Why Canada should be become a republic...

republican
Super Member



Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 193
Location: England

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 8:16 am

 

---

If you mean, how does a “white woman in Britain” represent First Nations peoples, then you may as well ask how a Chinese born refugee can represent them as Governor General, or how possibly a man of Pakistani descent as Canadian President would represent them?

A man from Pakastan wouldn't, neither would a man from Ottawa, thats why they have diverse cabinets and Parliaments-the Queen does not.


Why do you lump all "French Canadians" in with separatists? There are many French speaking citizens in Canada who do not live in Quebec, and thus are not under the influence of the Bloc or Parti Quebecois. There are even many in Quebec who don’t wish the province to succeed from Canada.


I probably should have been clearer here. I do not lump ALL Francophonic Canadians into 1 seperatist group, we were just discussing Quebec seperatists thats all. That said, many French Canadians-not just from Quebec probably do not like a British person in charge. I do not think we can ever be right or wrong on this as I am sure some don't, some do and the rest don't care.


Australia had a referendum in 1999 to see if Australians wanted to move from being a constitutional monarchy to a republic. The debate went on for more than a decade before that, including numerous commitees of investigation, etc., and then a nation-wide referendum. The total cost was estimated to be in excess of $800 million.

In Canada one federal election alone costs $250 million.

Theres nothing to say a referendum would be as expensive in Canada as it would be in Austrailia. Also by argument should we do away with the expence of elections?

/---Where is this DEMOCRATIC Canadian head of state?---/

Democracy isn't ALL about elections. This just goes to show you too have been brainwashed by too much U.S. television.

Actually, living in the UK I tend to watch a fair amount of old BBC TV but thats neither here nor there


As members of the Crown they must guarantee and protect the democratic and human rights of Canadians. Elected officials can abuse the powers they are given with their office-- this has been seen time and time again in many countries around the world. The Crown must ensure that this never happens and that the government in Canada is always stable and responsible

Indeed and when a PM is corrupt the people can punish him/her by voting them out. As for the Queen...well we're stuck with her aren't we? And anways, i think the latest scandles in the Martin government shows the Queen is not doing her job. We cannot have a head of state keeping an eye on things when she is roughly 3000 miles away from her government.


I’d like to ask you—does someone have to be born in Canada to be Canadian? Does someone have to have Canadian parents to be Canadian? Does someone have to have Canadian family to be Canadian? Does someone have to live in Canada to be Canadian?

The answers are: No, no, no and no
For me, to be a Canadian citizen you must be one of those. I belive that if one lives in Canada, loves Canada and feels Canadian than regaurdless of where they were born ect they are Canadian. My question is, how can one be Canadian if they do not live/is not from/have no roots/or does not have Candian citizenship? I am have no Bolivian roots ect so I am not Bolivian. If the Queen moved to Canada and lived there perminatly, I would consider Canadian.



As for the Queen’s citizenship—you need to understand that a monarch cannot be a citizen of the country for which they are sovereign. In all her realms citizenship and passports are issued by the Crown, and so she cannot swear allegiance to herself or issue herself a passport. So, though she lives for the most part in Britain, she is not a British citizen, and thus does not hold a British passport.

Precicsly, she is not Canadian for that very reason. However, are you assuming that one cannot be British because of a lack of a peice of paper? I think she is British and I bet deep down, thats how she feels. There is nothing wrong with that, I too hold English citizenship.


It is legally and logically impossible to claim that the sovereign of Canada, as written into the Canadian constitution, the body that issues Canadian citizenship, the symbol of the Canadian State, is not Canadian

Well, until I see any proof to the contrary-she isn't


Please quote me the words I said that implied I fear Canada becoming a republic will make us more like the United States.

I'm sorry if I wrongly took that assumption, its just all the brainwashing talk thats all.


Canada and many other countries around the world function perfectly well as constitutional monarchies—indeed, 8 of the top 15 countries to live in the world are constitutional monarchies (6 of the top 10, and 4 of the top 5). Do you feel that Norway, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands, Canada, Japan, Denmark, Britain, or Luxembourg are not democracies? (Well, I know your ideas on Canada.) How about Thailand, New Zealand, Spain, Jamaica, or Belize?
They are and they aren't. To be a democracy, a true one, Canadians must be able to decide their own futures and their heads of state. Any nation should be allowed to make that choice.


So, tell me how it is that Canada is lacking in democracy, and please don’t say it is simply because we don’t elect a president. Show me how people who live in republics are more secure and happier. Show me how republics are better.

Security has nothing to do with system of government. Thats not what republicanism is about. It is about being freerer to choose. That said, I would say we have become more secure-both in Canada and in Britain as the monarchy's power as been scaled down.


In fact, I realise you don't want us to move to the U.S. system, so then tell me what republic you do want Canada to be.

There are many modles to choose from. I personally a prefer a stornger Parliament with a weaker PM
Tell me how you think an appointed president will not be a yes-man to the Prime Minister
Surley, the same way the Govoner General is not a "yes man." And indeed who says the President-if we have one-will be appointed?


Thank you for your questions Bambino, I as always look forward to your reply. You have asked me some questions that I will need to look further on and think some more. For more info though visit
www.canadian-republic.ca
I have by the way visited the League's web page I found interesting. I do not reguard monarchists as "the enemy" I think we can agree that we both want whats best for our great land.
Republican

---

bambino
Junior Member



Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 18

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:49 pm

 

---

/--- “If you mean, how does a ‘white woman in Britain’ represent First Nations peoples, then you may as well ask how a Chinese born refugee can represent them as Governor General, or how possibly a man of Pakistani descent as Canadian President would represent them?”

A man from Pakastan wouldn't, neither would a man from Ottawa, thats why they have diverse cabinets and Parliaments-the Queen does not. ---/

I’m sorry, republican, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.

When you asked how the Queen, an Anglo-Saxon woman (though, that is a broad generalisation of her heritage), could represent First Nations Canadians, I asked you how, potentially, a Canadian president of Pakistani DECENT could represent them. That is, a naturalised Canadian born in Pakistan, or even born in Canada of Pakistani parents, as the Canadian president. After all, a president would be the head of state for all Canadians, including First Nations, just as the Queen is now.

The point is that Canada is such a diverse country, made of so many ethnicities, that we cannot focus on what race or culture our head of state is a part of, or where they are from, whether president or sovereign.

Also, in Canada the parliament is the Queen’s Parliament, the cabinet is made of the Crown Ministers. These bodies are made up of different Canadians from all over the country. So I can’t understand how you claim she does not have diverse a cabinet and parliament.

/--- I do not lump ALL Francophonic Canadians into 1 seperatist group, we were just discussing Quebec seperatists thats all. ---/

Understood.

/--- That said, many French Canadians-not just from Quebec probably do not like a British person in charge. ---/

Its obvious that the Canadian sovereign’s nationality is something very important to republicans. As a matter of fact, a large chunk of your argument hinges on this point.

Republicans constantly refer to the Queen as British. This is true, in a way, as she is indeed British. But the discussion of her nationality must go far beyond the simple points of what borders she lives within, where she was born, or what citizenship she holds. Anyone’s nationality is more complex than just these criteria, but for the Queen this is more so. Looking at it this way shows that she is British, but is also Canadian, Australian, Jamaican, etc.

In the post Statute of Westminster world the sovereign has no ONE nationality. The British Empire is gone. The British Crown is no longer one body spread over the Dominions. Both empire and crown have been divided and there are now 16 SEPARATE and DISTINCT crowns with Elizabeth II acting as 16 separate and distinct sovereigns.

As I said before, those who believe the British Queen reigns over Canada may as well complain about the Jamaican Queen being sovereign of Canada.

As a sovereign the Queen holds no passport or citizenship in any of those 16 realms—she cannot as passports and citizenship are issued by the Crown. So, if the Queen holds no passport from ANY country, and no citizenship in ANY country, how can it be argued that she is DISTINCTLY British? Simply because she lives, for the most part, in Britain? No, because that weak argument uses geography to define nationality. And that argument especially does not apply to Elizabeth II.

Even using family, place of birth, where you live, etc. to define nationality is awkward. Because Princess Margriet of the Netherlands was born in Ottawa, does that mean a Canadian is in line for the Dutch throne? My parents have lived in Canada for well over 30 years, but still see themselves as Scottish (and even then, technically, they should call themselves British). Being born here I see myself as purely Canadian, yet with a Scottish heritage. Maka Kotto was born in Cameroon, moved to Canada and became a citizen, joined the Bloc Quebecois, and now sits as an MP. Is he Cameroonese? Is he Canadian? Or does he want to be a citizen of the sovereign nation of Quebec?

While citizenship is a clear cut notion, it can be seen that, in countless instances and examples, nationality is a fuzzy thing. Even your statement “I belive that if one lives in Canada, loves Canada and feels Canadian than regaurdless of where they were born ect they are Canadian” leaves a lot of open holes.

But this is not fuzzy: Because Canada is a constitutional monarchy, there is a sovereign whose position and role is defined by the constitution. The Canadian constitution is the supreme law of Canada, and as it is this document alone that creates a king or queen of Canada, it is perfectly legal and logical to say that sovereign is Canadian.

Even if you STILL insist on seeing the Queen as only British, our other head of state, the Governor General, has been undoubtably Canadian for the past 50 years.

/--- “Australia had a referendum in 1999 to see if Australians wanted to move from being a constitutional monarchy to a republic. The debate went on for more than a decade before that… The total cost was estimated to be in excess of $800 million.”

In Canada one federal election alone costs $250 million.”

Theres nothing to say a referendum would be as expensive in Canada as it would be in Austrailia. Also by argument should we do away with the expence of elections? ---/

Canada is a larger country than Australia, and has a larger population. Thus, it’s logical to believe that a referendum would be more expensive in Canada.

But, this isn’t about the cost of a referendum alone. It’s about the decade or more of effort the people and the government will have to put into this venture. Just to patriate the constitution Trudeau and governments across the country had to work for more than a decade before they were finally able to agree on what to do. Across the country, from Whitehorse to Charlottetown there will have to be committees, polls, debates, studies, commissions, advisors, lawyers, both on the provincial level and the federal. It will take a long, long time, and it will be a messy and divisive debate should Canada ever open up the constitution to have the Crown removed.

There will be a large emotional and financial cost to all of that. That’s all I’m saying.

/--- “Democracy isn't ALL about elections. This just goes to show you too have been brainwashed by too much U.S. television.”

Actually, living in the UK I tend to watch a fair amount of old BBC TV but thats neither here nor there. ---/

Ok, point taken. But still, watching the BBC coverage of politics you should certainly realise that Britain too is a constitutional monarchy and its democratic nature is never questioned. As far as I can tell it is only U.S. television that puts forward the message that TRUE democracy means elections, elections, elections.

/--- “Elected officials can abuse the powers they are given with their office-- this has been seen time and time again in many countries around the world. The Crown must ensure that this never happens and that the government in Canada is always stable and responsible.”

Indeed and when a PM is corrupt the people can punish him/her by voting them out. ---/

Actually, if the PM is corrupt Canadians cannot ‘vote them out’. Canadians don’t even ‘vote them in’. The PM is, technically, appointed by the Crown (there's even been a few cases where the PM didn't even have a seat in the House, or one instance, I think, where he was actually a Senator). But the person appointed is usually the one who commands the most seats in the House of Commons, as it is a given they will hold the confidence of the House. As is going on now, with a minority government who becomes PM is a less clear matter. Paul Martin remains PM for now only because the Governor General has not yet asked him to step down. Once parliament re-convenes in the fall, we will have to see if he can continue to command the confidence of the House by working a deal with another party. Should he fail to do so, this would put the government in jeopardy, and the Governor General will have to replace him.

The electorate may vote out the PM’s PARTY, but this can only be done when the Governor General calls an election.

However, without getting into all the different scenarios, there are a number of ways a PM or even an entire group of MPs could manipulate the government in their favour. These would be extreme circumstances, of course, but none-the-less possible.

/--- I think the latest scandles in the Martin government shows the Queen is not doing her job. ---/

How is it you know this? Though it is the Governor General who would be dealing with these issues, are you sure that she has not been closely watching the goings on with the governmental scandals?

I mean, do you expect the Queen to immediately dismiss the government upon learning of the Sponsorship scandal? Or, is it more prudent to make sure an investigation is performed to see who is guilty and who is not? To get the facts before action is taken?

And besides, this scandal is not the type of thing into which the Crown should have to step. It is still a political affair, to be worked out through Canadians and their politicians. A wasted billion dollars is not a threat to democracy or human rights, and it will not topple the government. It just means a group of politicians who cannot hold the trust of the electorate or the House any longer. The electorate and the House will deal with them. The Crown’s reserve powers are there only for extreme circumstances – which is why they are used so rarely.

/--- We cannot have a head of state keeping an eye on things when she is roughly 3000 miles away from her government. ---/

I’d imagine in this day its more possible than ever for a sovereign 3000 km away to see what is going on in her government.

Besides, our Governor General is her appointed representative to deal with Canadian government issues when the Queen is not in the country.

/--- “Canada and many other countries around the world function perfectly well as constitutional monarchies… Do you feel that Norway, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands, Canada, Japan, Denmark, Britain, or Luxembourg are not democracies?”

They are and they aren't. To be a democracy, a true one, Canadians must be able to decide their own futures and their heads of state. Any nation should be allowed to make that choice. ---/

As Canadians we are absolutely allowed to decide our own future. This was hammered home when the constitution was patriated in 1982. Thus, for 22 years we have been in charge of our own affairs.

Who is it you feel currently decides our future for us?

As for electing the head of state—this does not automatically guarantee that a country becomes a ‘true’ democracy. There are many republics around the world where the elections for the head of state are a complete sham. Indeed, often a properly elected president will put himself in office for life, and sometimes they will even pass the position on to their children, making the country, in effect, an absolute monarchy. From democracy to oligarchy.

But anyway, Canada, as a nation, has made a choice. Twice, actually. In 1867 and again in 1982 Canadians chose to keep Canada as a constitutional monarchy. These were not simple choices either. As I said, the debates and discussions went on for decades. And republicanism was brought up at the time, with Trudeau, at first wanting Canada to become a republic when he patriated the constitution, but eventually more people chose to retain the monarchy, and thus that was how it was done.

The Queen wasn’t forced on us. Were there secret boogey-men who thrust a monarch on Canada? Did the Queen exercise some supreme imperial power to keep Canada as one of her colonies? No, Canadians chose to have her, and her successors, out of their own free will.

Just because we don’t elect a new head of state every four years does not mean we didn’t choose the one we have now.

/--- “Show me how people who live in republics are more secure and happier. Show me how republics are better.”

Security has nothing to do with system of government. Thats not what republicanism is about. ---/

Well, the security I was speaking of was personal. I was asking how would citizens of a republic have more personal security, as in job security, financial security, etc.

/--- It is about being freerer to choose. ---/

Since, as I’ve said, Canadians, through the constitution, already chose to have a sovereign, you’re simply saying that Canadians should change the constitution to choose to have a president. The only thing this means is that Canadians will have to elect a new head of state every few years.

Again, I’ll ask, what benefit will this bring to Canadians?

/--- That said, I would say we have become more secure-both in Canada and in Britain as the monarchy's power as been scaled down. ---/

The monarch’s powers have not changed since Canada’s original constitution, the British North America Act, was passed in 1867. That Act was patriated in 1982 and became the Constitution Act. The monarch’s powers have always been outlined in the Canadian constitution, continue to be, and have not been ‘scaled down’ in any way.

/--- “tell me what republic you do want Canada to be.”

There are many modles to choose from. I personally a prefer a stornger Parliament with a weaker PM. ---/

I can certainly agree that power should be less centralised in the PMO. However, changing this has nothing to do with republicanism. This can be achieved with the Canadian Crown still in place.

/--- “Tell me how you think an appointed president will not be a yes-man to the Prime Minister.”

Surley, the same way the Govoner General is not a "yes man." And indeed who says the President-if we have one-will be appointed? ---/

Republican, you’ve edited my words and not answered the question.

I gave you two options—one a president appointed by the PM, another a president elected by Canadians. How can you ensure that neither of them will owe allegiance to any person or group? An appointed president will be faithful to the PM, not the Canadian people. An elected PM will favour those who donated to their campaign, those who voted for them, etc., not every Canadian.

The Governor General is not a yes man to the Prime Minister because ultimately the GG’s job is decided by the sovereign. The PM may make a recommendation to the Queen, but the PM cannot remove the GG at will. Therefore, the GG has nothing to lose by denying something the PM wishes to do. It’s been seen a number of times where the Governor General has refused to give Royal Assent to a bill, has refused to call an election when the PM wanted, or all out fired the Prime Minister. Even recently Clarkson refused Paul Martin’s request that the swearing-in ceremony for his cabinet be held on Parliament Hill. She insisted it be done in Rideau Hall, and it was. There was no threat to her position by not caving in to the PM’s demands.

/--- I have by the way visited the League's web page I found interesting. ---/

It is interesting… but messy. It’s supposed to be undergoing a re-design soon.

/--- I do not reguard monarchists as "the enemy" I think we can agree that we both want whats best for our great land. ---/

Certainly. I have no fear of republicans, and respect their right to believe what they wish. But, I do not have patience for those who form their opinions on misinformation and all out lies. I say understand completely what we have now, and then decide if it needs to be altered or not. Think it through carefully and see what benefits any changes could bring. But don’t come to the conclusion that things must change because of some rumour or half-truth overheard, or some brainwashing propoganda.

Until not that long ago I didn’t fully understand Canada’s government, and what role our Crown played. I didn’t know what the Governor General did, or even what the Queen’s role was. I did research, discussed the matters with republicans and monarchists alike, and came to the conclusion that, though we certainly have some work to do to improve our government, the Crown is not the issue. I found the Crown is a good thing, and it would be detrimental to Canada to loose it.

But, that’s just my opinion

---

Blue and White Army
Senior Member


Back to Vancouver in March!

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

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:17 pm

 

---

Err, maybe it's just me, but people represent a country, not figurehead politicans.

---

republican
Super Member



Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 193
Location: England

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:30 pm

 

---

I’m sorry, republican, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.
What I mean is, in my opinion no one person can represent all of Canada. However, the man of Pakistani decent would have a diverse cabinet and at the very least live in Canada. I cannot claim to know what Austrailians want because I do not live there so why can the Queen?
And as for the Queen having her own Parliament and Cabinet, how many times do they all meet and discuss? In Britain the PM is required to meet at the Queen at least once a month to report-as far as I am aware the Queen only met Chretian in Canada once and has never met Martin as PM.
Also, I am not saying the Queen is necessarly British-although you did admit that in away she was-I am merley saying she is not Canadian either.


Princess Margarette of the Netherlands was born on sovereign Dutch soil in Ottawa. The Canadian government signed over the land and they even got Dutch soil from the embassy. She also fits other requirements-she lives there and has Dutch roots.

Canada IS a larger country but it also has a smaller population. I think if we had a referendum it would not be too expensive and heck if we can have two for Quebec why not have 1 for a republic?


There will be a large emotional and financial cost to all of that. That’s all I’m saying.

There arelarge emotional costs to just about anything that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

Actually, if the PM is corrupt Canadians cannot ‘vote them out’. Canadians don’t even ‘vote them in’. The PM is, technically, appointed by the Crown

See I find this statement interesting, you claim Canada uis a democracy and the Crown now has not power with a democratic government and now you say that we cannot vote them in our out? Thats why we need a democratic republican government. To make them accountable.


How is it you know this? Though it is the Governor General who would be dealing with these issues, are you sure that she has not been closely watching the goings on with the governmental scandals?

Anyone watching CBC news can keep tabs but what is she doing about it?And it still does not deal with the bigger issue-I don't like my PM being whipped and made accountable by an unelected person-we have a Parliament for that!

The Queen wasn’t forced on us. Were there secret boogey-men who thrust a monarch on Canada? Did the Queen exercise some supreme imperial power to keep Canada as one of her colonies? No, Canadians chose to have her, and her successors, out of their own free will.

Yes but we never got to choose for ourselves-only Treaudeu. We should have a referendum-republic-yes or no?

I can certainly agree that power should be less centralised in the PMO. However, changing this has nothing to do with republicanism. This can be achieved with the Canadian Crown still in place.

But they are being just as centralised by the Crown you said so yourself.


BTW I am sorry if I edited what you said, I will go back and see-it was late when I was copying and pasting. I would answer some more but I am off to my awful factory job.
republican

---

bambino
Junior Member



Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 18

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 2:40 pm

 

---

/--- What I mean is, in my opinion no one person can represent all of Canada. --/

Then, why bother fighting to have a Canadian president? Unless you’re proposing that Canada’s executive powers be embodied in some kind of cabinet, or committee, or tribunal, then you’re stuck with one person representing Canada, sovereign or not.

/-- However, the man of Pakistani decent would have a diverse cabinet and at the very least live in Canada.---/

Why would a Canadian president of Pakistani decent have a more diverse cabinet? Wouldn’t it be just as diverse as the one we have now?

/-- I cannot claim to know what Austrailians want because I do not live there so why can the Queen? ---/

No, you nor I are in a position to be an Australian head of state, because we do not have Australian ministers and an Australian governor general reporting to us. (Not to mention that their constitution makes neither of us their head of state.)

However, geography is not a limitation on someone’s ability to rule. Only laws are. Otherwise, the Prime Minister would have no say in the goings-on of British Columbia because he is neither British Columbian, nor does he live there.

/--- And as for the Queen having her own Parliament and Cabinet, how many times do they all meet and discuss? ---/

The Queen and her ministers rarely meet in person and discuss political affairs because the governor general is here to do that for her. I’m not aware of the exact number of times the governor general meets with his or her ministers, but I’d believe its relatively often, as many functions of the Canadian government must be carried out with the GG’s ‘approval’ based on the minister’s advice.

Other than that, the entire parliament assembles with the governor general (or Queen if the government asked her) at the opening session where the Throne Speech is read.

/--- In Britain the PM is required to meet at the Queen at least once a month to report-as far as I am aware the Queen only met Chretian in Canada once and has never met Martin as PM. ---/

It is tradition for the British prime minister to meet the Queen once a week to discuss matters in a private and informal manner. But it is just that—tradition. There is no obligation, and recently Tony Blair has been receiving some criticism in the press for shirking these weekly meetings.

So, as you can see from Blair’s case, the informal meeting with the sovereign is done pretty much at the PM’s pleasure. If Martin wanted to arrange a meeting with the Queen, I’m sure he would be granted an audience very quickly. However, he strikes me as a man who sees himself as the sole power in Canada, and wishes to ignore the Crown as much as he possibly can.

/--- Also, I am not saying the Queen is necessarly British-although you did admit that in away she was-I am merley saying she is not Canadian either. ---/

I did indeed say she’s British. There’s no doubt about it. However, she’s also Canadian.

She’s British not through citizenship, because she is not one, but because she is the Queen of the United Kingdom, sovereign of the British Crown. Thus, she’s not Canadian through citizenship, because she is not one, but because she is the Queen of Canada, sovereign of the Canadian Crown.
If the ideology applies in Britain, it applies just as equally in Canada.

/--- Princess Margarette of the Netherlands was born on sovereign Dutch soil in Ottawa. The Canadian government signed over the land and they even got Dutch soil from the embassy. ---/

You’re right on that point. However, my research tells me the government decreed the hospital room where she was born Dutch territory just to avoid the whole dual citizenship issue. I’m sure it was agreed all around that allowing the princess to be born on Dutch territory, thereby clearly making her only a Dutch citizen, was the best route to take to avoid any international or national confusion later in her life.

/--- She also fits other requirements-she lives there and has Dutch roots. ---/

The Queen actually has German roots. Does she therefore fit the requirements to be Queen of Germany? The Queen also has more distant French, Spanish and Dutch roots. Does that make her eligible to be the sovereign of France, Spain or Holland? No- because none of their constitutions say she is.

This whole ‘roots’, place of birth, where you live issue is becoming a little threadbare.

/--- Canada IS a larger country but it also has a smaller population. ---/

Population of Australia: approx. 20,000,000

Population of Canada: approx. 32,000,000

/--- I think if we had a referendum it would not be too expensive and heck if we can have two for Quebec why not have 1 for a republic? ---/

Republican, you’re failing to see the larger issue here.

This isn’t about one referendum. It is never, ever going to be as simple as that.

If you go by the Australian example, the reality you’re looking at for Canada becoming a republic will involve a minimum of a decade of debate. This debate will require committees, Royal Commissions, inquiries, studies, lawyers, and on and on. There will also have to be public education, to teach people about the system we have now, and to educate them on the new system being proposed. There will also have to be input from public groups, associations, legions, committees, Native bands, etc. And all this will have to take place not only on the federal level, but on the provincial level as well, seeing as removing the Crown from the constitution will affect every single provincial government’s structure.

Then Canada can have a referendum.

Just to get to that point in Australia, as I said, the cost was estimated at some $800,000,000. And there one referendum failed to bring the results the republicans wanted. They continue to this day to waste Australian’s tax dollars on this issue. The bill just keeps rising and rising.

And I still believe it would be more expensive in Canada. Constitutional debates always are in this country—just look at the Charlottetown and Meech Lake debaucles.

Even if a referendum passes which says Canadians wish to move to the new proposed republic, there is still the cost of actually DOING it. The incalculable price of restructuring the legal system, changing government offices, changing Canadian heraldry and replacing countless Royal Arms and police and military arms. And on, and on, and on….

/--- There arelarge emotional costs to just about anything that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. ---/

I doubt there are large emotional costs to just about ANYTHING. And besides, constitutional change really isn’t just ‘anything’. It is extremely important, and as I mentioned above, always a divisive and contentious issue in Canada.

/--- “Actually, if the PM is corrupt Canadians cannot ‘vote them out’. Canadians don’t even ‘vote them in’. The PM is, technically, appointed by the Crown.”

See I find this statement interesting, you claim Canada uis a democracy and the Crown now has not power with a democratic government and now you say that we cannot vote them in our out? Thats why we need a democratic republican government. To make them accountable. ---/

Republican, I never once said the Crown has no power.

Our constitution gives the Crown very clear powers. However, in the majority of cases these powers will only be exercised on the advice of the Cabinet Ministers. Still, this does not mean that the Crown can’t exercise the powers without or against ministerial advice—but this would only be in very extreme circumstances such as when a government has violated the Constitution, has failed to perform its duties such as providing a budget or refusing to summon Parliament, or won an election through corruption or fraud.

Nor has anybody anywhere ever said Canada is not a democracy. And just because we don’t vote for our PM like U.S. Americans vote for their president does not mean you can say Canada isn’t a democracy either.

In Canada we have elections. We elect our Member of Parliament to sit in the House of Commons and express the wishes and concerns of the voters in their particular riding. It is they who vote on bills which may or may not eventually become law.

However, to have a stable government there must be a leader. This is who the prime minister is. He or she is appointed by the Crown, but who the Crown appoints must be someone who will indeed lead the House with the confidence of the majority of the MPs. If the governor general appoints someone who the House will not allow to lead them then no government business will get done, and the country will fall into chaos. Therefore it works out that the PM is in essence selected by the MPs, who were voted in by us, Canadians.

Should the PM lose the confidence of the house, the governor general will have no choice but to replace him (most likely with the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition) lest the ability of the government to govern will be threatened.

So, we may not directly elect the PM, but he is allowed to be in the office only if those we elected to parliament choose to let him.

/--- Anyone watching CBC news can keep tabs but what is she doing about it [sponsorship scandal]?And it still does not deal with the bigger issue-I don't like my PM being whipped and made accountable by an unelected person-we have a Parliament for that! ---/

As I said, the Governor General cannot exercise Royal Perogative against ministerial advice unless it is a crisis. So far, as terrible as the Sponsorship Scandal is, it has never proven to be a threat to our government, constitution, human rights, or safety.

The scandal remains a political issue, and the GG’s best course of action is to remain out of the political arena and let the politicians deal with it, ie. let parliament work it out.

/--- “The Queen wasn’t forced on us… No, Canadians chose to have her, and her successors, out of their own free will.”

Yes but we never got to choose for ourselves-only Treaudeu. We should have a referendum-republic-yes or no? ---/

Sorry, but Trudeau didn’t entrench the monarchy in our constitution because he alone felt like it. His efforts to patriate the constitution, and add the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, took him almost a decade. A decade full of country-wide debates, organization, deal making, discussion, and hard work.

In actuality, when he started the whole effort he was a republican. He wanted to see Canada gain control of its constitution from Britain (rightly) and become a republic at that time (wrongly). However, so many Canadians, both regular citizens and politicians, were opposed to the idea of becoming a republic, the Crown was retained and became distinctly Canadian.

So, through public expression, and more importantly through their elected representatives, Canadians did indeed choose to retain the monarchy.

None-the-less, by the time the Queen came to Ottawa to sign the Constitution Act Trudeau had turned around on his republican ideas and ended up having no problem with the Queen or the monarchy.

/--- “I can certainly agree that power should be less centralised in the PMO. However, changing this has nothing to do with republicanism. This can be achieved with the Canadian Crown still in place.”

But they are being just as centralised by the Crown you said so yourself. ---/

Well, the Crown’s powers are centralized in the Crown. These are the executive powers of Canada, and this is because the constitution says so. In some countries the constitution says a president holds these powers, and in others the constitution says a monarch holds these powers.

However, nowhere in the Canadian constitution are the PM’s powers laid out. And this may be where the problem lies.

In theory the PM and his Cabinet advise the Crown to perform its functions such as calling and dismissing parliament, giving Royal Assent, etc. However, because the PM can threaten to fire a minister from his Cabinet for going against his wishes, no minister will ever contest the PM. This means that whatever he says goes. No questions asked. So, maybe one step in limiting his power is to make it harder for him to hold his ministers for ransom.

Or, maybe allow non-ministers (back benchers) more ability to voice their opinions in the House, and vote freely without fear of being ostracised for going against the PM’s policies. This would also mean that a PM would not get ‘automatic’ confidence through threatening his lower party members with life in the shadows should they ever vote against him. He would truly have to win the confidence of the house, rather than it being almost guaranteed if his party holds a strong majority.

These are some of the problems with the PMO, and none of them have to do with the Crown.

All in all, republican, I still fail to see how moving to a republic will make Canada any better. I still am not convinced a republic is a better place to live. I understand the system we have now, and while I agree with you that there are definite problems with it, removing the Crown is by no means (not even a long shot) the solution.

As for reading late and rushing to cut and paste—don’t worry about it. Take your time. I think its best if we really want to get a good understanding of something.

Now I have to get back to awful detail drawings.

---

republican
Super Member



Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 193
Location: England

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:45 pm

 

---

doubt there are large emotional costs to just about ANYTHING. And besides, constitutional change really isn’t just ‘anything’. It is extremely important, and as I mentioned above, always a divisive and contentious issue in Canada.

Oh I don't know. People are different and choose to be sensitive about different things. Some people might not care about the constitution all together and yet would be outraged if you changed something in their town. Anything can have an emotional cost, the question is, is it worth it.
And besides becoming a republic will not change everyday life. The country will still be called Canada, the capital will still be Ottawa and the Leafs will still loose in the play offs against the Flyers (hopefully that will change!)

Still, this does not mean that the Crown can’t exercise the powers without or against ministerial advice—but this would only be in very extreme circumstances such as when a government has violated the Constitution, has failed to perform its duties such as providing a budget or refusing to summon Parliament, or won an election through corruption or fraud.

Not that it matters but when a PM cannot get a budget passed there is usually a vote of no confidence (see Joe Clark). This vote has nothing to do with the Queen, rather it is started by an MP(in Clark's case I belive it was Bob Rae).
On the subject of corruption and fraude I again ask where the Queen was during the sponsership scandle? Or where was she when Gagliano got sent away to Denmark? Infact where was she during the entire Mulroony/Chretian/Martin regime?

As I said, the Governor General cannot exercise Royal Perogative against ministerial advice unless it is a crisis. So far, as terrible as the Sponsorship Scandal is, it has never proven to be a threat to our government, constitution, human rights, or safety.

Yes but what it the Queen doing? Why doesn't she come back to "her" troubled nation and deal with Martin? Well, if you did I would be outraged. An unelected foreigner should not have more power than an elected Canadian. I propose making the GG elected but separate from the government.

Republican, I never once said the Crown has no power.

And that right there is my argument against the monarchy. The Queen has the power. Whats the point in having elections if we cannot elect the ones with any power?

Changing to a republic is a tough sell. The problem is that understanding a system does not make it better. I understand that its easier to tread down the road thats travled but look down the line. Under a republic we will have true accountabilty of our government and maybe even more confidence in our nation.

---

bambino
Junior Member



Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 18

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2004 11:05 am

 

---

/--- Anything can have an emotional cost, the question is, is it worth it. ---/

Precisely.

And this is what I’ve been asking you all along—is it worth it?

I’ve pointed out only a fraction of the struggles and challenges Canadians will face in opening up the constitution in the attempt to remove the Canadian Crown. Yet, you haven’t pointed to one benefit we would gain from such an act, aside from the fact we’d be able to elect a president.

Sorry, but in the grand scheme of things electing a president will do nothing to improve Canada. Even as you said, “becoming a republic will not change everyday life.” If that’s the case, if Canadians will wake up to the same existence they had under the Crown, then why bother?

However, and I have argued as much, I feel becoming a republic will undoubtably change every day life for Canadians. The Crown is in every facet of our lives now, from law, to police, to the civil service, to the foundations of our very federation. Removing it will have an effect—and I feel it will be a negative one.

So, you’re right, let’s set ‘emotional cost’ aside and talk strictly of benefit vs. loss.

I’ve already outlined a number of losses. You tell me the true gains.

/--- Not that it matters but when a PM cannot get a budget passed there is usually a vote of no confidence (see Joe Clark). This vote has nothing to do with the Queen, rather it is started by an MP(in Clark's case I belive it was Bob Rae). ---/

You’re right that the PM is at the mercy of the no confidence vote, and that a budget must be passed, etc. But, I don’t want to get into the mechanics of the House of Commons here.

The point is that the Crown is there for times of crisis in the government. I didn’t say the Crown would intervene if a budget wasn’t passed—that’s not a crisis. I said it would have to if the government refused to present a budget (ie- there was no budget for the HoC to even vote on). That would create a real problem.

There have been a number of examples in Canada and Australia (and I’m sure other constitutional monarchies) where the Crown was needed to resolve an issue which threatened the government’s ability to function.

And besides, should the prime minister receive a no confidence vote from the HoC, who is there to make sure he is replaced quickly and efficiently, thereby ensuring the stability of government? Why, the Crown!

You also didn’t address the problems of a government violating the constitution, refusing to summon parliament, or winning an election through fraud or corruption.

/--- Yes but what it the Queen doing? Why doesn't she come back to "her" troubled nation and deal with Martin? ---/

Republican, I just said to you that the Sponsorship Scandal neither threatens the government’s ability to function, was a fraudulent election, or is a breach of the constitution. It is a political affair to be dealt with by politicians. Thus there is NO NEED for the Queen to “come and deal with Martin”. A president wouldn’t “deal with Martin” either—so this issue is irrelevant to your call for a republic.

/--- An unelected foreigner should not have more power than an elected Canadian. ---/

I see we’re back to the old issue of the “foreign” Queen, and the “elected” prime minister.

Well, I’ve already stated my case on the fact that the Queen is not foreign, and I’ve explained that the prime minister is not elected by voters. There’s really no need to repeat myself.

/--- I propose making the GG elected but separate from the government. ---/

I’m interested to hear just how that would work within the constitutional and parliamentary framework of Canada.

/--- The Queen has the power. Whats the point in having elections if we cannot elect the ones with any power? ---/

Republican—when it comes to power, everything is dictated by the constitution.

The constitution creates Elizabeth II the Queen of Canada. The constitution vests her with the powers of state.

It was the political representatives of the Canadian people—our own elected MPs and MPPs that formed that constitution. So, the Queen was given her powers by democratic process.

If the Crown were to be removed from the constitution, it would be through the same democratic process with which it was installed.

You can’t seem to grasp that going to the ballot box every week is not what democracy is all about. The Queen is given her power, and her powers are simultaneously limited, through the constitution—the law of the people. She is ultimately accountable to all of us, because it is all of us who can kick her out if she does a terrible job as queen.

In Canada we do not vote for anyone with ultimate power, because in Canada it is the people who have ultimate power. Enough of us want a PM out? We tell our sovereign through our elected representatives. We want the sovereign out? We tell our governments who will remove the sovereign. Enough Canadians want it so, then it will be done. And that is all democracy is really about.

---

republican
Super Member



Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 193
Location: England

Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:36 am

 

---

I am glad you admit that there is an emotional cost for everything. That said thiongs still need to be done. Moving has an emotional cost, heck for some people changing supermarkets can gave an emotion costs but change happens, its called progress and is usually worth it.

I’ve pointed out only a fraction of the struggles and challenges Canadians will face in opening up the constitution in the attempt to remove the Canadian Crown. Yet, you haven’t pointed to one benefit we would gain from such an act, aside from the fact we’d be able to elect a president.

Here are the gains of becoming a repuiblic as I see them:

Unity:
FINALLY Canadians will have a head of state to call our own. As a Germanic Canadian I personally dislike the head of my country being British then being told it is "my herritage."

Demmocratic accountability:

Canadians will have a head of state that we can choose and is accountable to us. After the Queen dies Charles will become our next King-and we get no say in it! I promise if we were a third world country people would think us a colony.



A president wouldn’t “deal with Martin” either—so this issue is irrelevant to your call for a republic.

No but Parliament would! It should be up to Parliament and not the Queen. I personally find it scary that someone living thousands of miles away in a whole other country without citizenship (which I'm sorry does make her a foreigner) is the one in control.


I’m interested to hear just how that would work within the constitutional and parliamentary framework of Canada.

Well, the truth is I have nothing against the Queen's job rather that the Queen herself is the one doing it. If the GG was demmocraticaly and seperatly electected she could do the same job satisfying both Monarchists who fear the PM having too much power and republicans who want a democratic head of state.


You can’t seem to grasp that going to the ballot box every week is not what democracy is all about.

Just every 5 years is good enough for me

In Canada we do not vote for anyone with ultimate power, because in Canada it is the people who have ultimate power. Enough of us want a PM out? We tell our sovereign through our elected representatives. We want the sovereign out? We tell our governments who will remove the sovereign. Enough Canadians want it so, then it will be done. And that is all democracy is really about.

And of course every MP does what their consituents tell them to do. A referendum would be the fairest way to go. If we can give Quebec a referendum on sovereignty, can't we do the same for Canada?

Sorry for the late reply my Scout troop were off to Iceland.
republican

---