government.m despite the fact it is very rarely exercised. the fact it is very rarely exercised is in itself proof of its moderating influence. i am not a traditional monarchist but i look at some of the excesses so readily accepted as the norm by republics - including the us - and think there is no reason to walk that particular path.

is the monarchy a peculiar colonial institution? probably, but it is also one that seems to have adapted as well as or better than its alternatives to changing circumstances and norms.

 

[ChazYEG]

I think @westcoastjos is right - it will be expensive and time-consuming. Apart from changing the constitution from the monarchy to a republic, there will be changes to everything: political systems, the offices of the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors, flags, military, legal system, RCMP, postage, the RAM and other museums, universities, schools, immigration, oaths, streets and highways, banks, financing, arts.

In all fairness, we should charge it all back to the Crown, if we decided to do that, hahahahahahahaha

Jokes aside, I agree that it's complicated, but on the other hand, there are also good arguments in favour of a republic. For once, in light of the whole reconciliation movement, it could be an interesting and popular move.

 

[tkoe_]

I suppose the other thing to consider is the impact of moving from a hereditary head of state (represented in Canada by an appointee) to a presidential republic. Much like a triple-E senate, electing a president would give that office a democratic mandate that the current appointed GG does not have. I'm not sure if Canadians would be ready for an elected president vetoing legislation from Parliament that he or she disagrees with.

 

[ChazYEG]

I suppose the other thing to consider is the impact of moving from a hereditary head of state (represented in Canada by an appointee) to a presidential republic. Much like a triple-E senate, electing a president would give that office a democratic mandate that the current appointed GG does not have. I'm not sure if Canadians would be ready for an elected president vetoing legislation from Parliament that he or she disagrees with.

On the other hand, I could see an interesting side on this:

Say we keep electing the PM as we do now, but vote directly for president, nationwide (like most countries with presidents do), with a runoff needed if no candidate reaches 50%+1 of the popular vote (or a ranked ballot system). Give him some reserve power and he could actually be a moderating force, pretty much as the sovereign is today, but democratically elected and could balance some of the disparities we currently have in our electoral system.

 

[Glenco]

^^

while I don’t disagree with any of what you pointed out, those are all, in the grand scheme of total government expenditures, not a big expense and many of them will be incurred in changing all of our government references from queen to king.

the biggest potential rush/cost from my perspective would be losing the institutional balance that the monarchy imposes on our form of government.m despite the fact it is very rarely exercised. the fact it is very rarely exercised is in itself proof of its moderating influence. i am not a traditional monarchist but i look at some of the excesses so readily accepted as the norm by republics - including the us - and think there is no reason to walk that particular path.

is the monarchy a peculiar colonial institution? probably, but it is also one that seems to have adapted as well as or better than its alternatives to changing circumstances and norms.

My concern is there is no accountability for our prime minister. The monarch meets with the UK prime minister every week to discuss the matters of the day at which point he/she can express concerns privately such as “ no you cannot take top secret documents home“. We have no such oversight with the Governor General they only have a ceremonial status.

 

[BrettB]

My concern is there is no accountability for our prime minister. The monarch meets with the UK prime minister every week to discuss the matters of the day at which point he/she can express concerns privately such as “ no you cannot take top secret documents home“. We have no such oversight with the Governor General they only have a ceremonial status.

Actually, the G-G meets weekly with the prime minister in Canada and has the constitutional authority to advise, to counsel, and to warn, very much the same as in the UK

 

[Glenco]

Actually, the G-G meets weekly with the prime minister in Canada and has the constitutional authority to advise, to counsel, and to warn, very much the same as in the UK

If that is the case I stand corrected.