Retain the Monarchy in Canada?

[1feral1]

When we had the referendum vote for the Queen here in Australia, large bill boards advertised along roads and buildings, etc, would say "God save The Queen" or "Off with Her Head - You decide". That was sure wierd to see.

Australia decided to keep the monachy for now. It is invitable that Australia will become a republic sooner than later, but until the republican movement stop the infighting and back biting, mainstream Aussies will keep things the way they are.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Kirkhill]

Something's wrong with these numbers.  45+15+32+13=105%.  Unless of course you can declare yourself to be of more than one ethnic background.

That's exactly the case garbageman.  Scots-Irish-Acadian-Canadian anyone?

By the way I forgot the 4% that classify themselves as Native, Metis or Inuit.

As to the point of the thread, I am on record as favouring the monarchy and retaining the Governor-General in the role described by the Constitution but electing him/her for one longish term.  (Election by popular vote, by Parliament, by Council of First Ministers all are good with me).  The Queen as head of the Commonwealth, Canada as an independent country within the Commonwealth, just as the Provinces should be independent entities within Canada.

 

[Canuck_25]

You also have to realise that if the federal goverment tries to rid the monarchy from Canada, some provinces my block the decision.

Im not sure why people want to abolish the monarchy. The Monarchy is part of Canada's history and heritage. Some members on this forum seem to adore american foreign policy, culture, and goverment. I have one thing to say to these people. If you dont like they way our country governs itself, its traditions, and its policies, immigrate south and dont come back!

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

Let's keep the monarchy.  Although the GG's taste have been lavish lately, she has down an outstanding job for the military.  We must keep our roots and do not have to cut ties with Britain.  Although the Canadian demographic has changed since 1940, this should not be the reason why we want to throw away such an important and defining part of our history.  If Canada's population was suddenly 55% of Mongolian origin would we replace the Queen with Genghis Khan. I think not.

 

[Infanteer]

It's interesting to watch some "cavaliers" come here and defend the monarchy with passionate pleas of "tradition" and nothing much else for rational argument on how the monarchy supports our democracy.

I see calls for tradition based upon the lines that "we've done it that way before" - this seems to be indicating that there is no real understanding of what important traditions we continue to (and should) exercise today.   I bet if you were British you'd be arguing on the importance of Peerage and the House of Lords for no other reason then the fact that "we've always done it that way".   Kinda dogmatic and a little unoriginal.

Our British heritage has given us Common Law (sans Quebec), the Rule of Law, the theory of Responsible Government, a Parliamentary democracy, and a notion of individual rights (which is buried in all of these principles and evolved through millenia of history).

The British Monarchy has been out of our hair domestically (the King-Byng affair) and internationally (the Statute of Westminster) for quite some time now.   Trudeau ensured that Canadian sovereignty rested, de facto and de jure in a wholly Canadian context.   As such, as citizens of a democracy where sovereignty ultimately lies with the people, keeping some pseudo-authoritarian figurehead that represents the "rule of one" (monarkhia) rather then the "rule of the people" (demokratia) is an idea that's past its expiry date (we seem to actually exist in a benevolent oligarchy, but that's a topic for another debate).

Does this mean we have to severe all heritage to the British Iles?   Of course not.   As a mature and stable democracy, we're more then capable of determining who our head of government and our head of state are, in the process making them both fully functional and accountable offices, while at the same time maintaining links to our roots (through continued membership to the Commonwealth) and maintaining and practicing the traditions that really matter (mentioned above).

As it stands, the most likely and easiest way to go about things is the gradual abrogation of The Crown in our political dialogue until the day that nobody really notices it's gone.   Supportive of this course, I would recommend against any actions in the other direction (renaming the CME the Royal Canadian Engineers comes to mind) which will only make the eventual separation more of a logistical drag (line up for new capbrass, everyone....)

Cheers,
Roundhead Infanteer, Lord Protector of Canada....

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

IMHO Canada is not ready to go away from the monarchy without major growing pains.I would liken it to the possible problems that would face Quebec (or Alberta) should a seperation occur there.I think it wouldn't be worth the heartache to leave the monarchy, just to say we are on our own.

 

[Infanteer]

Hogwash.

If we decided to eliminate the Monarchy tomorrow, could you really identify any real impact on the day-to-day affairs of Canadians?  A bit of a logistical burden (name changing, new seals and emblems, etc, etc) but hardly something as divisive as a Province leaving the Confederation.

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

So INFANTEER, in your opinion what are the reasons we dont leave the monarchy?

 

[Canuck_25]

Hogwash.

If we decided to eliminate the Monarchy tomorrow, could you really identify any real impact on the day-to-day affairs of Canadians?   A bit of a logistical burden (name changing, new seals and emblems, etc, etc) but hardly something as divisive as a Province leaving the Confederation.

Your wrong there. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and British Columbia would block any legislation of abolishing the monarchy. The "notwithstanding clause" would be used
Vigorously to destroy any legislation in parliment.

Alberta and Quebec are probably the strongest supporters of the abolishment of the monarchy

I would also like to ask, does anyone know the oppinon of the conservative party on the issue of the Monarchy?

 

[Art Johnson]

Come on Michael, you live out in the Boondocks of the wild west (you lucky dog). Our current GG is a pure bitch through and through. She is still using her first husbands name, why? They have been divorced for years, she is even estranged from her children, what a great role model. While in Toronto she got into a bitter law suite with one of her neighbors, the mother of a well known hockey player. As head of the group that was responsible for the Canadian War Museum she publicly humiliated the Head of the CWM because he wore his Naval Uniform to a meeting.
It has always stuck in my craw that the Poi family was evacuated from Hong Kong after the surrender but Canadian personnel had to stay.

Personally for me after Queen Elizabeth leaves the throne I will not take an oath of allegiance to her successor.

 

[McG]

Your wrong there. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and British Columbia would block any legislation of abolishing the monarchy. The "notwithstanding clause" would be used Vigorously to destroy any legislation in parliment.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  So lets set a few things out for you:

1) Provinces cannot block federal legislation.

2) Eliminating the monarchy would require a change in the constitution (this is something more than just legislation and provinces could oppose it).

3) The notwithstanding clause applies to the charter and it is used to pass legislation that otherwise would violate the charter.  Unless the clause is being amended, it would not be relevant to a constitutional amendment.  It does not allow any level of government to invalidate any other level's legislation.

 

[LF(CMO)]

"Our current GG is a pure ***** through and through. "  Absolutely accurate, her disdain for her 'subjects' was proven by her reckless spending habits to aggrandize herself and entertain her half witted cohorts.  Why not eliminate the GG?  I have tremendous respect for HM QE II.  I have no problem with Charles III or Harry?? 
Their mother, grand parents and great-grand parents have stood by us through perilous times.  ("Poi family was evacuated from Hong Kong") As we say out west, they 'didn't cut and run'!!

personally for me after Queen Elizabeth leaves the throne I will not take an oath of allegiance to her successor."  Just curious on this one Art?  I'm French-Can/Irish-Catholic and I've 'taken the Oath'.  (Much to the chagrin of some of the rest of my family)

'Queen by the Grace of God'....GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

 

[Edward Campbell]

"Our current GG is a pure ***** through and through. "   Absolutely accurate, her disdain for her 'subjects' was proven by her reckless spending habits to aggrandize herself and entertain her half witted cohorts.   Why not eliminate the GG?   I have tremendous respect for HM QE II.   I have no problem with Charles III or Harry??  
Their mother, grand parents and great-grand parents have stood by us through perilous times.   ("Poi family was evacuated from Hong Kong") As we say out west, they 'didn't cut and run'!!

Although I abhor her politics and think her husband is an overrated, puffed-up, provincial ninny, I think Mme. Clarkson is the best GG since Georges Vanier.   We have had a couple of half decent GGs since 1967 â “ Michener and Hnatyshyn tried but they were too political to break the traces â “ but most have been superannuated, dim political hacks, flacks and bagmen and, by and large, were disgraceful â “ especially Sauvé and LeBlanc.   I have no doubt that the next one will be a return to the tried and true form.

I'm not much of a monarchist but I do prefer the Westminster form of responsible government so we need a (largely ceremonial) head of state and, I repeat, Mme. Clarkson and General Vanier were the only two â “ since Canadians took the job over 50 years ago â “ worthy of the country they represent.

Her spending habits are modest, and if you want to know about over-priced circumpolar trips as DFAIT â “ they're the ones who decide where she goes, who goes with her, etc.

The GG has limited discretion â “ even her trips to visit the fleet and the troops required considerable arm twisting â “ by her staff â “ in the PMO.

Clarkson shows soldiers how to party
Governor General's visit energizes Afghan troops
Jim Farrell
The Edmonton Journal (From the Ottawa Citizen: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=3e7636f1-9183-46ec-aa29-5022e756ce32 )

Sunday, January 02, 2005

CAMP JULIEN, Afghanistan - Canada's Governor General rocked 'n' rolled the night away New Year's Eve, until, at the stroke of midnight, Adrienne Clarkson bent Camp Julien's "no fraternization" policy by kissing two young servicemen, one after another.

Twelve hours later, wearing a stately black knit dress, her hair coiffed, Madame Clarkson and husband John Ralston Saul were off to make some New Year's state visits. The first was to Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's newly elected president. The second was to 90-year-old Muhammad Zahir Shah, the country's former king and now its constitutionally anointed "father of the nation."

Madame Clarkson's New Year's whirl didn't end until 10 p.m. yesterday when she wrapped up a dinner with the Canadian ambassador, the Canadian Embassy's deputy chief of mission and eight Canadians who are helping to rebuild the shattered Central Asian nation.

Madame Clarkson's energy also did wonders for the Junior Ranks Mess, the after-hours drinking and partying spot for privates, corporals and master corporals.

When Madame Clarkson initially took to the floor Friday around 11:30 p.m, the dance floor was half-empty. She proceeded to give the linoleum no mercy, dancing with aides, servicemen and with Christopher Alexander, Canada's 36-year-old ambassador to Afghanistan. Their spirits already boosted by the round of drinks Madame Clarkson had bought for them, an admiring crowd got into the spirit. The floor began to fill as Madame Clarkson danced on, a broad grin on her face.

"It's refreshing, it's absolutely refreshing," said Leading Seaman Dru Bernardo, an Ottawa-based company clerk with the base hospital. "She's been up for five songs and even kept dancing through Marilyn Manson. Can you imagine the chief of defence staff doing that? She's an incredible woman."

By midnight and the 10th song, Leading Seaman Bernardo was Madame Clarkson's partner and the recipient of Her Excellency's first New Year's kisses.

"I was the second one and it was really neat," said Cpl. Eric Klapatiuk, an Edmonton-based medic originally from Calgary. "She kissed me on each cheek."

Madame Clarkson's husband and vice-regal partner was nowhere to be seen. The son of an officer with Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and a self-confessed army brat, Mr. Saul had donned a helmet and body army to do a night patrol onboard an armoured personnel carrier. At the stroke of midnight, the renowned essayist, novelist and philosopher was positioned on a hillside above Kabul with soldiers in an observation post. Before leaving, Mr. Saul explained he had planned it that way to boost troop morale.

Yesterday morning, he gave an additional reason for missing a New Year's dance with his wife.

"I'm a terrible dancer and the Governor General loves to dance," Mr. Saul explained. "I usually find something else to do."

This second New Year's trip to Kabul has been no easy walkabout for the vice-regal couple. The weather has been miserable with wet snow or rain. At 8:30 a.m. Friday, as they began their rounds, a cold wind blew. First stop on the itinerary was a large tent filled with the 10 soldiers assigned to Camp Julien's "Quick Reaction Force." Instead of saying hello, then moving on, They dropped into a pair of armchairs and chatted with the young soldiers.

 

[Canuck_25]

You have no idea what you are talking about.   So lets set a few things out for you:

1) Provinces cannot block federal legislation.

2) Eliminating the monarchy would require a change in the constitution (this is something more than just legislation and provinces could oppose it).

3) The notwithstanding clause applies to the charter and it is used to pass legislation that otherwise would violate the charter.   Unless the clause is being amended, it would not be relevant to a constitutional amendment.   It does not allow any level of government to invalidate any other level's legislation.

My bad on the "notwithstanding clause"

but dosnt the country require 2/3rds of the provinces and 50%+ of the populations to make any changes to the charter?

 

[Kirkhill]

You are right on the formula Canuck25.

And Squarehead Infanteer - you might want to review the history of the last Lord Protector, and learn from the example.  He was the reason we have a constitutional monarchy. As Churchill said - the least worst of all systems.

Cheers ;D

Proud "Cavalier"

 

[McG]

My bad on the "notwithstanding clause"

but dosnt the country require 2/3rds of the provinces and 50%+ of the populations to make any changes to the charter?

The Charter is a part of the Constitution Act 1982 (it is not the entire constitution or even the entire portion passed in 1982).  You can amend it all you want and it will not affect the monarchy.

There are several ways to amend the constitution, however the removal of the monarchy would require approval of the House of Commons, the Senate, and at least 2/3 of the provincial legislatures (and those legislatures representing at least 50% of the population).

 

[Canuck_25]

The Charter is a part of the Constitution Act 1982 (it is not the entire constitution or even the entire portion passed in 1982).   You can amend it all you want and it will not affect the monarchy.

There are several ways to amend the constitution, however the removal of the monarchy would require approval of the House of Commons, the Senate, and at least 2/3 of the provincial legislatures (and those legislatures representing at least 50% of the population).

The chances of the provinces approving of the abolishment is pretty small. Also, you must consider that Ottawa has always had every province on side before it amends the constitution. Im not sure why, mostly because the rest of the country had to please Quebec before it would agree.

 

[Torlyn]

The chances of the provinces approving of the abolishment is pretty small. Also, you must consider that Ottawa has always had every province on side before it amends the constitution. Im not sure why, mostly because the rest of the country had to please Quebec before it would agree.

Hmmm...  I'm trying to remember social 30, but I don't believe Quebec ever ratified the constitution act...  How is that pleasing Quebec?  As for the referendums you're talking about, the Meech Lake accord was shot down by Newfoundland and Manitoba, and the Charlottetown Accords didn't have enough popular support, so they died...

T

 

[Canuck_25]

Hmmm...   I'm trying to remember social 30, but I don't believe Quebec ever ratified the constitution act...   How is that pleasing Quebec?   As for the referendums you're talking about, the Meech Lake accord was shot down by Newfoundland and Manitoba, and the Charlottetown Accords didn't have enough popular support, so they died...

T

Actually, i will quote a passage from my Law 12 book.

"In 1990, the ratification proces came to an abrupt end when Elijah Harper, a Cree, and a member of the Manitoba legislator, blocked debate of the accord by using the parliamentary process."

 

[Infanteer]

And Squarehead Infanteer - you might want to review the history of the last Lord Protector, and learn from the example.   He was the reason we have a constitutional monarchy. As Churchill said - the least worst of all systems.

Squarehead!!!  Why you....  :threat:, at least Cromwell was posthumously executed  >.

I think Churchill was referring to democracy in general, not the constitutional monarchy flavour.

As well, if Canada was to hold a general referendum (like Australia) and it passed, I am unsure if any provincial government would want to buck the trend and ignore the vox populi.

Regardless, there are more important things to worry about than an obsolete and hollow institution - things that really need our attention.  I could care less what the GG does for the Forces considering her dining budget could be used to send Canadian Soldiers to the range more then once a year (something we really need).

But here are some, if anything, humerous sites to check out (I just googled them up), apparently there is actually a solid movement in Canada to do so:

http://www.freedomcanada.net/
http://www.monarchyfreecanada.org/
http://www.canadian-republic.ca/home.html

As well, the ANZAC's:
http://www.republic.org.au/homepagehtml.htm
http://www.republic.org.nz/

And (GASP) even in Albion herself:
http://www.republic.org.uk/

Enjoy....