Why Canada should be become a republic...

republican
Super Member



Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 193
Location: England

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:25 pm

 

---

I compleatly agree with you on all points Brenda!
Unfortunatly, whilst the Queen and GG are mearly "rubber stampers" they do actually have more power than we like to think.
republican

---

bambino
Junior Member



Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 18

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:10 pm

 

---

/--- It’s misleading to state that 90% of the provinces agreed to one thing or another as this neglects to take into account their differences in population. ---/

The nine Premiers certainly could not give approval to the patriated constitution, with the added amending formula and Charter, without the backing of the majority of their legislatures. Those legislatures are made up of MPPs representing the different populations of the provinces.

Certainly not everyone was in agreement with the document, but the majority must have been.

/--- Although asking the provinces for their approval of the Constitution Act may have only been customary, the fact that the federal government is still tinkering with the constitution indicates that asking the provinces was more than customary; to some degree, it was a necessity. If it wasn’t, they would just leave things as they are. ---/

At the time when Trudeau was attempting to patriate the Constitution, the Supreme Court apparently ruled that it was not a necessity to ask the provinces for approval, but it was certainly customary, and was recommended.

Part of the amending formula that was later added to the Constitution when it became Canadian law was that any future change to the distribution of executive powers would need the unanimous consent of all ten provinces, the House of Commons and the Senate.

Thus, it is no longer simply custom to ask for provincial approval, but a constitutional necessity.

/--- Interpreting a party who creates the majority and forms the government as having support of a majority of Canadians is a simplistic interpretation of our first past the post electoral system. Going so far as to say Canadians supported a particular aspect of their platform is unbelievable. ---/

Well, its true enough that there is a lack of proportional representation in the parliament.

However, during constitutional debates everyone becomes involved- the entire legislature in each province, all MPs, and the Senate. As well, many organizations, groups, and communities are invited to give their input.

In '82 nowhere near enough people spoke out against the monarchy to warrant a change to a republic. In fact, Trudeau was at first a republican and wished to move Canada to that system when he had the chance. But, so many Canadians, both from the public and the government, spoke against this move that he backed down on it.

So, it can’t be argued that the monarchy was thrust upon us.

/--- The Queen was not given her position through a democratic process, she retains her position as head of state through constitutional inertia, more than anything. ---/

The Constitution IS the democratic means by which Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada. It is a law which was created in 1867, not rejected in 1982, and still not debated in 2004.

If a majority of the Canadian population were to find that a constitutional monarchy is indeed something truly offensive, then the Constitution would have to be changed to remove the Crown. There is a clause in the Constitution which allows this to happen.

Constitutional inertia will continue, with the monarchy riding along on it, until the People choose to alter its course. But the point is they have every freedom to do so.

/--- As for the Queen or her representative, the Governor General, serving as a means to protect us from a dictatorship – how exactly? ---/

The Constitution vests the Crown with the power to dissolve a government or dismiss a prime minister. Without this check a PM or government would have ultimate power, allowing them to alter laws to suit themselves and their motives.

There are many other checks and balances to a PM or government’s power, but sometimes a PM has control of so many seats in the House that a vote of no confidence will not work to bring him down, the Supreme Court can be stacked with controlled judges (there is already accusation of that happening), and so on. The Crown, however, as embodiment of the state, remains the absolute check on the PM or government.

Also, sometimes parliament will need an apolitical arbitrator to step in and resolve an issue which is preventing the government from governing. That is the Crown’s job.

It’s, of course, unlikely these types of thing would happen. But, the point is, it can. (In recent times King Juan-Carlos of Spain prevented a coup take over of the country's government.) So, though the Crown may not exercise these reserve powers very often, there do come moments when it is necessary (it has happened before in both Canada and Australia).
To use an analogy: we don’t want to have to use our fire-extinguisher, but we wouldn’t want to be without it either.

/--- The Queen, as far as I know, has never opposed things that were greatly unpopular in Canada. ---/

Such as what?

Remember, the Queen should not step into something political, even if it is unpopular. These things should be left to the politicians to resolve, not the Crown.

As I said, the Crown is there only for real crisis such as a government claiming victory with a fraudulent election, a government attempting to breach the Constitution, a government refusing to present a budget, etc.

However, I do know that in 1990, when Quebec separatism was at a fever pitch after the death of the Meech Lake Accord, the Queen did come to Canada, and though she did not outright criticize the separatists (after all, she must protect their democratic right to express themselves), she did, in many speeches, promote the maintenance of Canadian unity.

/--- The Governor General is appointed by the party in power and rubber stamps government legislation. ---/

Mmm…. Not quite true.

A person to fill the post of governor general is recommended by the prime minister, and the Queen officially appoints them.

The governor general, as representative of the Queen, has the power to refuse to give Royal Assent to legislation.

Just because it has not happened recently, as far as I know, does not mean it cannot happen. It has been done before.

/--- If the Governor General was elected by Canadians and was not affliated with a party, then you would have something approaching the protection Bambino asserts exists presently. ---/

Not necessarily.

Elections mean a competition between candidates. Affiliated with a party or not, this turns people running for the position of governor general into politicians. They will have to have election campaigns, platform promises, compete with each other for the position.

Whomever wins will not be approved by every Canadian, only those that voted for them. And, they will have donors who will have funded their campaigns.

When it comes to a time when they must step into a stalemate or resolve a crisis, how can they be trusted that they will not make a decision which benefits only those who voted for them, or worse, benefits those who donated funds?

A sovereign is trained from birth to be the head of state, and only owes their position to the constitution which places them there. They don’t have to compete for votes, sell themselves to the People any more than doing the best they can at their job, or appeal to donors for money.

That, to me, provides more protection than a politician.

/--- Government works from the people up? ---/

I believe so. If Canadians wanted things changed, then I think they would be. We can’t blame anybody but ourselves if things are not the way we like them.

Want the Senate to be elected? Lobby to get it changed.

Want MPs to have a stronger voice? Lobby to get it changed.

Want Canada to be a republic? Lobby to get it changed.

Just because we sit on our asses and let the government continue as it is doesn’t mean we don’t have the power to change it. I think we too often allow the government to feel omnipotent because we rarely challenge something we don't like.

/--- Regarding unbiased referendums. Be sure to direct that instruction to the government itself. ---/

Absolutely.

But, I suppose each side will have to have a bias.

What I was saying is that all the facts should be presented to Canadians, not made up stories or scare tactics (such as your “don’t destroy Canada” example).

/--- As for the Queen representing all Canadians, I have a separatist friend and a First Nations friend who would more than beg to differ. ---/

Perhaps they do.

But, ask them why.

It might be because of the same “British queen”, “foreign queen”, “Anglophone oppression” brainwashing that seems to affect a lot of people in Canada.

/--- But constitutional change is called a quagmire for good reason. I think most people are content enough with the situation to let it be, for now. I anticipate another stab at the constitution when the separatists move to hold another vote. ---/

Let there be as many stabs at the constitution as necessary to make Canada as good a country as it can be.

However, as I said before, change should come only from necessity, not simply for its own sake. And I have yet to hear a convincing reason why there should be a change towards a republic. Whatever problems there are in Canada – disproportionate representation, elected or unelected Senate, too much power in the PM’s office, etc.—none of these have to do with the Crown.

---

Brenda
Super Member



Joined: 21 Feb 2004
Posts: 178
Location: Stirling

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:32 am

 

---

I am contented in my discontent. I worked for an MP for two years in Ottawa so my view of the Canadian political scene is tainted by this experience. I do not consider myself to be a republican or a monarchist. I think people are happy enough not to voice any unhappiness they may feel.

I never meant to imply that I felt the monarchy was thrust upon us. It just has been and is there. I do not anticipate its removal anytime soon but on the same hand, I don’t believe it to be a necessity.

The prime ministers makes recommendations for Privy Council appointments and Governor General and the Crown rubber stamps them. If there has been an instance where an appointment has been refused, please inform me. Granted the Governor General has greater powers, but have they ever been used without the guidance of the prime minister? You made reference to a time when reserve powers have been used, please elaborate for me.

I take your point with respect to the difficulties in electing a Governor General as we would know where his/her loyalties lie. But how does being appointed by the pm negate this sense of divided loyaltly? Would the Governor General really slap the hand that recommended him/her to the job? I’m not so sure.

I think it’s really nice you believe that lobbying can result in change. The truth is that those in power work to keep and maintain that power. If it requires misleading the electorate during a campaign, reneging on a promise down the line, changing electoral boundaries to suit their party, they have done it and will continue to do it.

As for your last statement, “whatever problems there are in Canada – disproportionate representation, elected or unelected Senate, too much power in the PM’s office, etc.—none of these have to do with the Crown,” you miss my point.

The Crown is not to blame for these aspects of the Canadian political system but people feel alienated from the political process for a variety of reasons, many of which you noted above. What you fail to acknowledge is that some people feel alienated because they do not feel that The Canadian Head of State represents their interests. With respect to posing the question you suggested to my two friends, I lack the necessary crassness. Sorry.

---

Blue and White Army
Senior Member


Back to Vancouver in March!

Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 110
Location: West Sussex, UK

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:18 pm

 

---

So the GG is our head of state.... funny that she was appointed by the PM.

---

bambino
Junior Member



Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 18

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:09 am

 

---

/--- I never meant to imply that I felt the monarchy was thrust upon us. It just has been and is there. I do not anticipate its removal anytime soon but on the same hand, I don’t believe it to be a necessity. ---/

My apologies, Brenda- that comment about the monarchy not being forced on us was actually more in reference to my debate with republican.

As for the ‘necessity’ of the monarchy—in my mind the only thing necessary is that democracy is protected. Others may feel differently, but that said, I think that after 500 years of monarchical government, from colonial, to dominion, to sovereign status, there is no need to remove the Crown. Trying to replace the monarch with a president would be a hassle beyond belief, bring about no real gain, and, I think, actually make the position of head of state more vulnerable to possible corruption, fraud, biased loyalties, and other problems that come with politicians.

I very strongly admire the fact that the Canadian sovereign was trained from birth to do their job, owes no allegiance to anybody but their subjects, and gained their position only because of a combination of lineage and our constitution.

Though Canada’s system certainly needs improvements in regard to political democratic process, I don’t think the Crown hinders this in any way.

/--- But how does being appointed by the pm negate this sense of divided loyaltly? Would the Governor General really slap the hand that recommended him/her to the job? I’m not so sure. ---/

I think any political loyalties are negated mostly because ultimately the governor general’s job is decided by the monarch.

The prime minister may have made the recommendation, however, if some crisis in government arose, he could not automatically have the governor general removed to allow him to follow through on what he alone wanted.

/--- If there has been an instance where an appointment has been refused, please inform me. Granted the Governor General has greater powers, but have they ever been used without the guidance of the prime minister? You made reference to a time when reserve powers have been used, please elaborate for me. ---/

As far as I know a recommendation for appointment has never been refused.

However, I can think of a very recent example from Australia where the governor general, Peter Hollingworth, was facing allegations regarding his covering up of sexual abuses in the Anglican Church while he was Archbishop, amongst a number of other problems. PM John Howard, for some reason, stayed out of the fray as scandal upon scandal mounted on Hollingworth, and though a large number of Australians apparently wanted him out, the PM did NOT recommend the GG be dismissed.

The Queen arrived in February 2003, right in the midst of the controversy, for a Commonwealth heads of government meeting. She met privately with both the prime minister, and the governor general, and shortly after she left Hollingworth stepped aside, with the Governor of Tasmania temporarily taking the post.

Then, while the ordeal continued, at the beginning of May Howard went to London for a memorial ceremony, and at that time again met with the Queen. By the end of May, Hollingworth suddenly submitted his resignation.

So, though he was not out and out dismissed, it seems that the Queen strongly advised he resign his post.

There are two examples of the governor general exercising the Crown’s powers against a PM.

One is the notorious King/Byng affair of 1926, where Liberal PM King, leader of a minority government, was losing his support from the Progressive Party due to a number of scandals and patronage appointments, and thus was facing a vote of no confidence. He went to GG Byng asking him to dissolve parliament, however, constitutional convention says that the GG can ask the leader of the opposition to try and hold the confidence of the House and form a government, without dissolving parliament. Thus, Byng refused the PM’s request, forcing him to resign, and asked Arthur Meighen, leader of the Conservatives, to form a government.

The second is the face-off between GG Kerr and Labor PM Whitlam in Australia in 1975. In that instance the Liberal dominated Senate deferred voting on a bill which appropriated funds for government expenditure, unless the PM called for a dissolution of parliament and an election. The PM refused. As the fight between the Senate and House went on over weeks, the government was running out of funds—and without money, the government would not be able to govern. Faced with a prime minister who was neither resigning nor seeking a dissolution, even after failing to obtain supply, to bring the stalemate to an end Kerr dismissed Whitlam, and installed Malcolm Fraser as a caretaker PM on the condition that he immediately call an election, which he did. Whitlam’s Labor party went down with a strong loss.

/--- The truth is that those in power work to keep and maintain that power. If it requires misleading the electorate during a campaign, reneging on a promise down the line, changing electoral boundaries to suit their party, they have done it and will continue to do it. ---/

This is very true. And from what I’ve gathered through my travels, it happens all over the world—even in the very democratic Western countries.

I haven’t yet formulated a real theory on how this type of abuse can be stopped. But I have mused about whether, if the Canadian People were more educated on their Crown and its powers, voters unhappy with their politicians could appeal to the Crown to have him or her or them removed. Our version of a recall vote, so to speak. Of course, this means the Crown becomes embroiled in politics, and recall votes aren’t the best solution either, but, as I said, it’s only a thought.

/--- What you fail to acknowledge is that some people feel alienated because they do not feel that The Canadian Head of State represents their interests. ---/

In which specific manners does she not represent the interests of Canadians?

/--- With respect to posing the question you suggested to my two friends, I lack the necessary crassness. ---/

I fail to see how asking someone why they have a certain opinion is crass.

---

bambino
Junior Member



Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 18

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:18 am

 

---

/--- So the GG is our head of state.... funny that she was appointed by the PM. ---/

Actually, Canada has no ONE head of state.

In a constitutional monarhcy the institution of the Crown is the embodyment of the state. The Queen, as sovereign of the crown, can be seen as the head of state. But, because the monarch allows the governor general to hold almost all the same powers, and perform the same constitutional and ceremonial duties, the GG can also be seen as a head of state.

Though the term head of state has caught on around the world, it was actually originally coined to define the difference between the U.S. president's two roles-- for them the same person is head of government AND head of state. To apply this to the Canadian situation, the PM is the head of government, and the representatives of the Crown, the Queen and governor general, are the heads of state.

---

Blue and White Army
Senior Member


Back to Vancouver in March!

Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 110
Location: West Sussex, UK

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:04 am

 

---

[quote="bambino"]Actually, Canada has no ONE head of state.

In a constitutional monarhcy the institution of the Crown is the embodyment of the state. The Queen, as sovereign of the crown, can be seen as the head of state. But, because the monarch allows the governor general to hold almost all the same powers, and perform the same constitutional and ceremonial duties, the GG can also be seen as a head of state.

Though the term head of state has caught on around the world, it was actually originally coined to define the difference between the U.S. president's two roles-- for them the same person is head of government AND head of state. To apply this to the Canadian situation, the PM is the head of government, and the representatives of the Crown, the Queen and governor general, are the heads of state.[/quote]

Who exactly are you explaining this to? Everyone on here already knows these basic premises.

---

bambino
Junior Member



Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 18

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2004 7:24 am

 

---

/--- Who exactly are you explaining this to? ---/

You.

/--- Everyone on here already knows these basic premises. ---/

Well, if, when you said "the GG is our head of state," you meant the GG is ONE of our heads of state, then I apologise. I read your comment as saying the GG is our singular, only head of state.

Still, from my review of the previous posts here I don't see that this issue of Canada's almost dual heads of state was covered before. How then am I to be aware that everyone here knows this already?

---