Retain the Monarchy in Canada?

[Infanteer]

It's not exactly falling apart at the seams now, is it?

No, and that is why I've argued that the debate is largely sentimental (the antique argument).  I was just highlighting the fact as Canuck25 seems to imply that it is un-Canadian to not support the system and would lead us down the road to some Mel Hurtig-inspired Yankee Hell if we were to move away from the idea of a Canadian Monarch.

 

[Canuck_25]

So was the Absolute Monarchy.   I'm sure if we were having this discussion a few hundred years ago, you'd be arguing against giving Parliament too much say.   Things change.

Do you think Canada will fall apart at the seams if we have someone new on the 20 Dollar bill?

Good one, but im sure many will be dissatisfied if the decision will go through. May I ask you Infanteer, on a personal matter? Do you have care for Canadian Heritage? Surely, the Queen has done more positively then negativly, has she not?

Also, a question directed towards the members on this board. What is the conservative party's stance on the monarchy? I know there is a rift in the party on the issue, but no common agreement, as is in the Liberal party.

 

[Infanteer]

May I ask you Infanteer, on a personal matter? Do you have care for Canadian Heritage? Surely, the Queen has done more positively then negativly, has she not?

Sure I have a care for Canadian heritage.   I care about parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, and the sovereign will of the people.   I also care about the real heritage of Canada; the Mohawk or Haida ways, the stalewart traditions of the Habitants, the strong civil society of the British, the hardy customs of Prairie immigrants (my roots), the vibrant cultures of Asia, etc, etc.   The Monarchy is not the lynchpin to any of this and we will not abdicate it or see it diminished by moving away from Kings and Queens.

In all honesty regarding the Queen, she is certainly a very dignified lady and has done much to preserve the integrity of the Royal Family and the image of Britain's Monarchy (which we have tacked on to our state).   She is respected by most as an excellent figurehead.   But for Canada in particular, I don't think there is much on the plate - you can count on your hands and feet how many times she has been on our soil.   I don't see any real connection between what she does and how it represents Canada on the world stage.   Sure, the GG "acts on her behalf", but the GG is not the Queen.

I feel that Canada can do better with our own Head of State, one that fits in with our liberal democratic framework and is a daily fixture in the political life of Canada (essentially, making the GG the Head of State).   It can be, like the current office, a politically inert one that serves a figurehead role or an office that is empowered with some sort of role in the political process that can perhaps become part of the solution for the "democratic deficit" that we see today (as the GG was originally intended for).

The GG can be empowered with or without the monarchy, so it is not really part of this thread but more relevent to the other thread on political reform.

The Monarchy in Canada on its own, as I've said before, is largely a sentimental argument, and you've seen my sentiments above.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[Gunner]

The constitutional Monarchy is part of our heritage.

Which is why we would remain part of the commonwealth.  The British monarchy doesn't mean anything to me as a Canadian and it is time to move on.

 

[Canuck_25]

I feel that Canada can do better with our own Head of State, one that fits in with our liberal democratic framework and is a daily fixture in the political life of Canada (essentially, making the GG the Head of State).   It can be, like the current office, a politically inert one that serves a figurehead role or an office that is empowered with some sort of role in the political process that can perhaps become part of the solution for the "democratic deficit" that we see today (as the GG was originally intended for).

The GG can be empowered with or without the monarchy, so it is not really part of this thread but more relevent to the other thread on political reform.


Cheers,
Infanteer

Ok then, I could come to agreement on the Governor General becoming head of state, but still, not elected in a federal way. Why not have the provinces appoint the Governor General? I hate to see canditates from each party having a member running forthe position. The idea of the governor general being above politics is far more appealing. Even though everyone has a political view, it far less symbolic having a neutral governor general, then lets say a NDP one.

 

[Infanteer]

Define "elect the governor general in a federal way" - I'm not sure what your getting at.

Appointment or election doesn't necessarily mean neutral - look at the Senate; members are appointed and they belong to a party.   If the provinces appointed the GG, people would still gripe, as the provincial government was one that they didn't vote for and didn't "represent them".

Basically, if the position is empowered (as opposed to benign), there will be some "politicking" around an election - but isn't that at the heart of democracy?   I may not particularly like the Liberal government in power right now but I respect the fact that they were put there by me and my fellow Canadian voters; as I citizen in a democracy I can respect that.

Sure, there may be partisanship in a politically empowered Governor General who is elected by the popular vote - so what.   Accepting this is part of being a responsible democrat (small d, please).   Will it be bad for the country - probably not; the US has had an elected Head of State for over 200 years and they are still fully capable of serving the United States and its Constitution.   We are just as capable of doing the same.

I find it funny how most reasonable people are so keen to defend democracy as the best form of government (or the worst, but better then all the others) are also quick to attack the idea of the Head of State being elected in order to preserve it from the horrible effects of democracy, cronyism and demagoguery - which is it, people?

 

[a_majoor]

Define "elect the governor general in a federal way" - I'm not sure what your getting at.

Appointment or election doesn't necessarily mean neutral - look at the Senate; members are appointed and they belong to a party.   If the provinces appointed the GG, people would still gripe, as the provincial government was one that they didn't vote for and didn't "represent them".

Basically, if the position is empowered (as opposed to benign), there will be some "politicking" around an election - but isn't that at the heart of democracy?   I may not particularly like the Liberal government in power right now but I respect the fact that they were put there by me and my fellow Canadian voters; as I citizen in a democracy I can respect that.

Sure, there may be partisanship in a politically empowered Governor General who is elected by the popular vote - so what.   Accepting this is part of being a responsible democrat (small d, please).   Will it be bad for the country - probably not; the US has had an elected Head of State for over 200 years and they are still fully capable of serving the United States and its Constitution.   We are just as capable of doing the same.

I find it funny how most reasonable people are so keen to defend democracy as the best form of government (or the worst, but better then all the others) are also quick to attack the idea of the Head of State being elected in order to preserve it from the horrible effects of democracy, cronyism and demagoguery - which is it, people?

What people are objecting to is the realization there are few effective checks and balances the way our parliparliamentaryem works. An elected Head of State in Canada could end up being a Jean Chretien on steroids...hardly the outcome we expect. The American system works to the extent it does due to the interlocking system of checks and balances, neither the Legislature, the Executive or the Judiciary can run amok.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, the Governor General doesn't have the legislative or fiduciary powers to be a "Jean Cretin on Steroids" - I do not support sweeping reform and an American style Head of State.   However, if designed right (with a few tweaks on how the system works now), the "Elder Statesman" GG could act as a check and a balance on a future Jean Cretin.   I believe (as discussed by Jeffrey Simpson in The Friendly Dictatorship) that in Canada, the Legislative system has run amok due to the fact that convention has allowed it (and the PM in particular) to assume all the constitutional responsibilities of the Head of State (one only has to look at the last 5 years of scandal to see this) and this is why the checks and balances are required.

I believe that, alongside an accountable and empowered Head of State, Senate reform is necessary to balance our System.   Commons will still be the primary motive force of government and produce the Head of Government, but a Senate (based upon regional represention) and a GG (the "Elder Statesman") are empowered with both legally and morally (de facto and de jure) to step in if the situation warrants it.

 

[Neill McKay]

I find it funny how most reasonable people are so keen to defend democracy as the best form of government (or the worst, but better then all the others) are also quick to attack the idea of the Head of State being elected in order to preserve it from the horrible effects of democracy, cronyism and demagoguery - which is it, people?

I guess for me electing public officials is almost an necessary evil: we need to have the people represented, and having them choose their own representatives is obviously a fair and sensible thing to do, but unfortunately it brings with it quite a lot of undesirable baggage.  I like the system we have now, wherein we have an elected body and an appointed body to balance one another, and a third body in the position by accident of birth, and keeping it as a matter of duty, above the politics of it all to ensure the continuity of legitimate government.  If we elected everyone, including the head of state, we'd just have more politics.  (In saying this, I fully acknowledge the deficiencies in having the PM select the senators.)

When we talk about checks and balances, the thought that always comes into my mind is that the US system, checked and balanced as it is, seems to have been designed on the premise that everyone is trying to screw everyone else somehow.  Ours, with the Crown as the check, is based on trust.  We trust the Queen to do the right thing, and in fact I would argue that she has been for over half a century.  Call me touchy-feely if you like, but I'd rather have a government that's based on trust than one based on expected corruption.

 

[Marauder]

Being a vassal of the Liberal Party of Canada isn't enough subjagated servitude for you?

The Queen has been an inoffensible enough figure head, and I suppose the status quo of her not giving a damn and doing nothing to reverse the folly of the public's will (good or bad) in one of her plantations (frozen though it be) here is acceptable. But where's the impulse to keep her then? And when the Queen passes, are you really that hard up for a monarch that you'd kiss Charles' ring? The guy can't get choosing a wife right without a second pass, and he's gonna run the Empire? C'mon. And Harry's a druggie, once you hit the next gen. William I could live with without feeling that much irony or revulsion, but that's about it.

 

[Neill McKay]

The Queen has been an inoffensible enough figure head, and I suppose the status quo of her not giving a darn and doing nothing to reverse the folly of the public's will (good or bad) in one of her plantations (frozen though it be) here is acceptable. But where's the impulse to keep her then?

it lies in the relatively good functionning of the canadian system of government, coupled with an absence of any compelling reason to turn the Constitution inside-out.

And when the Queen passes, are you really that hard up for a monarch that you'd kiss Charles' ring? The guy can't get choosing a wife right without a second pass, and he's gonna run the Empire?

Divorce and subsequent re-marriage is fairly common now, actually...

And there's no Empire anymore, and if there were the King wouldn't be running it any more than the Queen runs the Commonwealth now.

 

[Infanteer]

The Queen has been an inoffensible enough figure head, and I suppose the status quo of her not giving a damn and doing nothing to reverse the folly of the public's will (good or bad) in one of her plantations (frozen though it be) here is acceptable. But where's the impulse to keep her then? And when the Queen passes, are you really that hard up for a monarch that you'd kiss Charles' ring? The guy can't get choosing a wife right without a second pass, and he's gonna run the Empire? C'mon. And Harry's a druggie, once you hit the next gen. William I could live with without feeling that much irony or revulsion, but that's about it.

Another dissatisfied customer.

Dirty Kuffar....

 

[Edward Campbell]

I wish the moderators would merge the â Å“What would change if (when) we had a King?â ? thread, up in The Canadian Army, with this one.

There are some other considerations re: the royals.

Consider, for example, The Royals: The Royal Canadian Regiment.  The Regiment has had only two Colonels-in-Chief in its long, glorious history:

1. FM HRH Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert, 1st Duke of Connaught and Strathearn KG, KT, GCB, GCSI, GCMG, GCIE, GCVO, GBE, VD, TD (a real, professional soldier, a legitimate Field Marshal and, by the way, the father of Princess Patricia (Lady Patricia Ramsey) from whom the PPCLI are named) and Governor General of Canada from 1911-1916.  He became Honorary Colonel in 1914 and Colonel-in-Chief in 1929.  He died in 1942; and

2. HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh KG, KT, OM, GBE, AC, QSO â “ also a Field Marshal but, unlike the Duke of Connaught, an honorary one.  He accepted the appointment in 1953.

Prince Philip is an elderly, albeit fit and active man but, like most of his great generation of WWII veterans (he saw active service during World War II and served until 1952, rising to the rank of commander) he cannot be too long for this world.  Who will take his place?

(I am sure the Colonel of the Regiment (MGen (ret'd) de Faye) has considered/is considering this issue.  He has not shared his views or those of the inner circle of the REC with the likes of me and I certainly haven't asked.)

Consider if you will: are we The Royal Canadian Regiment or The Royal Canadian Regiment?  If we are the former then we might wish to retain our close association with the senior ranks of the British royals.  If, on the other hand, the proper emphasis is on Canadian then, perhaps, we should consider that the Duke of Connaught was, also, Governor General of Canada when he accepted the appointment.  Perhaps we should revive that tradition and seek a serving or retired Canadian governor general.

 

[Yrys]

slight hijack

But seriously Prince William is currently second in succession to the thrones of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, and nine other nations, really what points does he have in comming here.

Speaking of the throne of Canada, I was finding it "funy" that Elizabeth II didn't have a home in Canada, as "Queen of Canada".
Well,  I'm not sure if the statue of Rideau Hall has change since then, but if Wikipedia is right, I had my "facts" wrong...

(a little gem found in a unrelated lecture)

Louise became the first royal to take up residence in Rideau Hall, officially the Queen's royal residence in Ottawa.

Speaking of that wiki page, did anyone in Alberta knew that :

The province of Alberta in Canada is named after Louise. Although the name
“Louise” was originally planned, the Princess wished to honour her dead father, so her last name was chosen. Lake Louise in Alberta is also named after her.

or anyone in Montréal :


Louise was the most artistically talented of Queen Victoria's daughters. As well
as being an able actor, pianist and dancer, she was a prolific artist and sculptress. A memorial to her brother-in-law, Prince Henry of Battenberg, and a memorial
to the Colonial soldiers who fell during the Boer War, reside at Whippingham Church on the Isle of Wight, and another statue of Queen Victoria remains at
McGill University in Montreal, Canada.[3]

 

[Swingline1984]

I apologize for resurrecting the dead, but, I thought this a fitting place for the following (posted with the usual caveats):

Liberals To Ponder Severing Canada's Ties To The Monarchy

Susan Delacourt - Tue Jan 03 2012

OTTAWA—Liberal party members will be debating whether Canada should sever its ties to the monarchy when they meet in Ottawa this month.

A policy resolution, calling for an elected Canadian head of state, has been put on the policy agenda of the Liberal convention by the youth wing of the party.

“Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Parliament of Canada to form an all-party committee to study the implementation of instituting a Canadian head of state, popularly elected, and sever formal ties with the British Crown,” states the resolution, which is among 30 policy ideas deemed “priority” items for debate at the Jan 13-15 gathering.

The prospect of cutting ties to the monarchy flies in the face of the Conservative government efforts in recent years to boost the royal image — and runs counter to polling last year that showed Canadians are still largely in favour of those historic links to the Crown.

More at link:

http://www.thespec.com/news/canada/article/648671--liberals-to-ponder-severing-canada-s-ties-to-the-monarchy

Is this truly something that resonates with young Canadians and the wider Liberal Party, or is it an attempt by the youth wing of the party to be in opposition of the Conservatives attempt to resurrect everything Royal?  I would hazard to guess that the latter holds more weight, although I would be interested to see a poll that reflected the former.

 

[ModlrMike]

They need to re-read the constitution:

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 assemblies of each province:

    (a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

How likely is it that there will be unanimous consent? Not bloody likely!

 

[aesop081]

is among 30 policy ideas deemed “priority” items

Well, if that is a priority for the LPC, we really don't have to worry about them making a comeback anytime soon. They are still out of ideas.

 

[Swingline1984]

They need to re-read the constitution:

How likely is it that there will be unanimous consent? Not bloody likely!

Which is why I'm leaning more towards the direction that this was only raised as an issue because it is in opposition to the current Conservative Governments thinking, and is again why I'd like to see numbers that support their argument.

 

[ModlrMike]

Well, if that is a priority for the LPC, we really don't have to worry about them making a comeback anytime soon. They are still out of ideas.

Really?

Other ideas up for debate at the convention include calls for a national child-care program...

 

[GAP]

If the best they can come up with is stuff that's been roundly rejected as uneconomical patter, I don't hold out much hope for their "rebirth".....