The danger comes with what could happen without the monarchy.
It is the Governor General solely and exclusively (through Her Excellency’s authority as the Queen’s vice-regal representative) who has the right to dismiss a prime minister out of office—now that is a power that has never been used (though a prime minister’s advice has before been refused). However, the fact is that there could be a circumstance someday where that power could be warranted and indeed required (were a prime minister to blatently and deliberately run roughshod over the constitution, or legislate a ban on opposition parties, or something else radical and unacceptable), or if a prime minister refused to call an election after losing the confidence of the House, or if a prime minister lost a general election and refused to give up control of the Government.
“Those things have never happened before, Chris, and they probably won’t ever happen!”
True enough, but the fact remains that these things could happen—the possibility is there. One day, in the future, we may depend on the fact that the Queen’s duty to Canadians is to ensure that we always have a prime minister who has the support of our elected representatives, and that there are indeed mechanisms in place to exercise that authority. And even more than this—even more than the constitutional functions of the monarchy—I, for one, believe that the pomp and circumstance that our constitutional monarchy provides for us is something charming and very much to be looked forward to. The ceremonies for the opening of Parliament are not only entertaining, but also deeply symbolic of our history, and the fact that we have come so incredibly far in our democracy.
For example:
When the Parliament buildings were constructed, the throne was built into the Senate chamber—this was not by chance, but it was very deliberately done to respect our traditions and conventions when it comes to constitutional monarchy. The Queen or Her Majesty’s Governor General must read the session-opening throne speech from the throne in the Senate chamber, because neither the Queen, nor Governor General, nor any deputies thereof, may enter the House of Commons. This has been the case ever since a former British monarch intruded the House of Commons to demand several members’ arrests, and the Speaker of the House refused the monarch’s command.
This may seem trivial, but it is deeply symbolic (and it is a reminder of just how modern our monarchy has become). Even when the Usher of the Black Rod is dispatched to summon the House of Commons at the Governor General’s command, the House of Commons keeps the doors closed and forces the usher to knock on the door with the rod that he carries; this symbolises the fact that the House of Commons is free to debate without the Queen’s representative’s presence. The House of Commons, when it returns from the throne speech, also introduces a pro forma bill (which is never actually debated) to demonstrate that the House of Commons has the right to conduct its own affairs without necessarily dealing with the throne speech first.
So, to sum this one up, although there are several members here who are stating that our constitutional monarchy is severely out-of-date, the contrary is in fact true. Neither the Queen nor Her Majesty’s representatives enter the House of Commons because it is the House’s right to debate its own affairs without the intervention of the Crown. The constitutional monarchy’s duty is to ensure that Canadians enjoy the government of a prime minister who has the confidence of the House of Commons, and to that end, it should remain in tact—of course it would be inappropriate to leave it up to the sitting prime minister to determine whether he, himself, still has the moral authority to govern.
