Canadians Split on Monarchy, Dump It I Say

[s_lone]

It makes no sense—and is in fact quite a dangerous train of thought—to suggest that a prime minister should be able to determine, on his or her own, when he or she has a legitimate mandate to govern. And once more, the Governor General performs a myriad of functions that would continue to have to be performed; and to download these responsibilities onto the Office of the Prime Minister would drain the prime minister’s time and resources inappropriately. Such honorary and ceremonial matters of State should be left to our representative of the head of State, with decision-making and the steering of Government reserved to a distinct head of Government.

Isn't it already questionable and partisan that it's the PM who chooses the Governor General? I mean, it pretty much amounts to the same thing in the sense that in the end, it's the GG who ends up taking the important decisions when they need to be taken.

What's the difference between the current system where the PM chooses the GG and the exact same system where the GG would have no superior over it (the monarch)... ? It seems to me that the Monarch has no utility because it's always the GG taking the decisions anyway. The GG might as well be the ''monarch''. At least he or she would be Canadian.

And what if this GG/monarch would be voted by at least 66% of the House of Commons? How would that be wrong? And especially, how would that be stupider than having our Head of State determined by the genetic quality and sex life of foreign family?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But you're in favour of it sitting around and doing nothing. Which is what the senate does by the way too. Why is so much loafing in govt okay in Canada?

Hey, it works fine as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't see any point in opening up the constitution for something as trivial as monarchy.

Simple solution then. Change the title from Prime Minister to revered Leader or what ever gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling. I don't care what you call it. And yes we do elect the PM although indirectly. Many people vote for the party, meaning the leader not their local MP.

That may be so, but the power resides with the local MP, not with the leader of the party. MPs have the power to get rid of their leader any time they want, and replace him with somebody else.

Indeed, they don't even have to elect a new party leader, they simply have to elect a new PM. There is nothing that says that the party leader and the PM have to be one and the same person.

So people vote for the party leader, and the party leader becomes the PM if his party gets the majority. But it doesn't necessarily have to be so.

And what if this GG/monarch would be voted by at least 66% of the House of Commons? How would that be wrong? And especially, how would that be stupider than having our Head of State determined by the genetic quality and sex life of foreign family?

I think in India, the president (equivalent of our GG) is voted in by the House of Commons.

 

[Knowzilla]

You know, you're willing to give consent to a person who rarely visits Canada, shows no ongoing knowledge about the country, has no constitutional knowledge of Canada, to suddenly interfere and make a political decsion on an event that rarely happens in Canada? You must play with nitroglyceran in your spare time.

She doesn't have regular Canadian advisors, she has British advisors who know very little about Canada and would probably not make a decision in the best interest of Canada in an emergency.

Ten of billions? No no no, this is a downsizing, it has to be cheaper. First we do without a GG and see what happens. It is very unlikely the sky will fall.

The Queen is very well informed about Canada, its constitution, and system of governance. Numerous comments from Canada's Prime Ministers are other politicians prove this.

She does have Canadian advisors. She has a Canadian secretary, the Governor General briefs her about affairs in Canada, and the Prime Minister is only a phone call away. She would make the best decision in the case of emergency, if all else fails.

A change would indeed take tens of billions, perhaps even far more. The Crown's symbols are everywhere in Canada.

And, as FiveParadox has pointed out, you cannot leave the Office of the Governor General vacant. There must be a GG or a Administrator of Government (the Chief Justice) to carry out the functions of the office, without which the governance of Canada would stop dead in it's tracks.

I think in India, the president (equivalent of our GG) is voted in by the House of Commons.

By both houses of the Indian Parliament, and by the state legislatures of that country, actually.

Isn't it already questionable and partisan that it's the PM who chooses the Governor General? I mean, it pretty much amounts to the same thing in the sense that in the end, it's the GG who ends up taking the important decisions when they need to be taken.

But however the PM is under pressure to make a non partisan choice, and even if they don't, the GG will always make non partisan decisions.

It's not the same thing, yes the GG will normally follow the advice of the PM, but if the PM tries something outrageous, the GG will properly deal with him.

A GG has already exercised his power in the recent past. In 1975 the Governor-General of Australia (at the time, Sir John Kerr) fired the PM for attempting to govern without supply from the Senate, and continuously refusing to come to a compromise with the opposition. After consultation with the Chief Justice, he summoned Prime Minister Glough to Yarralumla (the Australian GG's residence in Canberra), and when he refused even then to come to a solution and tried to cling onto power unconstitutionally, the GG withdrew his commission as Prime Minister, summoned the leader of the opposition and made him PM, and then had an election called for both the Senate and House of Representatives, in which Glough's party lost, and the opposition became the government.

 

[Machjo]

Interestingly enough, there is still a strong monarchist movement in France today. They don't all agree on the details. Some want an elective monarchy, while others want one of inheritance. The latter are somewhat divided on who is the rightful successor, but the greater part of them, known as legitimists, support Louis Alphonse of Bourbon, born in Madrid.

Unfortunately I've been able to find no info on this in English, but if you search in French, it would seem that a small but significant enough minority in France still support monarchy, and some famous modern Frenchmen have supported it too, including De Gaulle.

The monarchy is largely symbolic, but it is an important symbol. If you observe in England for example, the monarchy serves as a personification of the country to a degree, making it easier to identify with, as opposed to the state in the abstract.

In that sense, a monarch serves an important role in providing unity to the state.

That said, I could see the adoption of an elective monarchy.

WE have an elected Prime Minister and parliment. I fail to see the need for anything else. We don't need fancy titles and useless hangers on squandering our tax dollars. The thought of having some unelected inbred foreigner as head of our country is embarrassing.

She's not strictly speaking a foreigner. She is the Queen of the Commonwealth, and that includes Canada.

And again, there is such a thing as an elective monarchy. Granted the one we have is not an elective one, but I don't see why we could not go that route if the UK agreed to it too.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Interestingly enough, there is still a strong monarchist movement in France today. They don't all agree on the details. Some want an elective monarchy, while others want one of inheritance. The latter are somewhat divided on who is the rightful successor, but the greater part of them, known as legitimists, support Louis Alphonse of Bourbon, born in Madrid.

Unfortunately I've been able to find no info on this in English, but if you search in French, it would seem that a small but significant enough minority in France still support monarchy, and some famous modern Frenchmen have supported it too, including De Gaulle.

The monarchy is largely symbolic, but it is an important symbol. If you observe in England for example, the monarchy serves as a personification of the country to a degree, making it easier to identify with, as opposed to the state in the abstract.

In that sense, a monarch serves an important role in providing unity to the state.

That said, I could see the adoption of an elective monarchy.

France is in a mirror image position compared to Canada. They don't have a monarchy, but some want to reintroduce it. If I had been living in France, I would be opposed to its reintroduction.

 

[Machjo]

I remember having a conversation about France-Quebec relations with a Queebcer once, and I remember him criticizing the Quebec sovereignty movement on the grounds that they wanted a republic. He was a sovereigntist too by the way, but he'd argued that by having France and Quebec each have a republic, that it loosened ties between the two countries. He too was a monarchist. For all I know though, he might have been the only one in the whole of Quebec who supported a reintroduction of a French monarchy and its adoption in a sovereign Quebec, and it might have been influenced by his observations of the common monarchy shared between Canada and the UK. He too was fluently English-speaking and lived in Montreal, which still has an English cultural influence to some degree, so I don't kow to what degree these all influenced him.

If there is one, there are probably others, though without a doubt Quebec sovereigntist monarchists are very much a fridge movement in Quebec, if we could even call them a movement and not just a loose grouping of individuals who happen to have these ideas knowing the likelihood they'll never materialize.

 

[YukonJack]

One of these days this dolt will be our king:

'Follow the Islamic way to save the world,' Charles urges environmentalists | Mail Online

 

[AnnaG]

This is a good but flawed analogy. Good because it's true that the elaborate process of removing monarchy makes it seem much more logical to just keep things the way they are.

The analogy is also flawed because while our appendix is there for reasons that are absolutely outside of our control (biological evolution), monarchy is there because of a conscious human choice as a nation. The former implies no free will but the latter does.

If a majority of Canadians wish to conserve monarchy because they believe in the system, then so be it. But remember that there are some of us who don't agree with the principles of hereditary monarchy. I personally don't and this has a huge impact on the way I perceive Canada, my country. It's hard for me to feel attached to a country which has at the core of its political system, a concept (hereditary monarchy) I find outdated and totally out of tune with the modern notion of equality among human beings that Canada supposedly stands for. I know a strong majority of Quebecers think the same way. That doesn't mean, we necessarily want to leave, only means our attachment to Canada is tempered down.

If by any chance we were to get rid of monarchy, you can be damn sure this would be greeted with a cheer in Quebec. The symbolic strength of the gesture would have a huge impact on national unity.

My point in all this? For Canada to be united, we need to have respect for our institutions and this is one aspect of our institutions some of us simply don't respect. You can't love something you don't respect.

I love Canada. But I'd like to love it even more.

Concerning your criticism of my analogy; *shrug*
All you are saying is that Canada could be better and I agree, but I don't think we can afford to change the form of government at this point in time. I'd love to see a democratic republic like Switzerland has where the politicians are actually serving the populace and they know the people are the power. But, that would be an extremely expensive wish to fulfill.

The cost. Okay, let's see. Right now, the GG does nothing of substance. So the absence of the GG would not affect the machinery of govt at all. The PM has no need of the GG, none at all. Who needs the GG?

What companies often do as a cost cutting measure is not fill a position when it become open and if few seem to notice the change, then they phase it out and save money. If there is squawking and a hole, then it is refilled.

No GG could cost us less, not more as the whole office would not be spending any taxpayer money. But there's little bravery in Canada for such an experiment.

lmao If you can't imagine all the legal crap that would have to change in order to get rid of the monarchy, you are pretty naive.
And then we'd still have to develop something to compensate for it. Legal shyte costs lots of money. Wakie wakie, smellie the coffee.

You still miss the bigger point: you would have to re-write the entire way government functions in this country and redefine a lot of government institutions. The cost of the GG, with all the pomp, ceremony and travel, is microscopic compared to the costs that would be incurred in removing that office... and you still haven't said what you would replace it with.

In your rabid dislike of the monarchy and the GG's office, you want to spend $100 to save a penny...

Exactly.

But you're in favour of it sitting around and doing nothing. Which is what the senate does by the way too. Why is so much loafing in govt okay in Canada?

Look about 2/5 of the way down the page where it says "4. Functions of the senate" to see all the sitting around and doing nothing.
A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada

 

[SirJosephPorter]

One of these days this dolt will be our king:

'Follow the Islamic way to save the world,' Charles urges environmentalists | Mail Online

Prince Charles makes good sense, YJ. Not all religious people are anti-environment. In fact, many ecologists find support for their position in the Bible, same as many anti-environmentalists do.

It is the same with Koran. Here Charles was not talking about adopting Sharia law or stoning anybody to death. He was talking about how Koran preaches that man and nature are one, and humankind should try to preserve and conserve the nature and the environment.

Koran does not only contain ‘wisdom’ like one man is equal to two women, nor is it simply a set of draconian punishments (stoning women to death, cutting off hands of a thief etc.). I am sure there is plenty of good stuff in Koran, same as the Bible.

I see nothing wrong in what Prince Charles was saying.

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, it is nice to see that at last you admit that not all those who believe in the Bible are rabid anti-environmentalists, who would take great pleasure in spoiling our air, water and our food. Until someone brought up the Quoran you have consistently bashed the Bible, misquoting the word "dominion", twisting its meaning to your purposes and declared anyone who disagreed with your views as far-right extremist rednecks, and worse.

Looks like the Quoran worked on you. Or was it just political correctness?

As far as Prince Charles is concerned, since this thread is about the Monarchy, I simply meant to call into everyone's attention the folly of inherited reign.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJosephPorter, it is nice to see that at last you admit that not all those who believe in the Bible are rabid anti-environmentalists, who would take great pleasure in spoiling our air, water and our food. Until someone brought up the Quoran you have consistently bashed the Bible, misquoting the word "dominion", twisting its meaning to your purposes and declared anyone who disagreed with your views as far-right extremist rednecks, and worse.

Looks like the Quoran worked on you. Or was it just political correctness?

As far as Prince Charles is concerned, since this thread is about the Monarchy, I simply meant to call into everyone's attention the folly of inherited reign.

I have not bashed the Bible, YJ, I bashed the Fundamentalists. And again, I did not claim that Bible says subjugate, conquer the nature. What I said was that this is what Fundamentalists claim. It is the Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible that tells them to conquer, subjugate and dominate the earth, rather than conserve, preserve, nurture it.

I have consistently said that there are many Christians who are good environmentalists. I have also said that there are many Christians I respect (Mother Teresa, MLK, Jimmy Carter being just a few).

My problem is not with Christians but with religious right, with Fundamentalists. My problem is not with the Bible, it is with Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

I have also consistently said that Bible says both good things and bad things, so does Koran. It may be that you suffer from selective reading.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

dumpthemonarchy, obviously the Governor General of Canada does not exercise personal discretion on a day-to-day basis; that would go against centuries of constitutional conventions. The Governor General only exercises personal discretion under very clear circumstances (such as when a prime minister is acting outside of our constitutional bounds, or when there is a general election that returns no clear majority to the House). You say that there are only two options, which suggests that your understanding of our constitutional arrangements is either misguided or incomplete. Any number of possibilities exist after an inconclusive general election, and though there are constitutional conventions that help to guide the decision-making, there must be a final arbiter—and that person cannot be the head of Government who has everything to lose.

It makes no sense—and is in fact quite a dangerous train of thought—to suggest that a prime minister should be able to determine, on his or her own, when he or she has a legitimate mandate to govern. And once more, the Governor General performs a myriad of functions that would continue to have to be performed; and to download these responsibilities onto the Office of the Prime Minister would drain the prime minister’s time and resources inappropriately. Such honorary and ceremonial matters of State should be left to our representative of the head of State, with decision-making and the steering of Government reserved to a distinct head of Government.

And the position of Governor General cannot simply not be filled; the Government of Canada would not function without the routine use of Orders-in-Council. Of course, these could be performed temporarily by the Queen’s Administrator of the Government of Canada (whoever is presently the Chief Justice of Canada), but we could not maintain such a drain on the resources of the Supreme Court of Canada for more than a few months without very seriously damaging the efficiency of the highest tier of our judicial system.

The position cannot simply go vacant, because this would be a material change to the Office of the Governor General, and would therefore require the consent of the Honourable the Senate of Canada, the House of Commons, and the legislative assemblies of all ten provinces pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1982.

There aren't that many choices after an election, it is often a fuddle duddle and you get on with good order and govt, you adapt. A Canadian head of state/prez is no radical move in the world of political change. I understand poltics quite well.

You have an assumption that our continued democracy is based almost solely on the crown/GG/monarchy, I would disagree with that assumption. Countries that have shed crowns and monarchs as effective rulers have become more democratic. Even England as it had rotten boroughs up to the 20th century.

The PM is one arbitrater, but they have many constraints and I have faith in the Canadian public and political system to develop new methods-which we have done, and that our unique system would function just fine without the crown, a GG, or a monarch as part of our consititution.

Your ideas are cast in stone, mine however, like the novel system we have created in Canada is open to flexible enterpretations and practices that have generally improved democratic practices. You have a pessimistic view of Canada which simply does not suit the times.

 

[s_lone]

Let us not forget the fact that the Canadian Head of State is by default, the supreme governor of the Church of England. This may be trivial on a day to day basis, but symbolically, it is huge deal and a pitiful example of Canadian incoherence in terms of national identity. For a country that is supposedly secular, one could find more authenticity.

The problem is not that a Head of State can be part of a given religion. The problem is that our Head of State is necessarily tied to one single religion for as long as we refuse to evolve. This goes against one of the most fundamental tenets of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

 

[FiveParadox]

No, the British head of State is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Her Majesty the Queen of Canada carries in Canada only the additional title of Defender of the Faith which, as mentioned by the late The Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent P.C., C.C., Q.C., the 12th Prime Minister, noted that the use of the title was as a defender of faith in general, and not of any particular religion (as we have no State religion or faith).

And to counter your inclusion of a section of the Charter above, let’s remember that the same document acknowledges “the supremacy of God”, and that s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees rights and freedoms “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law”. I would very much argue that s. 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (the declaration of executive power in the Queen) is no infringement on the rights and freedoms of Canadians, anymore than is the declaration of independence for our Southern neighbours.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Let us not forget the fact that the Canadian Head of State is by default, the supreme governor of the Church of England. This may be trivial on a day to day basis, but symbolically, it is huge deal and a pitiful example of Canadian incoherence in terms of national identity. For a country that is supposedly secular, one could find more authenticity.

The problem is not that a Head of State can be part of a given religion. The problem is that our Head of State is necessarily tied to one single religion for as long as we refuse to evolve. This goes against one of the most fundamental tenets of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The queen is the head of a religion called the Church of England, this is a long way from Canada and a part of our history that requires a cordon sanitaire by creating a republic.

Being the head of a religion is a problem as religion as shown by the Scientific Revolution is bunk, yet is given a platform of legitimacy it no longer deserves. Religion divides and has caused too much conflict in history. A new head of state would shed these dated beliefs and eliminate the potential for religious conflict. Canada is taking in many immigrants from Asia and Africa and most are religious, Vancouver is getting many new churches/mosques/temples, and this I see as a problem for the future.

No, the British head of State is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Her Majesty the Queen of Canada carries in Canada only the additional title of Defender of the Faith which, as mentioned by the late The Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent P.C., C.C., Q.C., the 12th Prime Minister, noted that the use of the title was as a defender of faith in general, and not of any particular religion (as we have no State religion or faith).

The divide is a little too neat here. What a Canadian PM says about a British monarch isn't worth much. Why we need any one in Canada to defend any foolish faith has not been proven.

 

[FiveParadox]

The late prime minister was discussing the Canadian head of State in his comments.

 

[s_lone]

No, the British head of State is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

You can't wiggle away from this one. The British Head of a State is the Canadian Head of State. There's no way around this fact. It's exactly the same as if the pope would be our Head of State. Any manipulation of words on the monarch's official status can't change the fact that the Canadian Head of State is and will be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England for as long as things don't change.

Her Majesty the Queen of Canada carries in Canada only the additional title of Defender of the Faith which, as mentioned by the late The Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent P.C., C.C., Q.C., the 12th Prime Minister, noted that the use of the title was as a defender of faith in general, and not of any particular religion (as we have no State religion or faith).

And to counter your inclusion of a section of the Charter above, let’s remember that the same document acknowledges “the supremacy of God”, and that s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees rights and freedoms “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law”. I would very much argue that s. 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (the declaration of executive power in the Queen) is no infringement on the rights and freedoms of Canadians, anymore than is the declaration of independence for our Southern neighbours.

I'm not saying the rights of Canadians are being infringed. I'm saying there is clearly an incoherency in the fact that all religions are supposedly equal in Canada but that the Head of State will always and necessarily be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Are all religions equal or not?

Do you consider Canada to be a secular country FiveParadox?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You can't wiggle away from this one. The British Head of a State is the Canadian Head of State. There's no way around this fact. It's exactly the same as if the pope would be our Head of State. Any manipulation of words on the monarch's official status can't change the fact that the Canadian Head of State is and will be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England for as long as things don't change.

Do you consider Canada to be a secular country FiveParadox?

I can see what you are saying. Since Queen is the Head of Church of England and also the head of state of Canada, it would give the impression that Canada officially recognizes Church of England.

That is an inconsistency. However, traditions are not always consistent, sometimes there is an inconsistency. With tradition, it is more important to see how they operate, rather than what they are actually saying.

If a tradition is harmless, does no harm and does some amount of good (as tradition of monarchy does), there is really no good reason to get rid of it.

That indeed is true of any tradition. Let me give you an example. After getting married, a woman takes her husband’s name, most of the time. It is a tradition. It is also very sexist. However, it is a tradition, it does no harm, and I can see some utility in that (it is more convenience for everybody in the same household to have the same last name). That is why most women still take their husband’s name after marriage. Monarchy is no different.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

No, the British head of State is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Her Majesty the Queen of Canada carries in Canada only the additional title of Defender of the Faith which, as mentioned by the late The Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent P.C., C.C., Q.C., the 12th Prime Minister, noted that the use of the title was as a defender of faith in general, and not of any particular religion (as we have no State religion or faith).

And to counter your inclusion of a section of the Charter above, let’s remember that the same document acknowledges “the supremacy of God”, and that s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees rights and freedoms “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law”. I would very much argue that s. 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (the declaration of executive power in the Queen) is no infringement on the rights and freedoms of Canadians, anymore than is the declaration of independence for our Southern neighbours.

The PM of Canada can slice some very fine legal hairs being a PM, but he cannot chop up history. Historically, King Henry Vlll wanted to be free not just of any religon or faith, not of Islam, not of Shintoism, but the church of Rome-the Roman Catholic Church. This Christian religon has created a very strong and definite historical imprint on Europe and the world.

However, the PM, in the Canadian way, prefaces defender of the faith with "per se," to isolate the term faith to mean any faith and all faiths. It is historically comic but relevant to the Canadian historical cultural perspective because we lack an intense historical cultural experience with Arab nations, the middle east, Asia and most other places in the world. It becomes bland and generic. The slow, unrevolutionary way that change occurs in Canada. We'll just bore you to death with endless legal points.

Defender of the Faith in Northern Ireland has a far different meaning than in Canada, and always will. To think in Ireland, in 1690, William of Orange, King of England, fought in a battle for Protestantism against James ll, the former Roman Catholic king of England. Religion meant something then and there.

I think also, if I am historically correct, that King Henry Vlll was the Defender of the Catholic Faith, before he made his break with Rome. So I guess any faith will do. But to have a Canadian head of state who is also the head of a religion, any religion, is out of date these days. Why shouldn't the Mohammedans get their guy in there one time?

 

[AnnaG]

You can't wiggle away from this one. The British Head of a State is the Canadian Head of State. There's no way around this fact. It's exactly the same as if the pope would be our Head of State.

How do you figure that? I haven't seen QE2 running around the planet blessing people and spewing anything like religious dogma. So if QE2 is the head of the CoE in Canada it's in title only.