WHEREAS Canada is a multicultural nation, built by people from many diverse backgrounds and where at present no Canadian citizen can ever aspire to be head of state of our own country;
WHEREAS Canadians believe in earning one’s position in life and not being simply born into privilege;
WHEREAS our head of state should be a true representative of the People of Canada;
WHEREAS Canada prides itself in being a democratic nation, with democratic institutions;
WHEREAS foreign law bars individuals not of the Anglican faith from rising to the position of head of state of Canada;
WHEREAS Canada’s head of state should conform to Canadian laws of gender and religious equality represented in the Charter of Rights and Freedom;
WHEREAS Canadians pay more to maintain the monarchy than the British1;
WHEREAS an unelected individual can and is prepared to supersede the will of the Parliament;
BE IT RESLOVED 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.
1 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/14/queen-costs-us-more-than-the-brits-pay/
Young Liberals of Canada
While I agree with the general idea of this resolution, as I see it is done to change the nomination method of the General Governor, I think we shouldn’t directly consider election. I would instead focus on the Senators nomination (by the provinces, in my view) to after that nominate the GG by a joint assembly of the House of Common and the Senate. This way, the General Governor could represent Canada and its constituencies (the provinces). Maybe it could be elected, but in that case it should be tied by very little powers, which is not the case right now.
Ifeel “that if something isn’t broken why try to change it?”
While we change the Head Of State we could also elect the senate.
This would make the whole country vulnerable to a political “coup”
At least with our current system we have a chance of neutral or unbiased advice from some one.
By the way I fear the next move will be to elect our judiciary.
I feel the whole scenario will deteriate to something chaotic and ungovernable.
I have never read such an oversimplification of the arguments either for or against the monarchy. Is this supposed to be a serious policy resolution? For Canada’s over 400 year history, we have been a monarchy and I would argue that Constitutional Monarchy is a far more democratic system of government, when compared to most Presidential Republics.
Not to mention the deep cultural roots that the system has in Canada. Its not simply a matter of switching a King for a President. It would mean a fundemental upheaval of Canada’s traditional culture and civic institutions and could never be reversed. I have lived my whole existence under the Queen’s Colours and as a young, liberal, monarchist I would forcefully oppose any changes. I will end this post with the motto of my province: Ut incepit fidelis, sic permanet (Loyal she began, thus she ramains).
Vive la Reine! Vive le Canada!
I completely agree. Losing the Crown means losing a part of the Canadian identity and is completely contrary to the aims of the policy resolution. This should be stricken from the key priorities of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is an alienating and unrealistic resolution.
Totally agreed Tim.
I TOTALLY AGREE. You guys are right on the money.
If the Liberal Party were to go this route, I would leave, and probably vote for a Conservative candidate. Jeffrey Thom is quite right in fingering the arguments as simplistic. This proposal is born from superficiality, fad, and fallacy. We need a clear idea of what would be better and why it would be better. From my perspective, an elected president confuses the role of representing all the people of the country with the role of pushing a political agenda. It is not any better than having Harper represent us!
This is an interesting idea but perhaps has value only to those who do not see the bigger picture of Canadian identity in the 21st century. How do we eat? Who looks after our fresh water? What’s going to happen in the Arctic? How do we look after our seniors, our homeless, our aboriginal peoples? How do we get from place to place, and how do goods get from place to place when gasoline and oil become too expensive for trucking? Health care in a world getting more and more complex, with more and more diseases being identified and diagnosed? Long-term care of chronically ill people? The evaporation of savings due to world crises in banking and the stock market? Given all these, surely we cannot put real emphasis on something like this, which is not i any way a crisis.
There is much merit in efforts to nurture a ’21st century’ Canadian identity. Forming an all-party committee to explore how to do this is probably a smart idea. Severing our ties with the Crown might even be something they consider (and likely quickly reject). The effort required to establish a 21st century identity are much greater than this, and almost certainly much different than this.
I am not sure that having an elected Head of State in Canada would be better than the current arrangements. While we may pay more than the British to maintain the monarchy in Canada it is less than what we will pay for a fully elected Head of State operating from Canada, never mind the enormous cost of the transition from a monarchy to a republic. In addition, our proximity to the United States and familiarity with American electoral politics would likely contribute to a more activist and partisan Head of State than is common in most parliamentary democracies like Canada or Ireland or Germany. This would lead to conflicts between the institutions of the Government and the new institutions of the new Head of State. Also, the Crown is more than just the Head of State. The crown is the legal embodiment of the state itself. By severing ties with the British Crown we would have to institute a wide range of legal and regulatory reforms to clarify new relationships with other states, the provinces, first nations, the private sector and more. Severing ties with the monarchy would also require a variety of cultural and symbolic changes, including the need to create a new Canadian identity rooted in a national consensus which is increasingly difficult to do in a multicultural society, particularly if we have just abandoned one of the foundational institutions of Canadian society. Such massive reforms would require more effort than simply creating a mult-party parliamentary committee. It would require at the very least a series of constitutional conferences and a number of political parties working together to create a new national consensus on Canadian identity.
I believe that in the event that we can patriate the monarchy the Governor General should be elected by parliamentarians in a public (not secret) ballot from candidates chosen by a special committee.
Pingback:
The fallacies here about what it means for Canada to become a republic are outrageous, if not comical:
1) There’s absolutely no reason why a president couldn’t be virtually identical to our present GG but without the constitutional connection to the monarchy. So abstract theories about the harm of having an American style or activist head of state are unfounded;
2) arguing that since other things are higher priorities, the monarchy issue should be shelved are shameful. That attitude would have seen Canada still flying the red ensign or not defining Canadian citizenship, both of which were relatively recent Liberal initiatives that also weren’t at the time high on the priority list of Canadians;
3) the “high cost” of transitioning to a republic are also a ridiculous assumption. The GG is already our defacto head of state and other than some letterhead changes, not much else needs to be done. If anything, the redundancy of having two heads of state (the GG and the Queen) would actually save money.
The Liberal Party is definitely on the right track with this proposal and any supporters it may lose to the Conservatives would more than be made up by those abandoning the NDP. Would this necessarily mean a shift to the left? Maybe socially, but not fiscally. Remember, the most vocal republican the Liberal Party has ever had (John Manley) is also the most fiscally conservative.
Here are the problems with your response:
1) You contend that:
“There’s absolutely no reason why a president couldn’t be virtually identical to our present GG but without the constitutional connection to the monarchy. So abstract theories about the harm of having an American style or activist head of state are unfounded”
This response misses the mark in a few very important areas. Firstly, you overlook the fact that the GG is the Queen’s representative and is constitutionally obliged to carry out the functions of our monarch when she is absent from Canada. While the GG carries considerable duties, they are and have always been and will always be on behalf of our reigning monarch. So that means that any president of a Canadian republic would be replacing the Queen, not the GG.
You then contend that simply cutting the constitutional connection to the monarchy wouldn’t produce an American style presidency. This statement is unquantifiable at this time because the model of the republic Canada would adopt hasn’t been proposed. If we adopted a Presidential Republic like the United States or France, you can bet on a politically active head of state. If we chose a Parliamentary Republic such as Germany or Ireland, you would still find that the Head of State still tends to become a political office (look at the most recent Irish Presidential election as an example).
2) You contend that:
“Arguing that since other things are higher priorities, the monarchy issue should be shelved are shameful. That attitude would have seen Canada still flying the red ensign or not defining Canadian citizenship, both of which were relatively recent Liberal initiatives that also weren’t at the time high on the priority list of Canadians.”
What I suspect you meant by the references to the Great Flag Debate and a unique Canadian Citizenship is that by remaining loyal to the Crown, we are somehow still a British Colony. This is ridiculous on many fronts, so here are just a few short rebukes. While our Queen may reside in Britain, she is legally and distinctively the Queen of Canada. Her official Canadian title is legally separate from not only the UK, but the other 14 Commonwealth Realms of which she is the Monarch. She has been styled the Queen of Canada since it was passed by Canadian Parliament in 1953. The fact that we adopted the Maple Leaf Flag was an attempt to capture the Canadian spirit in our national symbols, and was not meant to be a stick in the eye to the British, nor the monarchy. It should be noted that immediately after our current national flag was adopted, Ontario and Manitoba adopted Red Ensigns of their own as a tribute to the British heritage deeply imbedded in those respective provinces.
3) You contend that:
“The “high cost” of transitioning to a republic are also a ridiculous assumption. The GG is already our defacto head of state and other than some letterhead changes, not much else needs to be done. If anything, the redundancy of having two heads of state (the GG and the Queen) would actually save money.”
Firstly, let’s take a look at your claim that the high monetary cost to becoming a republic is a ‘ridiculous assumption’. I can assure you that simply ‘changing the letterhead’ will not suffice in ridding the Canadian government of references to the Crown. It touches everything in this country. Our roads, schools, bridges, offices, buildings, parks, monuments, organizations, military units, police units, towns, cities, governments of all levels, court system and Crown Corporations (I can go on) all have reference either in name or otherwise to the Crown. Changing names and obliterating references would have a high monetary cost, believe me.
But it would also have a very culturally damaging cost. Our institutions have grown up and matured under the umbrella of the Canadian Crown. They are distinctly Canadian because of this. Take the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for example. Other than the obvious reference in its title, there is a more subtle reference that we owe to our allegiance to the Canadian monarchy. The RCMP is famous throughout the globe for the Red Serge uniforms that they adorn. These were adopted by the NWMP so that they looked more like British soldiers on the frontier. Should we abandon those uniforms because they are ‘too British’? I think not.
Secondly, the Canadian Crown is the very foundation of our system of laws and courts, our parliamentary democracy and our federalism. The Crown occupies a central place in our Parliament and our democracy, founded on the rule of law and respect for rights and freedoms. The Crown embodies the continuity of the state and is the underlying principle of its institutional unity and is fused to all three branches of government. The Prime Minister, as head of the Executive or Cabinet, is the Governor General’s (hence the Queen’s) principal advisor. The Crown is also a constituent element of Parliament, along with the Senate and the House of Commons. The Parliament of Canada is called, sits and is disbanded in the name of the Queen and all decisions made by the courts are given under the authority of the Crown. It’s not possible to simply ‘remove the references to our monarchy’ and get on with it. All power and authority for our provincial houses of assembly, federal parliament and courts flow from the Crown, both in a legal/constitutional sense and in a cultural/symbolic sense. To remove it would be to remove the essence of which our democracy exists and would require Canada starting from scratch. That would require no less than a revolution, one that would have a high cost in both blood and treasure.
I could expand in great detail on all of my responses but my reply is already too lengthy.
Canada is and has always been a monarchy. Beginning with the French Kings, we have evolved over 400 years in the monarchical tradition. Our institutions, culture, history and indeed our way of life are reflective of this. We are, as Andrew Coyne of Maclean’s magazine wrote, an ‘ancient kingdom’. So let us not throw away our heritage and discard our proud system into the dustbin of history.
I am a young, Liberal, Canadian monarchist. I am deeply proud to be a loyal subject of Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada and of the Canadian Crown.
Vive la Reine! Vive le Canada!
Here my intention is not to discuss the advantages or drawbacks of the monarchy. It is a serious question, which requires a thorough analysis, nationwide discussion on pros and cons without “oversimplification” as it had been mentioned by Jeffrey. 400 hundred years of monarchy require at least 4 years of transition with a detailed roadmap and evolutionary transformations (of course if accepted). But as I said it’s another story.
My only concern is that I liked the title of the resolution too much. We really need to have our say on the Canadian identity in the 21st century. And it has nothing to do with the constitutional reforms or abolishing monarchy. The identity is in us, in our communities and provinces. Let’s try to find it. And how we do shape and empower this identity.
Coming from a primarily anglophone backgroud but also having spent ample time among francophones, I can say with confidence that the monarchy is not a unifying factor among Canadians.
Infact, it is just the opposite, it is a factor of division among those who like to liken Canada as a mainly english country of British heritage (a minority) and other Canadians of immigrant and francophone descent which see the monarchy as outdated (a majority)
Canada has grown up and matured, and it has done so in the context of its own initiative and not with the idea of monarchism in mind.
and being able to elect our Head of State is a simple and natural extension of that :)
What you fail to realize is just how imbedded the monarchy is in Canada. Like I said before, it is the bedrock on which our country and its institutions are founded. It would take more than a first ministers conference to elect our Head of State, believe me. You also raise a number of red herrings regarding the Monarchy’s popular support. What fact based evidence can you provide that clearly shows that immigrants believe the Monarchy is dated? In fact, there is ample evidence provided by the Monarchist League of Canada (whose surveys are done independently) which would illustrate the contrary. French Canadians, and more specifically, Quebecers, do have a majority that either are indifferent or opposed to the Monarchy. This is true. But these numbers have to be taken into context. There are about a quarter of Quebecers that would rather separate from Canada period, whether we had a monarchy or not. But ask a Quebecer who is a member of the Royal 22eme Regiment, the Canadian Grenadier Guards or the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada if they support the monarchy, and you’ll find a very different answer.
I guess my major point here is that the monarchy has played a central role in our country’s cultural, historical and institutional development. For many Canadians, it is a source of pride. The are monarchists in all facets of Canada’s political spectrum and in every province, every region of the country. For the Liberal Party of Canada to take a position of official republicanism, would truly spell its final demise. I would leave the party for good, as would many other Canadians who believe in the virtues of loyalty to the Canadian Crown. I thought the idea behind renewal was to attract more people to the party and not to divide those already in it. Passing a resolution such as this would be a disaster and a grave mistake. I will fight to the last to see that it never happens.
Vive la Reine! Vive le Canada!
Jefferey !
Merci beaucoup pour vos beaux commentaires très encourageants.
La Reine, les Canadiens français, les Amérindiens,on a accepté notre belle histoire il y a déjà très longtemps. Et nous nous aperçevons ce c’est ensemble que notre Canada devient le pays le plus beau du monde.
Vive la Reine! Vive le Canada!
I agree strongly with each of the 8 points raised in support of the resolution. Resolution 114 has the potential to differentiate the Liberal party from the other two in a very meaningful way. It would make the Liberals the one party that is prepared to make our commitment to egalitarian democracy clear and unequivocal by ensuring that our constitution and office of head of state embody these values.
Monarchy is profoundly undemocratic and un-egalitarian. It has no legitimate role to play in the Canadian identity of the 21st century. Public opinion polls from 2005 onwards show that the majority of Canadians want a democratically selected Canadian in our office of head of state- someone who achieves the post on the basis of merit.
Trudeau observed, near the end of his career, that the general population is often ready for change before politicians are and that certainly appears to be the case here. The Liberal Party has a historic opportunity to walk its talk and take a leadership role in guiding Canada’s transition from constitutional monarchy to constitutional democracy.
Bravo for resolution 114!
I will not support this resolution. The monarchy is part and parcel of Canada’s identity. Not only is it inextricably linked to the highs and lows of our heritage, it personifies a system that sets us distinctly apart from American republicanism. Given the arguments set forth herein, it would be better to strengthen the Governor General’s power so that when s/he acts it is more representative of Canadians’ wishes (eg, make proroguing more difficult).
You got to be kidding ? Canada enjoys a very special relationship with its Monarchy. The “Modern” Constitutional Monarchy is one of the best democratic systems in the world. The “presidential republic” models as we observe around the world are not withstanding the “test-of-time”. They have run their countries into the ground and are in serious deficits, on their way to bankruptcy. Why would you want to lead our country down that path to failure ? Also, our Constitutional Monarchy gives Canada distinction. Royalty is awesome! It’s part of our heritage and culture, our identity.
I believe statements mentioned in the above resolution are False:
“WHEREAS foreign law bars individuals not of the Anglican faith from rising to the position of head of state of Canada;”
Does this mean that if you are not “Anglican” you cannot be GG ?
- because past GGs: George Vanier, Jules Léger,…and perhaps other Governor Generals of Canada were -Not- of the Anglican faith. Therefore I conclude that individuals of any faith can rise to the position of head of sate of Canada.
I believe statements made in the above resolution are False. Namely,
“WHEREAS foreign law bars individuals not of the Anglican faith from rising to the position of head of state of Canada;”
Does this mean that if you are not Anglican you can’t be GG ?
..because Governor Generals, George Vanier, Jule Leger and perhaps others were “Not” of the Anglican faith. Therefore I conclude that an individual any faith can rise to the position of head of state of Canada.
I disagree with this resolution for many of the reasons pointed out. It would be very sad if the Liberal party went down this road.
I am very happy to see this, and I hope that this resolution passes.
Its sad that a Canadian can not be the head of state because they are not born into a special family across the Atlantic Ocean. Such a position should be earned not inherited. We should no longer support an institution that is undemocratic, sexist, and that discriminates against most religions in the world.
Its time we become a Republic.
I’d like to point out a couple of things.
1) Severing ties with the British crown does not mean we adopt a US-style, or even a French-style republican government. Many governments around the world are parliamentary republics, the most prominent being Germany. We can retain our current system of government, just giving the Queen’s powers fully to the GG and finding a suitable way to elect the GG; perhaps not by direct and popular vote of Canadians, but rather by a vote of all members of the House and Senate, or perhaps a delegated convention of MPs, Senators, prominent Canadians, and a random selection of citizens (much like jury duty, perhaps). That is, there is no reason to think that a change like this would suddenly change our entire system of government. Indeed, one thinks that if we did this, it could only improve government, as the GG, as an actual head of state, would have more legitimacy and be able to play a greater constitutional role in ensuring parliament functions as it is supposed to.
2) In response to Amanda Powell, it is not false, it is true. The resolution refers to Canada’s Head of State, which is the Queen, and will be another member of the royal family after that. In order to fulfill the role of Britian’s monarch (who also then serves as Canada’s monarch), one must be Anglican, as Britian’s monarch is also the head of the Church of England.
Is there a friendly amendment in the works to clarify “elected” as among MPs and Senators? I don’t want my head of state to be a popularity contest, although I have nothing against our GG becoming our head of state. Rather not have Harper appointing the person if that’s the case, but I really, really don’t want our GG focussing on his re-election campaign and all the glad-handing and tweeting and undignified stuff that entails.
l find that we as a country have many other issues to fix before we tackle something as divisive as this. To me relying on polls is not a great way to abolish a 400 year benign institution. When and if we have another national referendum on any issue perhaps this could be an added question, till then let the status of the GG remain the same. Liberals following such a vote would then have the mandate. We liberals face a huge challenge in restoring the faith of the nation to our party. Adopting a resolution such as this is counterproductive at this time.
Speaking as Young Liberal and an immigrant, I am very much against this resolution for many of the reasons mentioned above. Having an elected figurehead is useless. The monarchy, for all its ills, has a cache of history that imbues the position with far more gravitas than some old politician or athlete who tend to be the ones who attain presidency in such system. Either keep the Queen or just admit that the Prime Minister is the head of state. I prefer the former.
Looking forward to voting against this one. I grew up in a town founded by United Empire Loyalists. I have family that fought under the Union Jack. Canada’s Queen and royal family are part of our heritage.
You know what else was part of out heritage? Indian residential schools, internment of Japanese Canadians, and denying Jews entry into Canada during World War II. But we got rid of those for obvious reasons.
‘Heritage’ in and of itself is a bad reason to keep something around.
I am opposed to this resolution. A Canadian identity for the 21st Century and having the Monarchy are not mutually exclusive.
The reasons have been most eloquently stated by others, and my support goes to maintaining, recognizing and cherishing the Monarchy as a continuing part of the Canadian Identity.
Pingback:
This is excellent. Fundamentally, it doesn’t really matter how the new Head of State is chosen–it could be popular election, chosen by the PM, Parliamentary election, chosen by the Order of Canada winners or something else. The point is that this is 2011. Canada is a large, progressive nation, one of the world’s oldest democracies. Yet we have a Head of State who isn’t born here, doesn’t live here and spends less then one percent of her time here. Many of you go on about how the Queen has served us well in the past. That may be true. But it’s the past. In 1965 and 1981, people said the same thing before the flag and the constitution. Like the Red Ensign and the BNA Act in London, the Queen is antiquated. She’s only important to an increasingly aging, shrinking British minority in Canada. The monarchy means nothing to Aboriginal Canadians, French Canadians, New Canadians. This divides Canada. It’s not about “our identity”. When you think of Canadian identity, you think of tangibles like the maple leaf or rocky mountains and intangibles like multiculturalism. Monarchy? That’s British identity. At one time, the monarchy was right for Canada. That time has passed. The Liberals can lead the charge in recognizing that.
“Canada is a large, progressive nation, one of the world’s oldest democracies.”
This is a good point to consider. Canada is a large progressive nation and is certainly one of the worlds oldest democracies. But in Canada’s long history, has our constitutional Monarchy hindered in any way the democratic will of Canadians? I think not. Also, you infer that if we only elected our Head of State, we would be “more” democratic. This statement is simplistic. In the United States they vote for their Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, Judges, Sheriffs, District Attorneys, and the list goes on. There is no evidence that this more “democratic” system represents its people any better than our current system. Also, what about Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Thailand and Japan? Are these not large, progressive, old democracies? Some of the aforementioned are some of the most progressive in the world and certainly have a longer history than we do. This leads me to suspect that you dislike the Canadian Monarchy because of its absenteeism, as laid out when you say:
“Yet we have a Head of State who isn’t born here, doesn’t live here and spends less then one percent of her time here.”
You also point out that the Great Flag Debate and the repatriation of the Constitution were an attempt to thumb our nose at the British and/or the monarchy. This is a misinterpretation of history. In the case of the flag, the Pearson government sought to institute a uniquely Canadian flag. Up to that point, the Red Ensign had been the unofficial flag of Canada and Lester B. simply wanted to usher in an official Canadian flag. The maple leaf has been a symbol of Canada since the days of New France. As a result of this, Ontario and Manitoba brought forward Red Ensigns as their respective provincial flags as a representation of our close cultural, linguistic and historic ties to the United Kingdom. Is Ontario a backwards province because it honours and celebrates its culture and history through an important symbol? You’ve got to be kidding me. The constitution was repatriated to give Canada full legislative and judicial autonomy, part of a process of gradual independence from the British Parliament. It also gave us an entrenched Charter of Rights. If this was meant to be a knock on the power of the Canadian Crown, why did Trudeau make it virtually impossible to remove the Crown from Canadian life? The office of the Queen/King is one of the most protected institutions described in the constitution. To remove the office would take a constitutional amendment requiring the consent of both the House and Senate and each provincial legislature in Canada. You thought Meech Lake and Charlottetown were fun? Imagine trying to change the most fundamental essence of the Canadian State. There is talk among scholars that Canada would need a new constitution all together if we decided to become a republic because the monarchy is so deeply embedded in the judicial, legislative and executive branches both federally and provincially.
“The monarchy means nothing to Aboriginal Canadians, French Canadians, New Canadians. This divides Canada”
This statement is ludicrous. Let’s break it down. Are you aware that the Natives of this country are perhaps the most supportive of the Canadian Monarchy? The treaties signed as far back as the Royal Proclamation of 1763 still have legal effect and are even mentioned in Section 25 of the Canadian Constitution. The Natives of this country have a direct and deep connection with the Canadian Crown that stretches back to King George III. French Canadians are commonly used by republicans to justify that the crown is somehow oppressive or divisive. This is again, a common misconception. Poll after poll reveals that around 40-60 percent of Quebeckers are either indifferent or opposed to the monarchy. This is true. But take into context that about 30 percent of Quebeckers want to separate from Canada completely, no matter who our Head of State is. There are, on the other hand, a vast number of Quebeckers (both French and English) that support the Canadian Crown not to mention the French speaking peoples of New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba. Finally new Canadians. What fact based evidence do you have that suggests that immigrants to this nation are opposed to the monarchy? I’ll give you a hint…there is none! In fact, all new immigrants swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen of Canada and her heirs and successors. Are you suggesting that every immigrant to this country is duplicitous and deceitful, choosing to take an oath of loyalty with their fingers crossed behind their backs? Doubt it. The Monarchist League of Canada is now flourishing and is comprised increasingly of young Canadians of all backgrounds. It is certainly more diverse than your comment “She’s only important to an increasingly aging, shrinking British minority in Canada” suggests.
“When you think of Canadian identity, you think of tangibles like the maple leaf or rocky mountains and intangibles like multiculturalism. Monarchy? That’s British identity.”
When I think of Canada I think of our long history, culture and institutions over 400 years. Canada has always been a monarchy and it has shaped the very identity that you speak of. Our culture and history are so interwoven with the threads of the Canadian Crown that one would have to show an utter contempt to our nations past to dismiss it as an archaic relic of a bygone age. Nothing could be further than the truth. I also have a news flash for you…Britain and British people played a major role in Canada’s development. Sir John A. Macdonald was a Scot, as was George Brown. Should we dismiss our first Prime Minister as a foreigner, someone who “wasn’t born here and speaks with a British accent”? Get real. We should not be ashamed of our British Heritage as if it was some pariah or nuisance. We should celebrate it. This doesn’t mean that we are “British” or that we are not “Canadian”. What a ridiculous notion. We should celebrate our British history and culture as reverently as we do with our French and Native roots. A nation that attempts to neuter itself of its own culture and history ceases to be a nation at all. It becomes a vassal state to the special interests concerned only with bartering for votes at whatever cost. It is a shameful undertaking.
” At one time, the monarchy was right for Canada. That time has passed.”
I believe that our Constitutional Monarchy and parliamentary democracy has never been more right for Canada. I am confident that the debate at the convention about this proposal will be a good step in exposing the inadequacies of the republican arguments. Debate is a healthy exercise, especially for a free and democratic society. I look forward to vote against this proposal on the convention floor and will do it with “Long live Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada” on my tongue. As a young, Liberal, monarchist, nothing would give me more pride.
Vive la Reine et vive le Canada!
Bravo !!
Impressive. Thank you for writing that.
We only have to look around at the world to see that the presidential republics are not “withstanding” the test-of-time.
Our “modern” Constitutional Monarchy is the best democracy in the world.
Vive la reine !
Hi Jeffrey,
That was a long rebuttal but let me ask you simple question.
Do you believe in the concept of human equality?
The idea that someone is a Monarch: a King, a Queen or any type of Royal is antithetical to the concept of human equality and to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There are no Kings or Queens or Dragons. The mental construction of Monarchy is an illusion and a lie. An insidious lie from the past soaked in blood of empire building. That is something we really shouldn’t forget.
Hey John,
Well I think that you mix up what human equality really is. You approach the argument as if legal/constitutional equality (as laid out in the charter) is the same and somehow linked to your own philosophical interpretation of human equality. Since the latter is entirely subjective, based on your own philosophical interpretations, I will not argue them. You believe that the monarchy is antithetical to your idea of human equality, I do not. So let’s move on to the legal/constitutional inference to the equality of Canadians.
Section 15 of the Charter sets out the nature of Canadians right to legal equality. Specifically:
“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”
Every individual is equal before the law. They have the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law. This is the bedrock of legal equality in Canada. We are all equally bound by law and consequently the law must be applied to all Canadians, equally. This is equality. The Canadian Monarchy does not violate this section in any way. The Canadian Crown IS the law, it is the source from which all authority to govern derives. The Queen, as the personification of the Crown, is bound to the same laws as you and I. The laws of Canada are equally applied to her as an individual as they are to me. She is my equal before the law. Period. Her role as our Queen does not set her above anybody in a legal/constitutional sense. Her Majesty is bound by and subject to the same laws as is every Canadian. Every Canadian from Queen to Carpenter, from the Governor-General to Garbage man is equal before the law. You may want to read about Magna Carta to understand where the idea of legal equality stems from in this country.
“There are no Kings or Queens or Dragons. The mental construction of Monarchy is an illusion and a lie. An insidious lie from the past soaked in blood of empire building. That is something we really shouldn’t forget.”
This comment makes no sense. It’s actually amazing that you crammed multiple inaccuracies into just two sentences. Your response did, however, contain one truth. There are no dragons. As for the rest, here we go. The monarchy and more specifically the Canadian Crown, is a legal entity. It is the bedrock on which our constitution and of our federal and provincial form of parliamentary government. It is a tangible and certainly real entity. It would be impossible to suggest that this legal concept, forged over 1000 years, is an illusion or lie. It is there for all to see. The Queen simply executes the powers and responsibilities that the Crown affords, in conjunction with her duly elected council, the Cabinet. Her Majesty is by law the Queen of Canada. A real and tangible position, just as Barack Obama is by law, President of the United States. It is not possible for the person who occupies a position set out by law to be an illusion or their office to be a lie.
The second sentence claims that the “insidious lie from the past”, which is actually a legal fact, was soaked in the blood of empire building. This is quite poetic yet it has no basis in historical fact. The British Empire did not create nor legitimize the Monarchy. Although it was carried out in the name of the King (as is every law or government directive including war etc), the British Empire was the brainchild of elected politicians in the British Parliament and British business elites. It was an Empire that was carried out by successive British governments and was supported by a cross section of the British people for over a hundred years. Its mercantile economic impacts drove the industrial revolution and ensured that Britain was a global military power. You may think the British Empire was evil, but the responsibility with its actions and even its very existence lay with Britain as a whole, not just its King.
Where I vehemently disagree with many republicans is the idea that the monarchy and Canadian Crown is not legally legitimate and has duped our allegiance. This is the real lie. I have no problem with those who accept the realities of the monarchy yet oppose it and prefer the republican system. At least with these people, you don’t have to explain why it is legitimate first, in a legal, constitutional and historical sense, before debating the philosophical pros and cons of both republics and constitutional monarchies.
Vive la Reine et vive le Canada!
Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks for your reply… this will be my last here are I have to admit I’m starting to find this discussion exasperating.
You say, “The Canadian Crown IS the law” and that “(my) own philosophical interpretation of human equality… is entirely subjective, based on (my) own philosophical interpretations” which you will not argue.
Your logic on the former is the same as used by Marcos Paulo elsewhere here: the pretzel logic of the Crown having made the law with their existence therefore intrinsically lawful. One only needs to take a single step back from this to realize the paucity of that rationale. Letter vs. spirit.
Why do Monarchists always abdicate – ;-) – opportunities to express their personal philosophy as to whence is derived the power of the Monarch? If you were Anglican and you said that the Monarch received their power directly from God -as head of the Church of England – I could accept that. Although it would just be another reason to remove the “royal” Head of State in Canada. Don’t tell me it comes from us and if it does then we can and will change it, eventually.
Why do you believe in the Royalty of the Windsor family? Personally, not through self fulfilling logical knots.
Your comparison of the democratically elected President who holds an office for a finite period of time – subject to conditions and laws surrounding his/her actions and duties from a constitution of for and by the People with a Monarch whose ascension to their power and responsibilities comes by way of heredity and for life through a constitution dictated through imperial duress simply don’t withstand the most basic measurements of intellectual honesty.
You have repeatedly painted the Monarchy as woven into the fabric of Canadian life but then suggest they are conveniently separate from the bloody genocides of their Empire. Were they not woven into the fabric of British society in those times?
What is particularly discouraging about these conversations is to see individuals with the obvious intellectual capacities of yourself and Marcos Paulo slavishly defend the arcane and twist logic to rationalize continued adherence to a construction so morally bankrupt and unjust. Do you think the Windsor family deserve their privilege and why?
Unfortunately, I’m afraid this Resolution will die at the convention because I’m not sure today’s Liberals have the guts it would take to sweep away the last vestiges of colonialism. Remember Pearson creating our flag and Trudeau bringing home our constitution and then imagine a truly Canadian Head of State that all Canadians could be proud of. I hope I’m wrong and that principle bests inertia and fear.
Hey John
We can disagree on whether constitutional monarchy is a better form of government than a republic. I prefer constitutional monarchy, you prefer republics. But that does not give you carte blanche to attempt to discredit or devalue the institution of monarchy because you would prefer to live under another form of government. Nor does it give you the right to slander or patronize me because I support the monarchy. Canada’s constitutional monarchy is a legitmate, legal and moral form of government. I know that sometimes this pesky thing called the RULE OF LAW can sometimes make ridiculous arguments such as yours untennable but c’est la vie. Canada is a nation bound by the rule of law and Her Majesty the Queen, whether you like it or not, is our Head of State BY LAW! So spare me the logical gobbly-goop and accept the legal and political reality. Once you do, you may find it easier to debate the issue because people will think that you actually have at least a tepid understanding of constitutional and legal matters.
Like I said above, if you prefer the republican system of government then by all means make your case. But do not write off monarchists as people of low moral fibre because we are loyal to Her Majesty the Queen. You have invoked inacurate and incomplete historical evidence and erroneously linked your flawed conclusions to make assumptions on people whith whom you have never met. You clearly have to rely on misguided stereotypes to attack the character of your opponents rather than buttress your arguments with any concrete legal and historical truth.
Quite honestly, I am now very glad that I decided to be a delegate at this convention because defeating this resolution has now become my sole interest.
Vive la Reine et vive le Canada!
Thanks a lot for you writing Jeffrey and I hope you enjoy the convention.
Vive la Reine et vive le Canada! and may God Save the Queen.
Cheers
Jeffery,
I never once suggested that you were of low moral fibre nor did I attack your character because you are a Monarchist and if you can quote one thing I said about you that you felt was slanderous I would apologize because that was not my intention.
However, I don’t believe you can because I said no such thing. Accusing someone of slander when there was none is a slander in and of itself and is unbecoming someone of intellect.
Sorry if the truth hurts but it clearly touched a nerve…
As for Canada’s constitutional monarchy: it may be legal now but is anything but a legitimate or moral form of government and it discredits and devalues itself by its very history.
I encourage you to go exercise your right to vote at the convention; it’s more than any of us are able to do regarding our Head of State.
Hello John,
As I mentioned before and I think you agreed, the problem is philosophical. Paradox of the monarchy escape you. Let’s have the vote in the convention and see what happens.
I just want to say that the Liberal party needs you and your energy. We need to get back in the game and your dedication and passion is needed. I see that you are a republican and would like to see a Canadian Republic. In case that this does not happen and the resolution does not pass I would hope that you would still work with other liberals to renew our party.
Cheers
Hi Marcos,
Like I said below to Jeffrey, it’s nothing personal… but, hey, some people are excitable.
No, I don’t understand “the Paradox”.
Anyway, we’ll see what happens at the convention and thanks again for the discussion. I, of course, would continue to work with my fellow Liberals on all of the other important issues if this resolution fails because I’m not irrationally attached to the idea of a Republic – I just think it would be better for us all.
There’s always another time, another convention.
Canada is a very special country unique and beautiful with its Constitutional Monarchy. Some new Canadians don’t like our Canadian Monarch and I don’t know why ? I think it’s because they come from countries where their monarch didn’t treat them well. So whenever they hear “royal” they automatically attribute their negative experiences. Be re-assured that here in Canada, we are very,very lucky to have the monarch we have. Although, the Queen is our head-of-state, she rarely interferes with our government. It’s comforting to know that she is there for us if we need her. Her Governor General acts on her behalf. Our parliamentary system works well for us. I have a lot of respect for everything the Queen continues to do for Canada. Vive la reine !
10/10 Amanda . If this was a republic, we would be squabbling without any peace in the nation as we are seeing in the Grand Republic ofthe USA right now.
And we’re not squabbling now? Concretely, how does being a constitutional monarchy keep the peace?
There are no political interest when a monarchy is in place. Not so in a republic.
Amanda,
That is so condescending… I’m from a multi-generational Canadian family and I loathe the idea of monarchy.
The Queen is there for us if we need her?
FOR WHAT?
What does she continue to do for us? Cut ribbons? Make platitudinous speeches?
I’m surprised you don’t know ?
Our Monarch brings a lot of wealth to Canada. The other day, I asked a friend to give me an estimate of how much William and Kate brought to Canada. His reply: “How do you put a dollar value on hundreds of millions of people visiting Canada during their tour? How does one calibrate the dollar value of the tourism dollars being generated by the businesses that are selling figurines,t-shirts, mugs, posters….. You get the point.”
She sent her grand-son and his wife to help us in these difficult economic times. She chose us, Canada, from all other countries. If you’re interested in how much tourism dollars and publicity this brought to Canada? Apparently billions of people around the world were watching Canada. Yes. I respect and acknowledge all that she has done for us.
Vive la Reine !
^Couldn’t agree more. The Queen’s there if we need her? For what? So an aging white unelected British lady can make decisions about my country? It actually scares me that the Queen is “there if we need her”, that someone not elected or Canadian could be making decisions.
As your arguments expose, all support for the monarchy is derived from subjective ‘feelings’ that the monarchy seems ok and is part of our identity.
If any other institution operated the way the monarchy did (nepotism, hereditary power, ethnocentric and religious exclusivism) it would be shut down for violating human rights laws, and violating basic principles of transparency and accountability.
We can keep a monarch, let’s just vote for him or her and she can live in Rideau Hall.
I was always told growing up, that if I ever wanted to achieve something it would be by hard work. Its sad that hard working Canadians can not aspire to be the head of our country, because they were not born into what is deemed to be a “special family” who lives across the Atlantic Ocean. Political power means responsibility, and this responsibility should be earned, not inherited. I can’t imagine a parent telling their child that they can never be the head of Canada, that they are just ordinary people not “Royalty”
Its sad that we call ourselves a model democracy, or a strong democracy when we don’t elect our head of state, our senate, or even our Prime Minister directly (unless you live in their riding). I think that the undemocratic flaws in our system caused the democratic deficit we have / the low voter turn out. Canadians need more of a say in our Government, we need the “participatory democracy” which former PM Trudeau talked about.
Also the Head of State is suppose to be a check on the PM according to the constitution, and obviously the Governor-General or the Monarch isn’t doing that, because if they do we will question the legitimacy of the institution, we’ll say things like “How can an unelected official not give Royal Assent, or deny an election? And that’s exactly what we need to do, its time we question this institution. A democratic Head of State means we will finally have an effective check on the Prime Minister and Cabinet, because our system is based on checks and balances but we cant have an undemocratic head of state be a check on our only elected part of Government.
Just remember, people were against us getting our own flag, bringing home the constitution, but we did, this party did, and now they are the true symbols of our country. Its not going to be an easy fight, but working on the framework of our country, like we are going to work on the framework of our party is worth looking at.
Please vote yes for this resolution. Its only a matter of time.
- Ameya Pendse
You have my vote.
And to all those monarchists who say: ‘Oh, they have no power any way, they are just figureheads.’ The monarchy still has to sign our bills into law before they are in force.
If we were to remove the monarchy’s power to do that and give it to someone elected and accountable, then I would agree that the monarchy truly does not have any power, is symbolic, and I could not care less about it being around for tourism reasons, or whatever else turns people on.
This resolution is a bad idea. First, if canadians really felt that strongly against the Crown there would be a clamour from the people to sever our link with the Monarchy. By the crowds that surrounded the visit of the Royal Couple I would say that is not the case.
Moreover, one of the main issues of the 21st century will be identity. In doing away with the crown we will remove a distinguishable piece of Canadian identity to replace it by a vanilla head of state. Ask yourself, how the Conservatives can make inroads into ethnic communities and at the same time be so pro-monarchy? If immigrants so abhorred the Crown they would have said so on May 2nd.
The Crown is one of the few symbols we have that unites old canadians and new canadians, that connects present generations to past and future ones. At a moment when Québec separatism is on the wane ,why would we engage in such an endeavour?
Finally, I guess some of us have not noticed that most of our MPs since May 2nd are now from Atlantic Canada. Guess which region of the country is strongly attached to the Crown? You guessed right, Atlantic Canada. We have better things to do than spend time, energy and money on a non-issue for most Canadians.
I understand that some Liberals have republican cravings but now is not the time, this will be a distraction that we can ill afford.
I agree. We have much more important issues to resolve.
We enjoy a very special relationship with our Monarchy. Our “modern” Constitutional Monarchy is one of the best democracies in the world. Why would we want to replace excellence with something less ?
What about the millions of Canadians who stayed home and didn’t wave at the rich kids?
Pingback:
This resolution is thrash. We are walking into Harper’s trap. Please rescind. I want Harper crying next week. If this passes, Harper will be laughing and in secret smiling that this is one more nail in the coffin for us!!
Fact is if this passes I will walk over to the Progressive Canadians.
Good point Dave.
Millions and millions of people in Canada do not want to change our “modern” Constitutional Monarchy. And why would we ?
Actually, Amanda,
Most polls suggest that the majority of Canadians would favour cutting ties with the Monarchy after the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The reality of what a Monarch is is diametrically opposed to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Having a Canadian Head of State would be dignified. Having a foreigner born into total privilege is an insult to progressive thought.
We have All of that and much much more, and much better.
We have culture, tradition and excellence.
Canada is the best country in the world.
The job application reads: must be British, must be an Anglican and must have been born to person X and Y. If this job application was ever publicly posted in Canada, the writer would find himself squarely before a human rights commission. Discriminating against a job candidate based on family status, national original and religion is clearly illegal. And rightly so. However, if we are talking about selecting Canada’s Head of State, this discrimination is not only acceptable – it is a necessary precondition.
Museums are built for tradition. Sometimes they are built specifically to show us the atrocities that can come from a blind adherence to heritage or tradition. For example, the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa exists not to glorify war, but to show the damage inflicted through aggression and tyranny. The monarchy too deserves to be placed in a museum, embalmed in wax, with a little educational sign stating “Back in the past, Canada had a system where it was acceptable for only white, British Anglicans to be their country’s head.” That sad tradition is worth remembering, if only to never repeat it again.
Looks as if the United States Central Intelligence Agency wants this go forward. Seems like ever Republican argument is coming for US CIA manual.
I believe that cutting all ties to the Monarchy is a metaphoric linchpin towards a modern and truly inclusive Canada. It is representative of the bubble of endless regressive Conservative stupidities that needs to be burst.
Imagine a modern Canada with all of the Victorian “Shakespeare in Love” costumes in glass cases in the foyer of the House of Commons where they belong. For those that say we can’t for get our past: that is why we have museums. Our form of Government must not be psychological albatross from history: it must be whatever we as Canadians SAY it will be through democracy and meritocracy – not appointments “to the manor born”.
Brandon Beasley — Thank you for your comment.
However I maintain that statements made in this resolutions are False, namely “…WHEREAS foreign law bars individuals not of the Anglican faith from rising to the position of head of state of Canada…”
To the contrary, for the record to be noted, that:
1)His Excellency Georges Vanier, Governor General of Canada, from 1959 to 1967 was Not of the Anglican faith, also
that,
2)His Excellency Jule Leger, Governor General of Canada, from 1974 to 1979 was Not of the Anglican faith.
Here are two individuals who were NOT of the Anglican faith and who served as Governor Generals of Canada.
Therefore I conclude that individuals of “ANY” Faith can rise to the position of Head of State of Canada.
Hi Amanda,
The Governor General is not the Head of State of Canada. They are the Representative of the Head of State which, sadly, is the current sitting British “Monarch” who according to the lie is also “Queen of Canada”.
The Monarch of England can only be an Anglican (you know the morally dignified story of Henry the VIII etc.) and so the Head of State of Canada can only be an Anglican born into the Coburg-Saxe (Windsor – name of convenience) family or some relation.
All in stomach-turning contravention of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let’s change that.
Sounds too American for me.
Royalty makes us distintive. Royalty is awesome !
I am sure you are worldly enough to know that there are many other republics than just the United States.
The ‘we don’t want to be like the US’ argument of monarchists is tiresome and expected. I could make the extreme argument ‘we don’t want to be like Saudi Arabia (an absolute monarchy)’ to bolster my general disdain for the Canadian monarchy without considering the other more palatable, compromise options. But it would also be intellectually dishonest.
Also, Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, from 2005 to 2010 was Not of the Anglican faith.
Statements in this Resolution are false and mis-leading.
Are you Canadian ?
When you or your ancestors became Canadian Citizens, “Your family” pledged to uptold our Constitutional Monarchy.
What happened to that pledge ?
You were granted citizenship to our wonderful Canada on that “good faith” and you accepted.
Apparently you think it’s ok to legally bind a child based on what an ancestor or parent said or did not say generations ago?
I’ve never pledged allegiance to any monarch, and even if my grandparents did, who cares?
Are you responsible for the sins of your father?
I most certainly am Canadian and was born so and have never pledged any allegiance to “the Crown” nor will I ever.
If you are saying that because my ancestors were forced to repeat absurdities aloud to stay alive, that I am somehow bound to that by a familial connection, you’re stretching logic quite thin.
You never responded, however, to the fact that our Head of State DOES have to be Anglican and a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg. What about that?
That has changed.
False. It has not changed. You are british and you are anglican, or you cannot be the monarch. That is truth, plain and simple. There is no spin or argument.
No, it hasn’t. Our Head of State – the current sitting Monarch of England – who is also head of the Church of England – the Anglican Church – must be, not strangely, I suppose, an Anglican.
I believe that is counter to modern Canadian values of, among others, human equality.
Republics on Planet Earth are at opitimy of nepotistic failure! Even the USA is not a real country.
I want every Monarchist to put a “Help Wanted” sign or any job posting, and openly say: This job will be only given to someone who is of Anglican faith, Only born to this family, and preferably a male.. a female is fine but only if there is no other options. Yeah… you’ll be seeing yourself in front of a Human Rights Commissions. The scenario i gave you sounds ridiculous right? Its sad that these are also the requirement of our head of state, which is the Queen of England, not her representative, the governor-general. So how is this okay? Everyone who wanted to apply for being Canada’s head of State should take the Government to court for violating our Charter rights.
For those who think our history is so important to preserve, why dont we take all of the Japanese Canadians and put them back in the internment camps? Why don’t we put Aboriginals back in the Residential Schools, why don’t we give our Prime Minister a bottle of scotch to consume everyday, because they’re suppose to be an alcoholic? There are many things we aren’t proud of, and should be proud of doing this.
Having a foreign queen, and calling her our own; allowing a undemocratic, sexist, and discriminatory institution that violates the Charter is nothing to be proud of. There is no such thing as the modern monarchy because we are all equal, political power should be earned not inherited.
Looks like the socialist revisionists have forgotten the roots of Magna Carta !!
Dave – you are all over the map.
First you call republican arguments ‘socialist revisionist’ and then a few posts later you call it ‘George Bush thinking’.
I would call your argument style ‘desperation’ or ‘incoherence.’
This is a perfect time to address the severing of ties with the British “Monarchy” and to find a way to have a fully Canadian Head of State. If the Constitution has to be altered to Reform or Abolish the Senate and reform the electoral system ti would be cleaner to just get rid of references to the so called “Crown”.
To all of the Monarchists posting here: Do you realize the history of the British Monarchy and of the family from which the current group are actually descended? The blood-soaked Monarchy you love so much died out with Queen Victoria… All of the current Monarchy descend from the family of her husband and the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha who changed their names to Windsor… an invented name.
This is all made up. It is false. A lie. There are no Kings and Queens except for the ones you allow to put above you.
I allow for none. There is no modern Monarchy as those two things are antithetical to one another.
Pearson dubbed the Canadian Armed Forces such and the Regressive Harperites changed it back to Royal.
What next? Our flag replaced by the Canadian Red Ensign?
There is no place whatsoever for anachronistic falsehoods and delusional constructions in a modern Canada.
This resolution would never pass our current 7/50 amendment formula set in 1982. Have we forgotten that Constitutional Convention?
Then the amendment will need amending.
Sorry but since the Meech LAke fiasco who wants to repoen the constitution and this is what we will have to do to accomplish said resolution.
We need to re-open it for a bunch of things we need to get done (see my other post) so let’s re-open it. You act as though it’s the hood of a car. The Constitution is all of ours – here in Canada thanks to Trudeau – and we can change it as we see fit and as necessary.
You’re making excuses but how about addressing my points about the amoral qualities of your beloved German family.
Care to head for Meech Lake fiasco? Sorry, new constitutional ideas needed before reopening as in how to Quebec to sign on. And please recall the referendum of 1992 and why Charlottetown was rejected.
I love the ‘convenience’ argument as a reason to keep the monarchy: it’s too inconvenient to change the Constitution, boo hoo.
You know what else was inconvenient: pesky things like women wanting to vote, Japanese-Canadians not wanting to be interned in camps during WWII, human rights legislation not letting employers fire gay people, just because.
Inconvenience is a poor excuse for not changing bad laws or addressing fundamentally offensive and discriminatory institutions, laws or behaviours.
By the way, ther would be very little need to amend the Constitution, because if you read it, you will note that the Monarchy is not part of the written Constitution, but constitutional convention – meaning we can just stop doing it. No where does it say the british monarch is head of state. Just like it is written no where that a leader of a party with a majority of MPs becomes Prime Minister.
So, we just stop doing it. We ignore the monarch and we take our own institution back.
The sky is not falling Chicken Little. We are big boys in Canada, and we can handle ourselves. We don’t need to be babysat as if we were a bunch of backwater colonial babies.
^This is really right on.
Amanda L. Powell and Dave Yadallee are doing a lot of justifying, rationalizing and general cheerleading but have failed to address the heart of the matter as to the amorality of hereditary succession as it relates to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
They say “inconvenient, too complicated, a revenue source (break even maybe), historical ties, failed republics” but refuse to answer the basic question:
Why do you wish to be subjugated, even if only “Constitutionally”?
FYI for those who wish to ignore the Canadian Constitution, we are under a Constitutional Monarchy with a PArliamentary Democracy.
Next year, Jamaica will be removing the monarchy. A small island nation with less than three million people, has decided that its “heritage” is less important than the nation it is today and wants to be in the future. Yet Canada, a large modern nation, member of the G8 and one of the world’s 10 largest economies still doesn’t have its own Head of State. Let’s grow up. To say it’s too hard and not enough people care is one thing. But to argue that the monarchy actually has a place in today’s Canada is insane. We’re not the English White Anglo-Saxon country we were in the past. We no longer have the Union Jack as our flag or sing God Save the Queen in school. It doesn’t really matter what oath our ancestors swore. My grandparents came to this country from Eastern Europe and the oath they swore was more to the country than to an old white lady. Today Canada’s comprised of people from all parts of the world. We’re the second most heterogenous nation in the world. We need a head of state who unites all of us as Canadians. Since we were a British colony, we’ve evolved into our own country–the same way India, South Africa and others have. Heritage is wonderful, but as many people have said, it belongs in museums. As a Canadian in 2011, I couldn’t aspire to be Head of State because I’m Jewish, not Anglican. That’s an insult and a violation of the Charter or Rights and Freedoms. But most of all, in almost all countries, you have to be that nationality to become Head of State. In Canada, you can’t be Canadian, you have to be British. That’s a joke.
Right on!!
Jamaica is heading for a cul-de-sac. We do not need to follow.
The republicans are giving failed state argument. Even the USA like hte USSR are falling apart. Classic Republic Houses of cards for you.
What does this have to do with anything? Whether a country “falls apart” or not has nothing to do with being a republic of not. The five countries with the highest economic growth between 2000 and 2010 were Equatorial Guinea (republic), Azerbaijan (republic), Turkmenistan (republic), Qatar (absolute monarchy, but also ranked at the bottom of the democracy index) and Myanmar (republic). The two are not linked.
Nice examples of poor human rights records Alex
Dave – want to see some other countries that have done so well as part of the British Commonwealth. Take a look at the list, some real human rights winners such as Sierra Leone, Zambia and Pakistan are commonwealth as well.
God save the queen – she needs to be saved.
What about the Parliamentary Republics? Like Germany. Is it falling apart?
Yes it is. And propping up Europe is not helping its reputation
Saxe Coburg Gotha Hanover Battenberg.
These are the real surnames of the “British” Monarchy you’re so enamoured of. They’re German. Germany is a Parliamentary Republic. With a good economy. How ’bout it?
Just recall that same family beat up the Kaiser in WWI.
Right. How many of their family died at Vimy Ridge?
3,598 Canadians did.
Pingback:
The majority of Canadians both new and old want to keep our Canadian ties with the Monarchy. With everything we are going through with the economy and our Native brothers and sisters living in 3rd world conditions and worse,do we really need to hand another majority to the regressive Conservatives? By the way, even the
The Harperites will be rubbing their hands with glee if the Liberal Party passes this policy (114)
The Liberal Party of Canada must put forth six really substantial policies which will be planks in the next federal election. Pound these into the conscience of Canadians as did the Conservatives whose mantra was tax cuts (thus adding to the financial mess we are in) and make these polcies a winning election platform.
The real problems do not begin and end with the monarchy, which is part of our Canadian identity, the problem is corporate greed and a pragmatic plan by the multi-national coporations to eradicate unions; which also correlates with the decline of the middle class. Another conversation though!
Do Not pass policy 114! It will be like shooting oneself in the foot.
Hi Nancy,
Someone went to the trouble of collecting information about Canadians views on the Monarchy via polls in 2010. Here are those results:
“2010
In May 2010, a poll by Angus Reid found that more than two-thirds of Canadians, a 69% majority, would like to see a Canadian serving as Canada’s head of state, and a 52% majority of Canadians support reopening the constitutional debate to discuss replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state, while only 32% oppose doing so. Despite 69% of Canadians having a “mostly favourable” opinion of Queen Elizabeth II as a person, only one third, 33%, of Canadians preferred Canada to remain a monarchy – the plurality 36% of Canadians said they would prefer to have an elected head of state, another 21% were indifferent, and 11% were unsure. When asked who they would prefer as a monarch after Queen Elizabeth II, three-in-ten Canadians responded by saying there should be no monarch after her. 31% of Canadians also want members of the Royal Family to stop visiting Canada.[62]
Also in May 2010, an online poll by Leger Marketing for QMI Agency found that majority 59% of Canadians said that they had little or no interest in the Queen’s visit to Canada, while 39% did. The poll found that only 32% of 18 to 34 year-olds had an attachment to the crown. In the 65-and-over group, 46% reported an attachment. One fifth of Canadians said the Queen should stay home, and that furthermore, “Canada should sever its ties with the British Crown”.[3]
In June 2010, a national poll by the Association for Canadian Studies found decidedly lukewarm feelings about the concept of monarchy. The survey found that 49% of Canadians had a negative reaction to the word “monarchy”, compared to just 41% with a positive reaction. In the Maritimes, where the Queen would begin her Canadian visit, the majority 60% registered a negative opinion of monarchy, compared to only 37% positive. (The poll did not refer to the Canadian monarchy or to the Queen specifically, but to the concept of monarchy.)[3]
A poll by Ipsos-Reid, also in June 2010, found that the majority two-in-three Canadians agree the royal family should not have any formal role in Canadian society, and reported growing sentiment that Elizabeth II should be Canada’s last monarch. The majority 58% of Canadians want Canada to end ties to monarchy when Queen Elizabeth II’s reign ends, and the majority 62% of Canadians believe that Canada’s head of state should be the Governor General, not the Queen.[63][64]
A fifth poll, conducted by Harris-Decima for The Canadian Press a few days ahead of the Queen’s nine-day visit to Canada in June, found that nearly half of Canadians, 48%, consider the monarchy to be “a relic of our colonial past that has no place in Canada today.” The poll also found that 44% of Canadians want a national referendum to decide whether Canada should keep the monarchy.[65]
An Angus Reid poll just after the Queen’s visit found that 36% of Canadians want Canada to remain a monarchy, 30% prefer having an elected head of state, and 21% felt it made no difference to them.[66]”
Your statement isn’t really supported by this information.
Great post John -
It is important to look at the objective evidence, rather than argue subjective feelings.
We, as a Party, would do very well bringing the republic option to Canadians in an election platform. Many of the same tired arguments were made when we brought in the maple leaf flag and repatriated the Constitution. And, here we are today, with a flag and with a written Constitution that is ours.
For our Party, bringing the Head of State back to Canada would be a natural progression in the progressive and modern role Liberals have played in shaping a self-sustaining, independent Canada.
We don’t need training wheels, with daddy or mommy king or queen watching over us. We are adults. We are totally capable of governing ourselves.
Thanks – the internet and vast sources of empirical information are at our fingertips.
The Conservatives have pretty much staked out as theirs beyond a doubt the Monarchy angle. As a party, I believe, we can only go forward in the progressive traditions of Pearson, Trudeau et al.
The time warp of the Conservatives on the Canadian Armed Forces and pictures of the Queen is only going to expand to other aspects of Canadian society.
Their stance on the monarchy is really a metaphor for their entire view of our country and their vision for it:
a complete and total anachronism.
I think we fell into the trap in recent years of paralysis out of the fear of stepping on the toes of believers in (fill in blank here with one of many issues). We need to forget that and reconnect with the unyieldingly progressive spirit of Pearson, Trudeau and the rest.
I truly believe that if we pull the backwards card of monarchy out from the bottom the house of roadblocks to a modern Canada will come tumbling down.
I think you’re on to something there.
Support for the monarchy tends to collide with support for religious belief. I think the Conservatives’ turn to ‘tradition’ includes a more prominent role for an Abrahamic god in public life, and symbolism derived from that god-concept, including a monarchy who (despite what monarchists say) derive legitimacy from divine power.
Fundamentally, the irony of Conservatives is they preach ‘less government’ then replace it with other forms of oppression. So they claim they stay out of the bedrooms of the nation, but then allign themselves or provide legal protections to religions or groups that are anti-gay and anti-choice for women. Or, they increase police surveillance powers and build more jails to ensure a respect for ‘the law’ and thus a reduction in liberty. All of this is in the name of ‘social order’. The don’t create less government, they simply delegate it to other hierarchies.
The ideas of religion, monarchy, and police states are about people ‘knowing their place’ and for a forced adherence to hierarchy in search of social order. The Conservative model is based upon ‘order’ and hierarchy, not participation, self-expression and liberty, and thus the fact that monarchy and religion in public life are intersecting under them is not a surprise.
Exactly, kdg,
This is getting to heart of the matter. And to differentiate ourselves from that antiquated need to adhere to that imposed hierarchy is key to taking some very large steps forward and resolving many of the problems that have dogged this country for it’s entire history.
Sorry, but the EVIDENCE does not support the contention that Canadians want the monarchy.
The only arguments in favour of the monarhcy I am seeing are those of subjective ‘happy, fuzzy feelings’ that people get from thinking about this old, grandmother figure known as the queen.
There are no rational or evidence-based arguments on the benefits of a hereditary monarchy.
The facts of the monarchy are that
(1) all of our laws are subject to a british anglican’s approval, and this is a REAL power;
(2) no Canadian can become the head of state in Canada;
(3) you cannot hold monarchy accountable for any actions as monarchy, at common law, is above the law; and
(4) the british monarch, by structure, must be an anglican and will be british.
How any person supporting equality can delude themselves to think that a god-appointed, birthright king or queen is acceptable in our age of equality of the sexes, freedom of religion, and equality of human worth is madness.
Do you really believe that some people are better than you? Do you really feel you are of inferior human worth than the british monarchy?
Keep the ties yes! Let’s also remember the in British state history the Monarch receives popular support
My apologies for a couple of typing errors.
Actually I think everyone on here as well as the proposed resolution doesn`t have it right. I just watched a documentary on the Corporation of London that says it is them which we are subject to. Perhaps some of you could watch this and clarify.
I’m an immigrant (a Canadian citizen now), a senior and NOT of British ancestry but I fully support our Constitutional Monarchy. I’ve voted for the Liberals for over 40 years but find this proposal 114 is a betrayal of our loyalty to the party and the Crown.
We seniors especially view the Crown with affection and remember the connection we had with our head of state during the war. Our man and women, then and now, fought and died for King/Queen and country and now this party want’s to replace it with some elected political hack.
Keep in mind that many young people don’t vote in elections but we seniors do and we will not vote for a party that wants to destroy our ties with the crown.
You can keep your Queen and continue with all of its discriminatory traditions.
All I ask is one thing: we remove the monarch’s power to approve Canadian laws into force.
Then, the monarchy is truly just a ‘tradition’ or ‘piece of our history’ that you can go to tea-parties and chat about or swoon over.
Until the power of a foreigner to sign our legislation into force is taken away, we must fight against a veto power that is given, without democratic authority, to a single individual through birth.
Most of the ‘republican’ argument sounds like text book George Bush thinking
Dave – interesting way to try to avoid responding to a substantive issue: sounds like text book George Bush thinking?
Well, if George Bush believed in equality of the sexes, equality of opportunity for people of all ethnic origins and religious backgrounds, then I am making George Bush arguments in favour of ditching a monarchy chosen only by the thighs that birthed him or her.
Thank you for senior sensibility. If 114 were to pass, the Party would not only implode, this resolution if passed will be used by the Harperites to destroy our great institution named the Liberal Party of Canada !
Okay, you guys are having way too much fun without me joining in.
First, I have to agree with many who say this is not the biggest issue facing the country at the current time.
With that caveat, I’m concerned about a bunch of arguments on both sides of this issue. I don’t know the last time the Queen signed anything into law, unless it was the repatriation of our Constitution, but in any event it is not a usual kind of thing. That’s why we have a GG, and while I’m no longer the Monarchist I once was due to the compelling arguments about Canadians being from everywhere and no one ancestral ‘tradition’ can possibly serve us all well, I’m a strong Governor-Generalist–and I don’t want that Governor General being subject to elections. He/she is above that, and serves us all in practice, not just in theory as politicians do.
I’m thinking a little letter from the Queen promising for herself and her successors that she permanently denotes the Governor General of Canada as our Head of State ought to do the trick. No Constitutional battle, nice, neat and quick. And I don’t think she’d have a problem with it.
Yes Jenn in the near term that would address many of the concerns voiced in the comments. I would still have the concern that the GG has become a defacto voice of the PM or PM’s office. It has become much like the senate. We know what the Conservatives have used the office to do but we Liberals are not lily white in that area either.
I have always questioned the real power and benefit of the GG. It is true that the GG has some decision making powers;when was the last time a GG really opposed what a government in office has done. It may well be that GG’s position and powers of the office have to be studied, perhaps with an inhouse liberal commission before we pass any resolution for or against the crown. Input from all PTA’s, EDA’s and individual members must be considered before we make this a plank in any platform. It might be helpful if this resolution would be withdrawn or stayed until such a study is done. There is certainly no harm or less harm in voting this down or having the resolution withdrawn by the authors through a friendly motion.
My earlier comment about how dangerous to our party and divisive to the country this resolution would become deters us from our main goal of rebuilding the Party. The pundits and media out there are already having a field day and we have have just started the discussion.
Again, John, we are on the same page. I’ve been marking the resolutions with an up/down but also a Defer tag in some cases, like this one. Mostly because we want to be a member-driven Party and as delegates, I think it is our responsibility to ask that those resolutions which depend on us being the government be deferred so that ALL Liberal members can vote on them, since we won’t be the government within the next two years anyway. (I assume that the constitutional amendment (10.2) proposing same is going to be passed.)
But in this particular case, I agree with your concerns about the GG and would love to spend some time and have a discussion over how to make his/her appointment a transparently non-partisan one. An all-party committee recommendation, with a choice of three given to the PM, perhaps?
Why would we rescind this? It is a valid motion on the floor.
Back in the 2000s, it was the Young Liberals of Canada who proposed gay marriage. They were laughed at because ‘the priorities of Canadians do not include gay people getting married’ or ‘let’s study this more’.
Sound familiar?
This is the *nice* way that Canadians oppose things, passive-aggressively. What they really meant was: we oppose gay marriage and know there is no rational argument against it, aside from subjective feelings of ickiness of gays marrying or religion.
Opposition to this anti-monarchy motion is similar.
And look what happened in less than a decade after that Young Liberal motion was debated? Superior Courts across the country started directing the Government to change its discriminatory marriage law.
I think the Young Liberals have more of a pulse on the nation than they are given credit for.
So man up and let’s debate this. Jamaica is debating it now; surely Canada has the gonads to debate it too.
The homosexual marriage issue is still a dividing issue that violates the church state separation. In fact the whole sexual orientation rights is one of the worst botches in Canadian LEgal history. We could end up inadvertently decriminalising pedophilia.
Dale –
at least you are being consistent with my view that in order to support the monarchy, you have to (whether you admit to it or not) support discrimination.
Thanks for proving my point.
Prove to me any discrimination to date with the Monarchy. Even a Montrealer can marry a Royal.
Sorry Dave,
It’s you has been leveling insults in these discussions and frankly talking total nonsense about Bush and the CIA. You’re irrational.
Again, good luck with that…
Look like mr. Sherlock is not adhering to Mr. Brisebois call for respected debate.
Sorry Dave and Amanda,
You pair are beyond infatuated with Royalty or any ability of rational discussion of this topic.
You must be in love with all of the great changes the Harper Government has made to bring The Monarchy back into Canadian life after Pearson and Trudeau so heartlessly denied us our Royal due!
Good luck with that… (I’m adjusting my fascinator right now!)
Well said. That Montrealer could become Head of State. Everything is possible. There are French Canadians who are descendents of royalist refugees who escaped the French révolution and who settled in Canada between 1791 and 1802 under the protection of the British. They changed their names and disappeared into the fabric of the nation. With large families and intermarriages, it’s possible that most Canadians are descendants of royals. (That would be so cool.)
That is a meaningless argument about discrimination. What about friends in high places? Like Mulroney being propped up. I rather be a PM thank a King/Quuen and never to a president.
But that Montrealer will NEVER be our Head of State and there is the discrimination.
John this is why I do not want a republic. This sort of corruption is happening worldwide and the vile is showing up. I would rather see an elected Governor General and take this appoint away from the PM.
As far as I know that is the Status quo thanks to the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau
In 2017 on the 150th anniversary of our beautiful country, I believe it would be a perfect occasion to put to rest our association with the British Monarchy, archive it and leave behind the bloodbath of Colonialism.
Being reborn as a streamlined – Monarchless, Senateless – Parliamentary Republic and admitting to the reality that the GG doesn’t actually do anything substantive outside ribbon cutting, medal hanging and speechifying – would do Canada a great deal of good. Not to mention all of the saved tax dollars that could go towards Healthcare and other things Canadians REALLY need and care about.
So 2017, Canada’s 150th Re-Birthday!
Sorry but I do not buy this Bush choirpage argument
Sorry, how does what I’ve said possibly connect with Bush? Bush’s imperial wars are a lot more connected with picking up the mantle of British Empire (The Monarchy) than what I’m saying.
David, making baseless accusations doesn’t really help your cause and appears a little infantile.
How about answering my question about the disconnect between hereditary succession and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
FYI Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Bill of Rights ( I know it Diefenbaker) is all dervied from Magna Carta freedom. Care to diseminate the history of Magna Carta?
David,
Please elaborate on both the CIA thing and how you feel the connection of the Magna Carta connection to the Charter justifies the hereditary succession of our Head of State as an Anglican-only member of the Windsor (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) bloodline.
I don’t know what you’re talking about and these pot-shot posts you make aren’t very illuminating.
You are obviously ignorant of fundamental Canadian history.
You Saxe-Cioburg / Anglican argument is used by the US CIA to derail countries as such. Do you recall why Canada was founded? Name the 2 incidents.
Also did you know it was the Royal family that let the French keep their religion and culture?
Obviously the US CIA backed Republican of Canada movement wants the ordinary Canadian to be kept in the dark about the fundamental hitorical fact.
And Harper is the George Bush of Canada
Harper is a manipulation freak who gutted our deficit. We should have never lost the election but we abdicated the fiscal issue and it costed us badly. Also I rather be a blue liberal than a Red Tory.
David,
Due to your CIA and your same-sex rights comments I have to conclude that you’re clearly operating from a very very Blue end of the Liberal spectrum that may include Truthers…
I don’t think we can agree on much here but let me leave you with a final question:
Do you believe in human equality? And how does the concept of a Monarch or Royal fit with that, if you do?
Wouldn’t you feel more comfortable with the Harperites?
Section 15 of the Charter:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Dale, you said:
“Also did you know it was the Royal family that let the French keep their religion and culture?”
Did you really just write that? Holy sh*t. That’s brutal.
Bush / US CIA sentiment is exactly what the Republic of Canada movemennt is all about.
One has to rmember that the Queen is British – Canadian – Australian – New Zealender – Caribbean and Pacific all in one. We should aim to be that way.
You know, Dave, you’ve never come clean in this entire discussion with your bias and from where it stems. Be honest.
Hi everyone,
This has truly been a very thoughtful discussion, not to say debate. We appreciate that the conversation remains on the issue at hand and not on the people expressing their views. Personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated so thanks everyone for keeping this civil, respectful, and thoughtful. Discussion is an important part of democracy so by all means please keep going.
The way Mr. Yadalee and Ms.Powell rush to be obsequious with M. Brisbois shows the true mentality of a Monarchist and really says it all in a NUTshell.
I just received the questionnaire from my riding association asking for our input on all of the Resolutions and will be supporting this Resolution 114, wholeheartedly.
Merci André.
I yield to the moderator
Reading these posts it seems clear that we all place a very high value on democracy.
Some argue here that we currently have democracy and monarchy and that we should maintain the status quo.
However, the notion that we are somehow manifesting monarchical democracy is a subterfuge maintained only by avoiding difficult and awkward considerations:
1) In a democracy the sovereign authority which gives legitimacy to government resides with the people as a whole; in a monarchy it resides with a particular family. Canada’s sovereign authority is either held by the people of Canada, in which case we’re a democracy, or it resides with the Windsor family of Britain, in which case we’re a monarchy. We can’t be both.
2) Egalitarian democracy posits equality of status, rights and opportunity. Monarchy, on the other hand, posits hereditary privilege, inequality and class distinctions. Canadian values, as expressed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are unquestionably those of the former. How, then, do we justify our tolerance of undemocratic, un-egalitarian, monarchical principles in our constitution and in our office of head of state?
3) A monarch requires subjects. Who, exactly, are the Queen’s Canadian subjects? I and all the Canadians I know would be insulted to be identified as anyone’s subjects. We are citizens, equal in fundamental status and rights to any free individual, whether they live in a slum or a palace.
The preamble of Resolution 114 describes eight egregious violations and compromises of our democratic, egalitarian values which arise from our constitutional connection to the institution of monarchy. The resolution recommends the clear-headed solution- sever the connection.
We need to be clear about our values and courageous enough to live up to them!
I’m a Canadian Citizen and am proud to be a subject to HRH. T
There is a psychological condition known as Stockholm Syndrome in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them.
Stockholm syndrome ? That’s demeaning!!
Just as a point of clarification:
The argument that monarchy is fair and open because one can ‘marry into’ it (albeit an already-illogical argument) is fundamentally flawed for the following reason -
If one marries a monarch, he or she does not become the monarch, but simply a second-class spouse – the head of state distinction would still only be reserved for the joint child birthed by the couple.
Even the bad arguments for a monarchy, if taken to their logical conclusion, fall apart.
My opposition is fundamental and why I view it as an anti-Canadian resolution.
1) When found in 1867 , Canada needed to stay loyal but a colony was not the answer. Some form of Independence was needed to stop the new threat to civilisation on the America Continent, namely the Repub;ican USA. There 1812 attacks on Canada and Fenian sentiments are 2 of the raison-d’etres for Confederation.
2) The USA has claimed their flag would extend to the North Pole. A republican Canada would within moths end up fulfilling that declaration of theirs.
3) There are provinces that would veto this sort of approach.
a) Recall this could step on the feet of provincial jurisdiction.
4) As for the ‘privilege’ of being a queen or king, that is done by people’s convention in a British Parliamentary system. Recall the Canadian PM did not endorse Edward VIII for King hence George VI ascended to the throne.
5) Colonial abuses?? Please the indigenous peoples of his land can say all immigrants have committed this so let’s leave this out. The historic USA abuses against indigenous is far more heinous.
6) The German Saxe-Coberg family argument> Well the Kaiser dd get beat up by the British forces in 1918 and by guess who?
Overall the Republican stance is the from the US CIA foreign policy talking points.
I prefer to focus on getting to Quebec to sign onto the constitution without have the acrimonious Mulroney styled partisanery.
I can think of many arguements against this motion, but will try and keep it to just a few short points people might not otherwise consider.
1) The monarchy is very popular with women. Women are a core voting block the Liberals need to win back. Most people that might support a republic are more indifferent to the monarchy than opposed. On the other hand all those ladies (and maybe a few gents) that got up ridiculously early to watch Will and Kate’s wedding would turn on us in a flash, and would be highly motivated to oppose us.
2) The UK parliament has changed its stance on Anglicanism only (http://www.aco.org/acns/digest/index.cfm/2011/11/1/Succession-rules-changed-for-British-monarchs), thus removing that “Whereas” from the argument effectively. Other reforms now in place also remove gender discrimination and other anachronistic rules regarding succession.
3) President Harper. Sounds like a scare tactic, but when Australia had a referendum on this issue a few years back the country went from being overwhelmingly in favour of a republic to keeping the monarchy because everyone became scared that politicians they didn’t like would get the top job, and with it more power. As ridiculous as it sounds just speculating that Harper might become head of state, or some other scary Conservative, would be enough to drive many of our supporters into the arms of other opposition parties or to vote against this, just to keep them out.
Thank you, Ryan. It would therefore appear that statements made in this resolution are False and Misleading.
Sorry Amanda,
Exactly which statement is false or misleading? As far as I can tell, every one of the statements in the resolution are entirely correct and worthy of support.
Ryan:
1) Show me the evidence that women love the monarchy. That’s a rather generalist and sweeping statement if I’ve heard one, and a bit sexist. None of my progressive female friends would be caught dead dressing up their children in little pink dresses and bringing them to meet ‘the royals’. They are actually disappointed that any woman would agree to a ‘shut up and be pretty’ role of a princess (a la Kate) that is so fundamental in the monarchy and laugh at women who teach their children that to aspire to be a token wife is acceptable. By the way, the acutal statistics and polling do not support the assertion that women love the monarchy.
2) The monarchy has opened up? That article you shared http://www.aco.org/acns/digest/index.cfm/2011/11/1/Succession-rules-changed-for-British-monarchs made it very clear that now allows ‘the monarch to marry a Roman Catholic.’ So progressive. Too bad for the Jewish, Muslim and non-Abrahmic-religious believers or atheists out there. The other interesting part of this article:
“…however, Catholics will still be barred from becoming monarch.”
Wow. In 2012, how anyone can accept such a caveat is sad.
3) President Harper: So what? To be honest, Harper has more legitimate claim to be head of state than an unelected monarch. However, I would agree this is problematic, but for another reason:
- just as our monarch as head of state is a constitutional convention (meaning it is not explicitly written in the Constitution), so is the idea that the party leader with the most Members of Parliament becomes the Prime Minister. In order to ensure a checks and balance, it would preferable if a head of state was elected or chosen separate from parliamentary elections.
Keep in mind that for all intents and purposes, Harper basically operates as head of state, and the monarch has failed in its supposed duty to act as a non-partisan check to the Prime Minister’s power (which monarchists offer as an argument in favour of the monarchy). The failure of the GG to refuse to prorogue Parliament when there was a majority of elected Members of Parliament willing to form government, and instead to follow the PM’s orders and prorogue, was the most compelling evidence that the monarch in Canada effectively provides no democratic value yet retains the ability to sign our bills into law.
So, considering its nepotism and religious and ethnic discrimination weighing against the monarchy, the monarchists can no longer even argue that the monarchy plays a check-and-balance role. It is simply a relic, soaked in backwards values and beliefs.
Re: kdglowinski’s response to my points I will acknowledge that my 1st statement, about the popularity of the monarchy amongst women, is very general. It is however correct. Some time back I did do a paper on hegemic propaganda and royalty, as well as a study of the Australian referendum on the matter, and although they’re both dated now I think the observations I made then still apply. On the first point Canada consumes a large number of “royal” products, from magazines like Hello Canada that follow royal gossip, to commemorative glasses, plates, and other kitsch, and of course stamps (I received many a letter where people have purposely bought these) and other products. The overwhelming majority of these products are marketed towards women, and they not only sell, but sell well (ex: the replicas of Kate Middleton’s wedding ring and wedding dress, which have been huge sellers). People might consider this stuff tacky or the magazines trash, but this isn’t a matter of taste we’re considering, we’re considering what might motivate voters. People that buy this stuff, mostly women given the target demographics, would be unlikely to turn around and vote in a referendum against the monarchy. They would also be motivated to turnout, whereas recent electoral trends tell us that those not as jazzed over something (ie: indifferent non-royalists) are less likely to turn out. This makes this group electorally significant in my estimation.
You also mention having female friends that are very progressive and would laugh and ridicule anyone that presumably would buy or follow this stuff, and I don’t doubt it. That doesn’t mean however there isn’t a significant number out there that do. As Liberals we often succumb to the fallacy that if we have the most reasonable position, a majority of others must share it (which accounts why so many of us have been shocked after being electorally pantsed over the last half decade). If we don’t acknowledge political realities, like that a lot of women are into royal kitsch and will react negatively to anyone trying to upend the royals, then that’s hubris on our part, whether it seems like sexist thinking or not.
To your credit, there are blocks of women that would likely vote in favour of a republic, however if the Australian referendum told us much about voting behavoiur in this respect it would suggest that urban/rural splits, income, and other factors weigh more significantly in this respect than sex when it comes to support for republicanism amongst women (ex: women in Quebec might favour a republic, but language and culture/history are the determinant there).
From subtle royal boosting phenomina, like The King’s Speech or all the Will/Kate hype, there is a pervasive and subtle royal consumer market in Canada, largely female, and I contend that is an important consideration when we decide how this will play with a demogrpahic we need to win back to the Liberal fold. I hope that clarifies my earlier statement a bit further, whether you agree with my conclussions or not.
Sorry Ryan, as much I appreciate your qualitative analysis from Australia and perspective on how Canadian women allegedly love the monarchy, I just don’t feel that a political party’s role is to pander to the lowest common denominator. I’m not willing to support a party that accepts harmful or bad policies as a vehicle to get votes: and thus why I don’t support the Conservatives.
If there are people who are fascinated with the trash magazine entertainment value of Kate’s buttox, dress and current weight, that is fine for them, but it does not mean it should form the basis of solid, evidence-based public policy. And it would be depressing if the ‘entertainment value’ of sexism were a justification for tolerating it. I am personally offended that Kate Middleton’s only worth or value seems to be judged by her outfit changes, weight loss and mood.
I hope for more for our Canadian daughters. And I hope for more for women who do not want to be treated as just objects of asthetic value and wish to be respected for their hard work, views and opinions.
President Harper, President Mulroney or the other side may side President Trudeau or President Chretien. A Head of State should not be a political patronage appointment . In all republics worldwide this test is a #fail.
So if this resolution passes and the Liberals get elected we’ll have the following scenario:
A constitutional convention costing millions (at the time of recession).
Provinces blackmailing the Feds to get this bill passed (Quebec and the “loyalist” provinces will have a field day. Lots of blank cheques from the Feds.)
And don’t forget that you’ll have to change the role of all the Lieutenant Governors as well since they represent the Queen as well.
Off course that’s IF you can get all the provinces and the Feds to agree. (Can anyone tell me when all the provinces and federal voted together in agreement?. Remember Quebec still hasn’t sign the Constitution. So are they REALY going to sign on for this?
All of the above just so we can have an ex hockey player or a Canadian version of Donald Trump or Stephen Harper as Head of State. But that’s ok with some of you so long as they’re Canadian. WOW, can’t wait till all this happens.
Not a pretty picture. Sounds like the Mulroney constitutional fiasco.
I oppose this. The monarchy is one of the pillars of our country, and central to our history and culture and contributes to our national identity. And it’s a CANADIAN institution, with a Canadian Queen. We’re not subservient to any foreigners, if the UK were to get rid of their monarchy we would still have ours here (along with every other Commonwealth nations). The massive upheaval to fundamentally change the fabric of our nation isn’t desirable, or worth it.
“Tradition” is one of those weasel-words that someone with a weak argument invokes to justify something that was historically acceptable, but is now totally offensive or flat-out illegal. Remember the fight for gay-marriage? Letting women serve in the military? Letting Chinese-Canadians get Canadian citizenship? The main argument made by hate-mongers, homophobes and racists? Tradition. Marriage is a religious tradition. The military is a male tradition. And Canadian citizenship, a white-person tradition. Tradition seems to be a comfortable “exception” that is permitted in the face of intolerant behaviour.
If you argue Canadian “tradition” or history so strongly, why do you cherry-pick? Surely they could find other important examples of tradition that have shaped Canada’s current political and societal dialogue. Indian Residential Schools and the internment of Japanese Canadians are also examples of Canadian tradition, but not the tradition involving pretty little dresses, curtsies and flowers. If you are permitted to argue tradition as a solid argument to prop up a human rights relic as Head of State, then I, as a republican, get to point out that a discriminatory system, no matter how traditional, is wrong and probably even unlawful.
Exactly ! Fundamentals are getting lost in idealistic Utopianism.
Well said.
“The association between Canada’s Aboriginals and the Canadian Crown is both statutory and traditional, the treaties being seen by the first peoples both as legal contracts and as perpetual and personal promises by successive reigning kings and queens to protect Aboriginal welfare, define their rights, and reconcile their sovereignty with that of the monarch in Canada.” Wikipedia,
What happens to these treaties if the Monarchy in Canada is abolished? Are they still legal? The Chiefs signed with representative of the Crown NOT with a representative of a Republic. I’m sure the first nations will take this issue to the Supreme Court and to the U.N. if the Crown is abolished.
They would still be legal. Don’t worry.
Actually Terry rasies a good point.
During the 1995 Quebec Referendum there was a question whether the Cree could secede from Quebec if the rest of the province had voted Oui (Bouchard famously argued Quebec was indivisible, but the Cree held there own vote just before the referendum itself so they could say authoritatively that they the support of their people to break with Quebec had Quebec left Canada). The premise of this arguement was that First Nations had seperate treaties with the Crown making them allies, not subjects, and if Quebec disolved its relationship with the Crown/federal government, Quebec had no legal claim to their lands as such.
Tough to say how this would work out (no, I don’t think there would be a mass secession from Canada by First Nations), however with so many treaties and nations within Canada, it would be naive that a legal challenge or some serious negotiation wouldn’t have to take place if Canada were to become a republic (the one out being of course if the First Nations all voted in majority for a republic, in which case they would have consented and the treaties would likely stand as is).
If you wonder what the First Nations case might sound like under this hypothetical situation, read this speech (esp. the part about safeguarding indigenous rights via the UN): http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7076
The federal government/Crown are legally the same thing….right now.
A switch from a monarchy to a republic is really not as complex as you make it out to be. Law would dictate a seemless transfer of responsibility.
So really – chill out.
You may think so but First Nation’s may not agree. Some of them will certainly take legal action which means the Gov’t better hope the Courts (and possibly the U.N.) agree with your point of view.
No offence, but this argument is such a ridiculous red-herring, I cannot believe that it is actually being argued.
No contracts are invalidated or cancelled because the head of state either changes from appointed-by-god to elected, nor because we remove a Queen.
Any agreements with ‘the Crown’ are really agreements with the federal government. In a republic, those agreements would still be with the federal government, only ‘the People’ would be the source of the underlying authority. There would be no need to go to court because the switch would be seemless and the contracts would still be with the federal government.
Just like when you sell a business, you have to sell its debts, obligations, on-going litigation and contracts with it. This would be similar.
Sounds like a messy procedure
I happy to see that the Monarchy generate lots of debate. Unfortunately I still think if we Liberal do pass this resolution and try to advance this to the Canadian people we will be dead in the water.
As soon as the Royal Couple have a baby all the conservatives have to do is have the PM take a picture with the parents and the baby to win the hearts of Canadians, regardless if they are indifferent to the monarchy.
So, considering that I would like to win the next election this is for me a non starter. That being said I would like to put in my two cents.
The discussion about how Canadians should govern themselves is a philosophical discussion so just putting list of arguments to say how the monarchy is antiquate and undemocratic will not do.
Some of the issues KDG and John Mark have raise are already being addressed (male succession will likely be removed allowing the first born to inherit the throne regardless of sex and the restriction to not marry a catholic will also likely be removed);
The issue to me is that both KDG and John Mark seem to put individual freedom above any other value. When KDG says that, and I quote, ” The ideas of religion, monarchy, and police states are about people ‘knowing their place’ and for a forced adherence to hierarchy in search of social order” the hits the nail in the head.
They both see freedom from the lenses of negative liberty where individual actions should not be restrain by external forces. Hence KDG’s reference to the “police state” and “forced adherence to hierarchy”. It is like they are saying “how come I cannot apply to the head of state job? how come there is a position in my government that I cannot attain?” With that mind set, there will never be enough justification, rational or otherwise, to support the monarchy.
Jean Marc goes on to apply instrumental reason as he wishes for a Canada that is, and I quote again, “Monarchless, Senateless” in order to save tax dollars to use in, “Healthcare and other things Canadians REALLY need and care about”. The problem is some Canadians, me included, do care about the monarchy and do believe that Canada needs to keep the Crown. Hence the impasse. : )
Let’s see what happen on the convention and if this resolution passes or not.
Cheers and good evening to every one.
Thanks Marcos Paulo for an actually thoughtful commentary on what some of us have been trying to say here. It’s refreshing.
My comments, however, on expenditure savings and healthcare were really mentioned as a fringe benefit.
My real issue with a Monarch as Head of State for Canada is that I believe that the concept of Royalty is a complete falsehood which is morally bankrupt and diametrically opposed to Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
For this reason solely I believe we are obligated as Canadians to find an alternative solution for our Head of State.
Your points about this issue possibly being a non-starter at election time are well taken but ultimately I feel that the Liberal Party has fallen into the trap many times in recent years of backing away from divisive issues out of fear of the ballot box. I’m not sure the Party has many more opportunities to really stake it’s ground for the most principled positions it can. Being mushy about where we stand is a road to oblivion.
The Harperites own this Monarchy love-in thing seven ways to Sunday. Playing the “Yeah, us too!” card is a losing game. Differentiating ourselves from the regressive tendencies of the Royal Diefenbaker Memorial Party is the only way to go.
Hello John,
I think I understand your and KDG position and as I said before this is a philosophical issue. In my case I am not a supporter of negative freedom, I think freedom from interference usually translates to the lack of any social norms and promotion of free market thinking. In essence when we push negative freedom we diminish freedom from dominance because negative focus soly on the state and not on non-goverment agents.
When we say we want to be free from interference we usually mean free form government interference, leaving the market to dominate most aspects of our lives. I am more a proponent of freedom from dominance, freedom from coercive power. In other to achieve that, order is require. Hence the need for the government (the only power with legitimate ownership of force of coercion) to regulate external agents.
That is why I am a liberal. not because I believe in big government but because I believe that good government is crucial for a society to flourish. Without government regulation society, in my view, cannot flourish. The 2008 crisis prove the point when Canada did not had to bail out its backs and people did not have to leave the houses. The regulation of our banks was good for the canadian society, that for me is government at its best. But I digress.
I dont support the resolution not just because if political suicide. You see, I am a monarchist myself. I would welcome the debate if we liberals could afford it but I don’t think we can. Because you using rational tools to analise the monarchy you cannot make room for any paradox. Paradox usually do not make rational sense, so in rational frame what can be rational explained is valid what cannot is invalid. Hence your frustration with the arguments put forward by the other monarchist.
The monarchy provide monarchists with a sense of identify, with a sense of stability, duty, with a sense of belonging and attachment that a new republic will just not be able to provide. You may find it a “wishy washy” sentiment I am sure, but it is there and it is real. And unfortunately for our discussion it is not rational.
If indeed we are moving in the 21st century to a post-modern world then rational arguments only will not do. You see a vanilla head of state will never command the same loyalty that our Queen does. I am sure you are familiar with Australian situation were they would love to replace the monarchy but that cannot agree with what. Every single person has their own idea of what the framework of the new function such be, in line I guess with individual freedom, why should XYZ idea of head of state be better than ABC? so they continue to quarrel down under.
Finally, Canada has a week national identity. The monarchy is now of the few symbols that give us, to use Charles Taylors terms, a horizon of significance. That bounds people past, present and future, that unite by and large that majority of the population. (and I know of the francophone issue, but I am not sure if you know that when Price Charles came to Montréal to visit the Black Watch the antimonarchist put a show, and in there a sole person, a women, stood up for them, she was not english, she was french canadian). She stoop up even though she was ridicule and even though she was alone. You can call it madness all you like but that lady with that gesture made me proud, and I wish I was there with her).
Cheers and have a good Sunday
Hi Marcos Paulo,
Thanks for more cogent ideas… a couple of things: I believe that Canadians have a much more ample self-view that could survive very well without the Monarchy and on the contrary would flourish outside that historical albatross of colonialism.
You mention Prince Charles who, I believe, is – through the actions of his life – a perfect example of the total amorality of Royals, peerage and the like.
I’ll ask you the question that has gone unanswered by all of the Monarchists here: Do you believe in human equality and if so how do yo square that with the privileged status afforded the family of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Windsor) that has a permanent position providing Heads of State for Canada?
This really is a philosophical question with one question at it’s core:
Do you believe in human equality as laid out in Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
No. There is no such thing. Some people are born tall, some short, (the short ones are discriminated against and can’t make the basketball team) some are good at math, some not, some can run fast, some can’t run at all. Some have the energy to work 12 hours a day, others barely five hours a day. Some are born with good genes in their area of talent and because of it have opportunities that others can never aspire to become.
Hello John,
Let me go through your points one by one:
1) historical albatross of colonialism. By that I take that you see Canada’s british heritage as a hindrance to Canada. Meaning you think Canada is what it is today in spite of our british heritage. This is a valid position to take, is just not the one I have. I believe the institutions that we have allowed Canada to developed into a modern democracy without much bloodshed.
I believe that even though we had power struggles through out our history our institutions( Federalism, The Crown, the Governor General’s Office and Parliament) were able to successfully address them and evolve to meet the challenges of the given time. Yes there were struggles but the institutions perform as they were suppose to, allowing people to have an avenue to affect change in our society without a full out civil war. The very fact that we can openly challenge the legitimacy and future of the Crown attest to the strength of our institutions.
2) The amorality of Royals, peerage and so on. I will not go much on this topic, I don’t think it is much relevant for our discussions. People have trouble in their lives, be they a bus driver, a billionaire or a Royal. I will only say this, during the 1960s and 1970s North America and to some extent Britain went to a seismic social change. The “hippie” generation took over the reigns of society and in some extent still influence our public discourse. To outright condemn the Price of Wales for moral failings is to dismiss what went on in our society during that time. Finally, I have to say that it is ironically that someone that is align by negative liberty and believes in personal freedom pass judgement of the choices of others, but as I said, I don’t think this to be relevant to our discussion. Let me move on.
3)The question that has not been answered on Human Equality. Before writing on this I would like to say that I am not a constitution lawyer so take my comments on the constitution with a grain of salt. Do I believe on human equality as it is spell out on the charter? Of course I do, and even if I did not it would not matter much. The charter is the law of the land, wether I like it or not. It is how we govern our society and as long as I am part of it I have to obey it.
Now lets get to the royal issue. What I think you are trying to say is that having a monarchy violates the charter. Since a) Monarchs cannot marry catholics; b) Monarchs have to be protestants; and c) The first male child takes precedence even though he may not be the first born. Let’s say all these three issues were resolved, as I think they will, and the Act of Succession would be updated to remove them. You would still not be satisfied.
Your issue will only shift to the fact of the hereditary aspect of the monarchy. Why the Windsors get to rule? Why not the Smiths? Or the Tremblays? or the Maturinos?
As I said, the issue is philosophical, and we will not be able to bridge the divide. Arguments about the stability of the monarchy, the historical context on how the Windsor got te power or the value that monarchy brings as a organic institution that can adapt and evolve with society, all these topics are useless from your point of view. The paradox of a constitutional monarchy has no value for you.
In your question you seem to imply that the monarchy violates the charter and in doing so is not consistent with canadian law. I would argue that you are mistaken because the Queen and the institution of the Crown are the source from where our laws draw legitimacy from, hence the royal ascent.
You are missing the part that the charter is part of the constitution and the constitution was “enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty “. The constitution itself is a declaration by the monarch. The monarch represents our dominion. That is why we have Crown corporations, when you go to court is the Crown that sues you and Parliament can also be refer to as the Crown in Parliament.
You see, the Crown is embedded on the very fabric of the country. But again that is not say that it cannot change. South Africa was a constitutional monarchy and decided to become a republic. India got its independence from Britain and also became a republic.
Now is Canada heading that way? Do republicans have enough public support to convert the country into a parliamentary republic? I believe that canadians don’t need to. Our problems today lie elsewhere.
Thanks for the good discussion
Regards
Hello John,
Let me go through your points one by one:
1) historical albatross of colonialism.
I mean it more for what I believe we could be without the psychological yoke of the anachronism of aristocrats and peerage and blatant falsehood of “royalty”. Take, for example, the recent regressions of Harper… they are all couched in Monarchy, militarism and anglo-spheric belligerence. That Canada only ever existed in Harper’s dreams of a past that never was. We need to leave that fantasy-nightmare behind.
2) The amorality of Royals
I believe it is relevant in that an elected Head of State could at least be someone who was deemed worthy of the position through a democratic process and removed from such a place after their term if found to be wanting. We don’t have that luxury now and are forced to accept whichever first born progeny arrives from the loins of a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha matron.
3)The question that has not been answered on Human Equality.
An updated Act of Succession would not satisfy, indeed, because it does not erase the centuries of moral bankruptcy and the falsehood of inequality in the very concept of “Royalty”.
As you say, why the “Windsors”? When we look at history the power of Monarchs stemmed from brute force and real subjugation. Over time their place was accepted by convention as onr Constitution accepts the conventions of royal ascent.
Your argument about the constitution itself being a declaration by the monarch is tautological in form and substance as it imagines the document being frozen in time an unalterable from it’s source. Removing “The Crown” from the fabric of Canadian life is as simple as removing the words “The Crown” and replacing it with “The People” or “The Canadians” or whatever we choose.
Monarchy is a meaningless construction in the minds of those allow that construction to reside there. Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Battenberg-”Windsor” is an 85 year old woman of English nationality and German descent. Nothing more. Yadallee will yelp that she’s Canadian-New Zealander-Martian… but that’s only for ribbon cutting.
Until Canadians can move forward without pretense (watch Harper and Baird throwing out these anchors to the past) we’ll only move forward by half-measures.
It’s true that this is a philosophical question for which the twain (you and I in this case) will never meet.
Thanks again Marcos Paulo for the solid arguments; you’re thoughts on this are lightyears ahead of the nonsense that has been posited by a few here.
Looking forward to the convention.
Regards
Marcos – you are correct that any arguments in favour of monarchy are emotional, subjective or not rational.
Even if we simply removed the power to approve Canadian laws from the monarchy (thus effectively stripping its remaining authority – royal assent), monarchists could still celebrate the daily life of the monarchy. This would not diminish the entertainment value and interest that so many confuse with support for a hereditary monarch.
It would simply remove any influence the monarchy had on our laws or democratic functioning.
What is so wrong with that?
Never ignore the electorate. Read http://groups.google.com/group/edm.general/msg/e238ee57ff4234e8?dmode=source
You said: “It is like they are saying “how come I cannot apply to the head of state job? how come there is a position in my government that I cannot attain?”
That is exactly my question. Why not? Why not me, why not you, why not your kids?
Hello KDG,
Why not is a very good question. See it like this, under canadian social contract you can have any job you want. You can be a pilot, a pundit, a doctor even (heavens forbid) a politician. And as a politician you can even be the head of the government of the day.
But in our social contract you cannot be the head of the state. That job is off limits of sorts. Why is it off limits well, you will probably don’t like the answer but I will try anyway. The job if off limits because of the wisdom of the ages. Wishy Washy right? I said you would not like it.
In canadian common law society we decided to separate power from pompous. We decided (and when I say we I am going back all the way to england the the fight for a independent parliament) that is one person has power (head of government) and pompous (head of state) that person is likely to abuse it both. It is likely to try to to dominate society and be an authoritarian.
Britain did have a period where they did not had a monarch. Did not go very well. Spain, after it civil war could have also chosen to not have a monarch, they did not. I am sure you are familiar with other countries that have monarchies so I will not go to the list.
The monarchy is part of the british construct, and Canada is off-spring of that construct. Now you can argue that we should not be anymore a offspring of the british frameworks that we have “mature”, that we have “grown up”, that we have “our grown” our “colonial” past and so forth.
The fundamental question you have to ask yourself is this. Is Canada what it is today because of the british heritage or in spite of it? If you believe it is a hindrance then it make sense for you to not give any value to it. Some of us believe that it is fundamental to canadian identity, hence our effort to nourish and protect it.
Cheers and have a good Sunday
As I said this resolution is political gasoline.
A political party addressing important political questions?
Holy cow!
I watched an interview with Peter C. Newman last week and he’s predicting the end of the Liberal party. I would like to think not but, bringing forth controversial proposals like this isn’t helping them any. The Party claims to be inclusive but this proposal is divisive. If it passes, Monarchist like myself will be shut out. Considering how passionate people are just here on our message board, I can’t imagine what it would be like nation wide if the Liberals tried to change the constitution. I think they have a tiger by the tail and they better let go before it turns around and bites them.
So the end of the Liberal party are controversial policies? Well then what kind of policies are we supposed to put forward? Apple pie and butterflies? As we’ve seen during the past few years of minority government, all we’ve done as a party is oppose what the other side puts forward. We need to put forth bold proposals that will change things, even if not everyone in Canada will support them.
Okay let’s be bold. Close our borders. Do not let anyone into Canada until the Human Rights issues with our First Nations Peoples are resolved. This has got to be Canada’s greatest human rights challenge of the century. Imagine Canadian children without schools, without fresh water, having to use a slop-pail for a toilet,living in tents with temperature of minus -40. This is “discrimination”. The Monarch discussion is “sillly” in comparaison. Let’s keep our energy to discuss what we can do to help our own Canadian people. We have a responsibility to the world but we also have a responsibility to our own people. Liberals should champion this cause. Would it be at all possible to make – 2012 – Year of the First Nations Peoples of Canada ? Focus our energies on helping our own people.
Agreed Alexander -
look back at the debates around the maple leaf flag, the Constitution and gay rights. Many railed against the Liberal Party for flaunting tradition and bringing forward shocking ideas. The traditionalist refused to remove the union jack from anything nor have an ‘American-style’ written Constitution.
And look where it got the Party and Canada! Into a modern age.
I think this is a bold idea that fits into Canada’s natural progression from a colonial British outpost, to constitutional monarchy, to a full republic. This is not to forget history, that we will always have, but to modernize our institutions.
We need bold ideas indeed.
1. An pipeline from the oils sands to Ontario?
2. A Hydro Consortium between Quebec and the Atlactic provinces to sell energy to the US?
3. Hydro development in Manitoba and BC to get Saskatchewan and Alberta out of coal?
4. A CPP+ pension system that improve pensions?
5. A health care act that is based on performance?
6. A Integrate National Health Care systems that get rid off “out of your province expenses”?
Sorry guys, there are plenty of bold ideas. Get rid of the Monarch is not one of them.
I have enjoyed the discussion on this subject. Your right we have far moreimportant issues to sort out. That being the case let this resolution die on the convention floor.
0 /10 Marcos about getting rid of the Monarchy is not one of them. We need a non-alienating pan-Canadian Strategy to get us back where we belong. Getting rid of the Monarch is an alienating strategy that will lose us supporters. The West wants in but not by the Conservative propaganda masters. Quebec wants in but not by the Quebec Nationalists.
Time to find national issues that bind us like respecting the taxpayer wallet and getting out of debt.
That should read 10/10 NOT 0/10 Marco. Moderateors and editors any way to edit previous erroneous posts?
I’m sure the monarchist argument about adopting the Canadian flag and repatriating the Constitution were similar:
let’s not talk about it, let’s talk about other issues.
Sorry, this is the time. And avoidance is simply a tactic to win the argument by default, because status quo is ‘monarchy.’
Part of belonging to a political party is accepting the policies you believe in with those you do not.
I want to go back to when the Young Liberals brought gay marriage up as a motion in the year 2000. It generated a lot of debate with threats from some to leave the party. It was, however, an ethically correct motion that touched on the basic values of human rights. This the no different: is it ok for us to support an institution that shuts out domestic Canadians, non-Anglicans and anyone not from one family?
If this motion does not pass, I will stay a Liberal. I see the bigger picture. I will continue to fight to oust the monarchy, but I will support the party.
I would hope your support is deeper than that.
That is terrific Liberal thinking, and I salute you for it.
The thing I don’t understand about this push is, why must it equate removal of the Monarch as Head of State with becoming a Republic? I don’t want a Republic, therefore I must want to keep the British Head of State. But that isn’t necessarily true!
Oh, so what if its never been done before. This is our country and we can do whatever we like! And I like a parliamentary democracy (okay, not the one we have as is, but we can also fix those things to make it the way its supposed to work).
I apologize for commenting three times on this issue, but nobody has really responded to it.
British Head of State, Canadian Head of State, Australian Head of State, New Zealander Head of State all the same.
I have voted for the Liberals for over 40 years but there’s a limit to loyalty. I campaigned for Trudeau. Trudeau confirmed our country was a Constitutional Monarchy when he patriated the Constitution in ’82. At that time he could have made us a republic but instead did the opposite and entrenched the Monarchy in the Constitution. Trudeau was an intelligent human being who saw the importance of the Crown to the Nation. The Party today seems to have lost all contact with the people it’s suppose to care about (as the last election is a clear indication). I’m an individual and I do not follow a political party blindly. If the Liberal Party doesn’t care anymore for the institution I value then I feel very sorry for it.
Agreed with you there. Also some provinces were ready to go to London to veto the 1982 changes if Canada were to become a republic.
Monarchy is NOT entrenched in the Constitution. It’s a constitutional convention.
I do beleive that there are more pressing matters than whether or not we should cut our ties with the monarchy. The discussion is lively but, we must really be careful about how we come to our decisions… research and re-read our history. Don’t throw away an integral part of our cultrual fabric on a whim. Besides, this issue is far different than gay marriage, equal rights etc. Again, let’s get to more pressing matters for the time being, until we get ourselves out of the financial mess we are in thanks to greedy corporations supported by neo-cons such as Harper et al.
Discrimination against Canadians is always a priority, and thus why we must argue the monarchy motion.
This is not exclusively a white, british country and any Canadian should be able to aspire to be head of state in Canada.
Argue whatever you want, but I will simply keep reminding the convention that our country believes in equality of opportunity and has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In Canada, you can aspire to be Prime Minister of Canada, in a very democratic parlementary system. What is really important to you “power” for one person ? or “democracy” for the people of Canada ? In my view the end result is what counts. As long as we have democracy.
“Discrimination against Canadians is always a priority, and thus why we must argue the monarchy motion. This is not exclusively a white, british country and any Canadian should be able to aspire to be head of state in Canada.” – kdg
If the Queen were french, or of some other descent than British, could one still make the same arguement? The beauty of the Liberal ideal in the 20th century has been multiculturalism, that no matter your language, background or heritage you do not have to abandon those things to become Canadian, that your heritage is just as valid as everyone else’s. If we upend our whole structure of government because we’re on a vendetta to purge one part of the country’s heritage, lest it offend another, are we not abandoning that principle? If we create a new executive office so that one ambitious person can sate their desire to aspire to a more powerful office than PM, does that make us any more democratic or free?
I think you missed the point of my argument.
The monarch, by necessity must be exclusively from one country and religion. It just happens that this monarchy is British and Anglican.
I have nothing against Brits or Anglicans. I have a problem with a public institution that only allows Brits or Anglicans to be part of it, especially when that public institution is the head of a pluralistic nation.
The elected Prime Minister of Canada can be of any faith and culture.
But do any of us reflect all of Canada? Some people feel alienated by Harper because he’s an Albertan and Anglo. Michaelle Jean, as GG, was initially controversal to some being Haitan born with ties to seperatists, as opposed to being a Canadian born citizen with strong federalist credentials. The west did not embrace Trudeau or Chretien because he was an Eastern, french speaking politicians by and large. How many of us attacked Stockwell Day for his religious disposition (remember the dinosaurs?) and his lacklustre French during his time as Alliance leader? How many disliked Dion becuase of his lacklustre English?
The ideal that a change in the system will somehow reflect Canadians better, or eliminate any feelings of alienation is by our own history impractical. If we are to embrace the pluralism, the multiculturalism of Canada, some of that has to be our heritage. Of all the problems with our government, our society, our democracy I truly do not believe people will feel one ounce more liberated by making the nation a republic, and creating one more fractious political office for the parties to fight over. Voting reform? Yes. Reform parliament? Absolutely. Make the government more accountable, less secret, and less dictatorial? Yes, yes, yes. Taking the Queen off our money? At best, a silly sideshow.
If our democratic reforms don’t impart people with a feeling of efficacy, if we don’t really empower them, like we did with the Charter, then what’s the point?
Please stick to the issue:
There are discriminatory barriers based on religion and ethnicity built into the monarchy.
You seem to be arguing that discrimination is ok because ‘who really represents Canada’. Well, under the monarchy, it’s not a Canadian. Ever.
The Prime Minister of Canada represents Canada.
There is no discrimination.
Ryan Barber’s rebuttals are spot on.
Amen Nancy…this is my last post on this, hope it dies on the convention floor…
Sorry again for the typos.
Just noticed this is a constitutional matter and this resolution is illiberal in the Canadian sense as it stands. Unless an amendment to add ” subject to a national referendum” is added, this resolution MUST fail!
ludicrous!- for a party that is desperately trying to re-build, to even discuss such a dividing issue – especially when 58% of Canadians support the monarchy (Angus Reid summer 2011), and the county turned out in droves for the recent Royal visit. This motion must be soundly defeated.
Ray Dawes
Hi Ray,
That is one poll. For every poll like that there are four others that say that Canadians are indifferent to the Monarchy or would like to see ties severed. You should really check out
http://www.canadian-republic.ca
to see a more comprehensive list of statistics about how Canadians really feel about the so-called Royals.
I know you’ll be rushing to check it out….
The question asked might have been misleading for example: “Should the Head-of-State of Canada be a Canadian ?”. People might have automatically thought they were refering to the Prime Minister of Canada, others might have thought, the Governor General, or other. The question to have ask should have been: “Should the Queen/King of Canada be Canadian ?”
What about the millions of Canadians who stayed home, as opposed to the hundreds who showed up?
They stayed in the comfort of their own home to watch on Television to get a better view. At least a Billion people around the world were watching Canada. In my view, that’s huge ! It’s excellent international publicity for Canada. No other head of state of the world, event, celebrity or visit can compare. They provide much value to Canada. I’m surprised that my Liberals colleagues can’t see the value in the Monarchy.
Spot on Rayes. Why are we not learning from our recent defeats?
One last -over the top- attempt to point out what I believe is obvious:
The British Empire and by extension The Monarchy or vice versa were evil.
The current resident Royals may be innocuous by comparison to their forebears but why should we celebrate that part of our history by maintaining a “Royal” as our Head of State when they are, in fact, the beneficiaries of centuries of crimes perpetrated on the world.
Here are a couple of links to a book and promo clip for same that, while hyperbolic and meant to be almost humourous touch on some sad truths in broad strokes. (There is a glaring inaccuracy about Canada in 1914 in the video – but hey, I guess the author is American).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEyqwTkXmDw
http://www.evilempirebook.com/
And you forget 1931 while you are at it.
If I’m correct you need unanimous consent of the Feds and the Provinces to change the Constitution in regards to the Monarchy. I don’t think you’ll get that.
Can anyone tell me when the Feds and the Provinces voted unanimously, in agreement, on an important issue like this?
Saskatchewan is loyal to the Monarchy (Regina just built a statue to HRH in front of the Sask. legislature) I doubt very much they would vote to end their ties.
And I can imagine what Conservative Alberta would say when the Liberal Party ask if they can replace the Royals so a liberal has a chance to become head of states.
Victoria, the capital of B.C. will be delighted, I’m sure, to give up their tourism link to Britain (a little bit of England on the coast).
And let’s not forget the United Empire Loyalist in Ontario and the Maritimes long cultural links to the mother country.
No… I doubt you’ll get unanimous consent on this one.
This will fail the 7/50 rule in the Current Constitution
Section of the 1982 Constitution Act:
’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;’
I read this that a unanimous consent of the federal Gov’t and the provinces is needed to change the Monarchy. Am I incorrect?
If we put it to the people in a national referendum, the legislatures will have to pass it. This is the best way to do it.
Exactly!! This motion shpuld be subject to national referendum going forth. Do we need a Royal Commission?
Well yes because people need to know what they’re voting for. We can’t just say to them, “do you want top abolish the monarchy.” We need the commission to come up with the proposal of what exactly would happen, and then we’d put it to Canadians in a vote.
The resolution as stated above does not call for a national referendum.
I forgot to add the city of Regina Sk is also nicknamed ‘The Queen city’. The west is booming (SK and Alberta both), and I don’t think they’re going to give up what they value just because and ‘eastern’ party want’s them too. And why should they. The days when Ontario and Quebec can dictate their agenda’s on the rest of the country is over.
One would think that Section 29 of the Carter of Rights & Freedoms would have a greater impact in terms of inequality and multi-culturalism. No one seems to have made this a subject of a priority motion.
In the 21st century should not this be stricken completely from the charter?
Does it not have a larger impact on a larger portion of the Canadian population?
Would we not be better served by a one public school system, and the all others to be considered private for the provinces to deal with as they wish?
There is large international support for this, why not Liberal support?
This is an opportunity to label the Conservatives as being such advocates of foreign monarchies that they take Canadian dollars to give to the Royals rather than supporting Canadians. It would be incredibly popular in Quebec. It is an issue that Canadians could feel emotional about. Especially if Charles were to be the head of state come the next election.
And let’s not forget the principle of democracy. Are we a society that believes in giving power and privilege to individuals just because they were born?
What about we Liberals who support the Monarchy? Are we to be labelled with the Conservatives as supporters of “foreign monarchies’ as well?
I’d say they should give serious thought to that stance. Canada will forever have its ties to the United Kingdom. It’s a part of Canadian history we can and should be proud of. However this party needs to make drastic changes. It needs to be fresh and ready with new ideas. If the Liberals are serious about restoring democracy and championing a Canada where any person no matter their ethnicity or creed can achieve greatness then that promise needs to be carried out fully. And I don’t believe using taxpayers hard earned money to fund such an institution is fiscally responsible and I think most Canadians would agree with me if this message was brought to them.
Matt that is not going to work. In would backfire and we get labelled ‘out of touch’.
How so, Dave? The monarchy isn’t universally endorsed in Canada. This is an opportunity the Liberals can grab. Just presenting the party as the middle men isn’t going to win seats. There needs to be things that make us unique. Holding the Conservative government accountable for this kind of spending helps our cause. It illustrates their priorities to the voters and that’s our gain. Is it one issue that would win an election? Obviously not. But we need to be looking at adopting unique views, views many Canadians hold but aren’t being endorsed, and using them to our gain.
The monarchy might not be universally endorsed in Canada, but neither would abolishing it. What’s more even republicans can disagree what kind of republic they want to establish. As a wedge issue this could fracture us, much like The Green Shift saw opponents of our plan go to the Conservatives and NDP if they were more left or right, and even saw a number go to the Greens who then tried to one up us. Support wise we can’t expect all those that might like to get rid of the monarchy to vote for us (or vote at all) if we do this, and we’ll definatley loose those that want to keep the institution as is.
I think you’ve risen fair points. I can’t disagree with you. If we are to abolish the monarchy then we need a clear replacement that we and Canadians can believe in. It would have to be something that inspires Canadians to rally towards. That’s why I’m advocating change. We need a fresh vision of Canada we believe in and others will too. Just keeping the same old positions will not bode well. We can’t be the naturally governing party of the 20th century. We need to be Canada’s new party of optimism with new visions for Canada and creative ideas. I’m going off track but I think you get the idea.
This is a formula for keeping the west Conservative. You seem to think ALL canadians secretly want a republic and all you have to do is bring forth a policy to change that and Canadians will just jump on the band wagon. I would think you would see by now that MANY people favour the Monarchy, undemocratic with worts and all, and WE DON”T MIND PAYING FOR IT. The west DOES NOT want to change it. You may convince Ontario and Quebec to change, but what about the rest of the country or does the Liberal party not care what the rest of us think and remain a minority party.
There’s something wrong with this motion. It’s taken me a while to put my finger on it, but after writing a few rebuttals I think I’ve got it. While I do prefer our current model of government and believe it would be unwise to pursue a republic for a republic’s sake, it’s the negativity and vagueness of the wording of the motion, reflected in the periodic negativity and confusion that has taken place in this debate, that’s made it flawed and unworthy of the vote of even republican minded delegates.
Eliminating the monarchy, in the context of this motion, is a destructive action with no clear creative intent. The Liberal Party has always been famous for building new institutions in Canadian society, and finding new ways to broader people’s freedom. Whether you favour a republic or the status quo constitutional- monarchy, you favour a working model of government. This resolution doesn’t suggest what model of government would be put in place if we were to eliminate the Queen as our nominal head of state, it merely suggests we tear the top branch of the parliamentary institution down, as if any other option would be better.
Liberals don’t tear things down for the sake of tearing things down, and then say “come what may”.
When we repatriated the constitution we didn’t just leave things where they might lay, we created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enhancing our democracy, making the effort worthwhile by building on what came before. The motion, as written, gives no indication what we should replace the Queen with, as head of state, nor does it indicate how this might make Canada better or greater. Under this resolution we’d leave it to a committee to come up with a new model of government, and settle for whatever they came up with. Is that terribly inspiring? Will that make people want to become Liberals?
For those of you that favour the republican option, and see Canada one day adopting a different system, I want you to thoughtfully consider how that might come about. In Australia when they held their referendum on the issue they did so amidst overwhelming polls that showed people favoured a republic, and were generally indifferent to the monarchy. As the campaign began though the republican campaign, much larger and stronger than its rival, began to fragment as people started to ask what type of republic they were getting. Some wanted to keep the status quo more or less, just making the PM top boss and giving them more power. Others wanted more of an American style presidency, and others still opted for a myriad of different checks, balances and structures, some centralizing power, others dispersing it. The end result was by election day the Aussie’s voted to keep the Queen, not out of any particular love, but because the republican message was so muddled people didn’t want to vote for a system they didn’t know, with the possibility that parts might be contrary to what they might like to see.
Canada, in my estimation, is nowhere near the level of dissatisfaction with the monarchy that the Australians were before their referendum and for that reason I’ve already argued this would be a politically damaging policy that would not appeal to many current and former Liberal voters we need to win back. But, assuming I’m wrong on that count, or in the coming years similar trends develop as did in Australia that make people want to pursue eliminating the monarchy, do you believe they would support a party that couldn’t articulate what model of government they’d replace it with? Imagine the spin by our detractors? Do we propose instead a more American system, or something new and untested? Will be hold a referendum on the issue, or will we try and settle things Meech Lake style? Will we check the power of the PM, or will we combine the offices? Without clear articulation we would, in adopting this motion, bring ourselves to division even amongst our republic-minded members, and needless to say alienate and eliminate all others.
The Young Liberals have always been at the forefront of pushing for change, controversial or not, and we’ve always had good reason to be proud of them for it. That said, this is not their best work. I confess, I have a soft spot for the Queen, and maybe that has coloured my vision, but if I were republic-minded I’d want something more concrete, something better worded and less adversarial, and something more constructive than this motion. The politics of division are what we often accuse our opponents of employing, and that’s what this motion, as worded, sounds like. Liberalism is about being constructive, and that’s something we should demand of all motions at this convention, whether we ultimately favour them or not, and why I think this motion, whatever people’s feelings towards the Queen, will not pass.
And yes, I know I’m waaaaay too long winded for a discussion board. Thought I’d best head that off at the pass.
You want to see the LPC be back in power very soon, namely in the next election.
Too good not to post and really apropos to the conversation here:
The Hamilton Spectator
J.L. Granatstein
Mon Jan 09 2012
http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/651167–the-secret-tory-plan-revealed
The secret Tory plan revealed
Leaked memo is a ‘modest proposal’ to swiftly remake Canada
Prime Minister Harper, we are told, is trying to remake Canadian patriotism, pushing it away from Liberal-instituted symbols, peacekeeping, and the Pearson-Trudeau traditions. He has already restored the Royal designation to the Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Navy, much to the shock of many of those serving and to all republicans outside the military.
But now the Conservative government’s secret plans can be revealed, thanks to a plain brown envelope with a memorandum to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff that popped over my transom on New Year’s Day. The scope is simply breathtaking.
The army is to revert to British-style battle dress and puttees, and the Lee-Enfield rifle that won the two world wars will be brought back into service. The RCAF will be equipped with hand-built Spitfires, bound to cost less than F-35s. And the RCN will build a brand new, perfect in every detail, HMCS Niobe, that will not go to sea but will be docked next to the navy’s unuseable (British-built!) submarines. And to top it off, the strategic planners at National Defence Headquarters will draw up plans for a Canadian Expeditionary Force to be shipped to England in case the European Union, led by the Germans and the perfidious French, try to invade to make the Brits adopt the Euro. We shall fight them on the beaches!
But that is only one part of Harper’s daring plan. The Order of Canada will be scrapped, and knighthoods and titles will be restored. The KBE and KCB will become eagerly sought for once again. And there will be more. Can you believe Brian, Duke of Baie Comeau (his ducal crest will portray three cash-stuffed envelopes on a field of Airbus aircraft), or Adrienne, Marchioness of the Annex (with her motto reading “I’m Adrienne Clarkson and you’re not”). And if the Tories need electoral help in Quebec next election, the leaked memo suggests that making Lucien Bouchard the Viscomte de Québec might help. The new Canadian aristocrats, or so the plan goes, will sit in the “reformed” Senate or, as it is to be called, the House of Lords and Ladies.
The Governor-General’s post never again will go to CBC journalists or aged professors. Only British aristocrats will be considered, and the GG will wear Windsor uniform, including the cocked hat. To top this all off, Canada Post will revert to its original name, the Royal Mail, and royal coats of arms will be put on every repainted red mailbox. The mail service is dying, but the government planners somehow believe that this will increase revenues by at least 7 per cent in 2013.
At the same time, Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism, will be despatched to Britain to recruit immigrants. The government expects tens of thousands to flee the coming collapse of the U.K. economy, Scottish independence, and the death of the Celtic tiger. These new Canadians will speak English (after a fashion), understand our constitution at least as well as the native born, and will integrate readily. Immigrants from other parts of the world will no longer be allowed to cross their fingers behind their backs when swearing allegiance to the Queen.
Moreover, British pronunciations and terms will be encouraged. Many Canadians still pronounce lieutenant as “leftenant,” but now it will be a misdemeanour (thanks to a clause that no one noticed in the government’s sweeping anti-crime legislation) not to do so. It will be the same for “lift” instead of elevator and “boot” instead of trunk. Fortunately, the original plan, developed in the PMO, to adopt the British practice of driving on the “wrong” side of the road was dropped as too costly — and too dangerous.
There is much more, too much for a short column. A few tidbits: the Liberal prime ministers on Canadian money, Laurier and King, will be replaced by royals — apparently Prince Charles is to be on the $50, and Edward VIII, perhaps with Wallis “the woman I love” Simpson at his side, on the $5. The Stratford Shakespearean Festival and the Shaw Festival will be encouraged (by threatening to withhold grants) to show only Shakespeare and Shaw — no more attempts to broaden offerings. The Maple Leaf flag will now be flown only with the Union Jack and Red Ensign alongside, and always one metre lower.
And hardest of all to manage, when Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (the “Rottweiler” to Lady Di), come to visit this summer, the media will be encouraged, i.e., warned, to be nice to them. Good luck.
This is a sweeping plan, and the prime minister has directed that it proceed at full speed. “I want to remake Canada,” the memo quotes him. And so he might do.
When not receiving leaked memos, J.L. Granatstein is senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.
Please!! Taking about grasping at straws!!
Mind you if the Prime Minister of the Day were to support William and not Charles for the throne, I would be all for that.
But Dave, why wouldn’t you support Charles for the throne? Who wouldn’t want to see His Majesty King Charles, the serial adulterer, as the King of Canada.
Two points of order:
1) Your post mocks that the Lee Enfield Rifle will be brought back into service. As it happens Canada never stopped using it. The Canadian Rangers, our arctic reserve forces, still use it as although old it is one of the only rifles that doesn’t jam up under the extreme condidtions of the cold. FYI
2) Bill Clinton was a serial adulterer, and it didn’t bring him down, so I’m not sure what that raises. Charles isn’t popular like the rest of them, agreed (and the fact he chose Camilla over Dianna was a bit odd in many eyes) but this is really trivial in the grand scheme of things and I don’t see what bearing it makes in this debate; unless the Liberal Party is planning on adopting a policy in hopes the Queen soon passes on, Charles takes the helm and is wildly unpopular, everyone looses their star strucked-ness with his eldest son and daughter-in-law and someone this makes the monarchy the winning issue that defines the Liberals for the next quarter to half century… but somehow, I doubt that.
Hi Ryan,
I won’t take credit for an article written by Jack Granatstein… famous Canadian military historian and veteran who you clearly know more than…
I do like and hope your second point scenario comes to pass as it would preclude the inevitable celebrity love-in with Wills and Kate…
You got my point John.
Ryan Barber raises some good points regarding the implementation of this resolution.
The Liberal Party, if it is going to champion the cause of an unabashedly democratic, egalitarian, monarchy-free Canada, should proceed with care and diligence.
The fact is, however, that Canada is already so close to being an egalitarian democracy that the necessary changes will not be excessively disruptive.
Let’s consider what will change, operationally, if we designate the Governor-General as our Head of State? (Personally, I’m in favour of changing the title when our ties with British monarchy are cut, but lets suppose that even the title remains the same).
The chief advantage will be that the GG will no longer be saddled with two, sometimes incompatible, sets of responsibilities: 1) representative of the Queen 2) acting Head of State of Canada.
For any who doubt that conflicts of interest arise from this duality, consider the situation the position the GG was in during the war in Iraq. Britain was enthusiastically involved, we weren’t. It was impossible for our GG to uphold our position, even nominally, because she was also a representative of the Head of State of a country that had taken the opposite view.
When we cut out ties to monarchy the GG’s responsibility will be to represent Canada and its values, to uphold the rights and freedoms of Canadians as expressed in our constitution, etc.
If we’re basically happy with Canada’s political system we could even allow the PM to continue appointing the GG and, other than the removal of an unwieldy restraint on its ability to serve Canadian interests, the post would change very little.
Again, personally, I hope we will be more adventurous and consider other options in selecting our Head of State which may have the effect of strengthening Canadian democracy, but the point is that this initiative can be advanced as describing a minimally disruptive course of action if it appears that there is no national appetite for more far-reaching changes.
Ryan Barber is correct in saying that the position must be articulated with care and consideration. I remind you, though, that the resolution calls only for an all-party committee to “study” the matter and, presumably, consider the options.
I support it wholeheartedly as it stands.
Very good points – the motion is to put in place the infrastruture in the Party to start looking at the options, whether that be monarchy, republic, an elected GG.
There is too much ‘the Sky is falling’ talk coming from pro-monarchists.
I for one prefer to elect a GG as representative that the PM appointing
When I observed, in my last post, that Canada is already close to being an egalitarian democracy, I should have added that the Liberal Party can take much of the credit for this.
In this light, even though it has done more for Canadian egalitarianism, democracy and independence than any other party, the Liberals also have a heightened responsibility to take a leadership role in advocating for the next step.
I think all these discussions and point reveal how controvercial this issues is and brings to light the following:
1. Anyone who thinks this change to a republic will be smooth is dreaming. It will be messy.
2. The issue is an emotional one and will open old wounds when brought forward to discuss (french & english – plains of abraham, etc.)
3. The liberal party is favouring the young people over the “Baby Boomers” (who will be voting against becoming a republic). It’s a big mistake to ignore this voting block for they are active and more likely to vote than young people).
4. A lot of time and money will be spent in getting this even to the Constitutional phase and it’s obvious, considering what you need in terms of federal & Provincial agreement, that there’s no guarantee it will pass even at this stage.
So the question remains is it worth the effort. I say no for the following reason. The economist predict the world’s economy isn’t out of the woods yet and that things will get worse and it may take ten years or so to get the economy to recover. Does the Liberal Party want to be blamed for wasting time and taxpayer’s money on an issue which most Canadians couldn’t care less about. The liberal party should seriously think about whether this issue could be their version of ‘Meech Lake’. The whole thing ending in disaster.
This would be dangerously divisive like we saw in Meech Lake Debate?
From the author of the must read Harperland, Lawrence Martin nails this issue, as well, in today’s Globe:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/is-dropping-the-monarchy-the-new-liberal-frontier/article2296609/
Aren’t there more important things to talk about? When the Liberals gather in Ottawa this weekend for a conference on the future of the party, one of the bigger items on the agenda will be the monarchy.
The Liberals’ youth wing is pushing to cut the final cord with Britain. It favours a policy resolution calling for the election of a Canadian as head of state. The party has occasionally flirted with such notions, but they’ve never taken wing. And now would hardly appear to be propitious timing.
With the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton giving it a big image boost, the monarchy has been showing signs of revitalization in Canada. The Conservative government has gone to considerable lengths to reconnect with royalty, an example being its rebranding of our navy and air force.
So why would the Grits want to mess with this harmless, symbolic institution when many other vital issues are before them?
In fact, there are many reasons, some of which make sense.
One is that the party, condemned as lost in the middle, lost in the past and fading into irrelevance, needs a new vision. Becoming new, as some genius once concluded, means turning away from the old. Moving the country to its final stage of independence certainly has a modernizing look.
The monarchy is hanging on in many countries, but it’s hardly the way of the future. In Jamaica, the new Prime Minister, Portia Simpson Miller, has just announced that her country will complete the cycle of independence by initiating the process of becoming a republic.
In Canadian history, the cycle of independence has been authored chiefly by the Liberal Party. It was under the Liberals in 1929 that the Statute of Westminster, which eliminated much of Britain’s authority to make laws for Canada, was negotiated. It was under Lester Pearson in 1965 that Canada got its own flag. It was under Pierre Trudeau in 1982 that the Constitution was patriated. It’s natural that the Liberals should be the party that takes the final step.
A decoupling from the monarchy would be popular in Quebec, the province where that institution, for obvious reasons, is least popular. The Liberals need to rebuild their old base in Quebec. The monarchy move would help.
The monarchy is most popular with older Canadians, a demographic that the Conservatives have well in hand. But if you’re looking to be the party of the future, it’s the younger generations to whom you must appeal. Although William and Kate were a big hit in Canada with all age groups, the monarchy is less relevant to the younger set. And it’s less relevant to an increasingly multiethnic Canada.
The Liberals could use a severing of royalty ties as a gateway to something bigger – a modernization and reform of our ailing democratic system. Liberals are already talking about reducing the powers that any new leader of their party would have. Many also favour the idea of restructuring the divisions of powers in Ottawa so as to reverse the long-time trend toward one-man rule. But they’ve yet to come up with good ideas for the creation of a new democracy, one befitting the 21st century, one that could see them dealing with Senate reform or abolition as well.
To speak of doing away with ties to the monarchy or any grand reform reordering the power structure is difficult from a practical standpoint, in that it would likely require a constitutional amendment supported by the provinces.
But the Liberals should at least give some consideration to the proposal being put forward by their youth wing. This is a party in need of a big idea, in need of a new frontier.
Long Behold I go check on the guardian what is going on in Jamaica and what do I discover. Yes the PM from Jamaica does want to sever the links with the Monarchy. And what is the contention issue? Elected Head of State? Equality? Nope. Based on The Guardian article Jamaica wants to bring back the death penalty and outlaw homosexuality. In case you are curious you can find the article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/08/jamaica-goodbaye-queen?newsfeed=true
It’s time for Jamaica to say goodbye to the Queen
We love the accent and the BBC, but we are dropping the royal brand and want independence
André Wright
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 8 January 2012 18.28 GMT
larger | smaller
Portia Simpson Miller, leader of the People’s National Party, at the victory rally of the parliamentary elections in Kingston, Jamaica, 29 December 2011. Photograph: Collin Reid/AP
A friend of mine once told me how her son, then eight years old, had thrown a tantrum and threatened to walk out on her. She dared him. Fuming, he packed and prepared to set out. He never did. By nightfall he realised that his bravado couldn’t survive the big, bad world outside.
His reaction is emblematic of Jamaica’s relationship with the UK. There has always been rage against Britain, for almost 200 years of slavery and more than 100 years as a wrung-out colonial dishrag. But we’ve generally huffed and puffed and done nothing about it.
Now Jamaica has seemingly summoned up the cojones to go one better than my friend’s son: it’s putting out the old lady (in this case, the Queen).
The pledge of the new prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller, to sever Jamaica’s umbilical link with the British monarchy has won her populist praise from citizens who are, paradoxically, fierce anticolonialists and passionate Anglophiles. In her inaugural address last Thursday, Simpson Miller warned that the sun was setting on the British empire’s last vestige of “ownership”. She declared: “We now need to complete the circle of independence … Time come!”
Of course, a vow to detach from the monarchy, with an “indigenous president as head of state”, is nothing new. Buckingham Palace does not exert control over Jamaica’s political affairs. Not the budget. Not policy. Not the price of bread. But a country that has produced a pan-African Marcus Garvey, an anti-establishment Bob Marley and a royalist-resistant Rastafarian movement has always chafed at the notion of Europe having titular claim to our shores.
Many Jamaicans consider it offensive and outdated to have retained a governor general as a figurehead of “our” Queen. What are the benefits? After all, there is no automatic right to British citizenship by virtue of having the Queen. Hell, some Jamaicans sweat it out on the sidewalk outside the British high commission before being allowed to undergo screening for a visitor’s visa.
And there are other sentiments that embitter the brew. Calls to replace London’s judicial committee of the privy council with the Caribbean court of justice, as Jamaica’s final appellate jurisdiction, have triggered debate. Many Jamaicans believe the privy council has sought to obstruct capital punishment. A culturally less tone-deaf CCJ, the argument goes, would allow regional governments to hang some hoodlums.
With a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives and needing only one vote from the opposition in the senate, the odds are in favour of Simpson Miller making good on her promise to disengage from the privy counsellors.
But the belief that heads will roll and crime will plummet once the CCJ takes over is for the gullible: only a handful of Jamaicans are on death row. Simpson Miller, who is serving her second term as prime minister after her People’s National party kicked out the Jamaica Labour party in the 29 December election, is aware that there is political mileage in this emotional issue. If she’s smart, she’ll milk it for all it’s worth.
But here’s the contradictory bit. In an opinion poll commissioned by the Gleaner newspaper, 60% of Jamaicans said they believed the country would have been better off had it remained a colony of Britain. Only 17% said the country would be worse off.
This is not only the nostalgia of senior citizens who grew up pre-independence; even younger generations view neighbouring British dependencies such as the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands as having a higher quality of life. Why?
They don’t notch 1,000 murders annually. They don’t have sprawling slums. And per capita GDP in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands dwarfs Jamaica’s.
We love Britain: its fish’n'chips; the adorable accent; the BBC; the pounds sterling in immigrant remittances; The stiff upper lip. the ability to impose law, order, propriety. We just don’t want the royal brand.
Folks are also angry at David Cameron’s threat to withdraw aid from Commonwealth countries such as Jamaica that criminalise “buggery”. The overwhelming rebuke from letter writers and talk-show callers was: “Bugger off, Britain! Keep your money.”
Simpson Miller finally has the mandate she missed out on in the 2007 general election. Now, she’s seeking to define her legacy. And Britain will just have to deal with the sore reality of a Jamaican boot to Regina’s royal rump
Opps,, I think I meant to say Lo and Behold.. : )
Neither a big idea nor a new frontier. I wonder if Harper’s ghostwriter is the real person who penned this?
DEATH TO THE LIBERAL PARTY if you adopt this treasonous Resolution!!! I was a member of the Liberal Party during the early 1990s, but I quit as the Party more a more became a Party of the lunatic fringe. This Resolution clearly indicates that many Liberals have not gotten the message Canadians sent them in the last Election: you are becoming a Party of loonies! If the Liberals were to be stupid enough to adopt this Resolution, they will turn themselves into the ENEMY of Canada in the minds of all Canadian Loyalists, and then they will surely fade into oblivion. It would seem that Sam Lavoie, Chair of the Young Liberals of Canada, is a Quebecois nationalist and not a French-Canadian loyalist. You cannot claim to be loyal to Canada if you’re not loyal to Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George-Etienne Cartier, Alexander Galt and the Fathers of Confederation, and the great Royal Canada they bestowed upon us. For those of you whose allegiance is to the ethic of George Washington, well, his republic is still there if that suits your fancy. Get out of Canada, and good riddance!!!
If you were a member of the Liberal party in the 90s why are you contributing to this forum? Clearly you no longer value the party enough to be part of it. Secondly, it would seem that you, not the Liberal party, is part of the lunatic fringe, as you believe that anyone who doesn’t worship “Royal Canada” or the Fathers of Confederation you mention should’t be Canadian.
The Liberal Party is proposing changes to Canada, and every Canadian Citizen has a right to comment on their proposals! Since banging one’s head against a wall is pointless, so too was staying in a Liberal Party that left the Canadian mainstream.
The following Facebook Page summarizes the intellectual bankruptcy of the republican agenda, and how it would end up destroying Canada.
Republicans are actually nihilists out to destroy Canada
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=201795206581394&id=201793619914886
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Republicans-are-actually-nihilists-out-to-destroy-Canada/201793619914886?sk=wall
Spot on Terry
^ by Mr. Terry Mester ^
Hey, you may as well own it if you’re going to spew it…
I am constitutional monarch and would look at another alternative to the LPC if they adopted republicanism, but yikes you are angrier than me.
In 2014 Scotland will be voting on a referendum to separating from the UK. If they succeeded this may reinvigorate the Quebec separatist and we’ll be back fighting old battles. Who should be our Head of State may be the least of our worries.
Agreed, you will never satisfy separatists. They are like spoiled brats.
On a more positive note…
I think it would be more constructive to propose that we use our existing traditions to have Prince William govern for a term as Governor General in Canada at Rideau Hall and give the entire country an opportunity to experience in a more direct way how the Monarch of the future can play a role in Canada.
Liberals of the 21st Century ! Onward ! Forward ! March !
But, using your own argument in favour of keeping a monarchy in Canada (‘tradition’), that would be squarely against the tradition of hereditary bloodlines.
And by the way, to change the Laws of Succession involves asking the BRITISH Parliament to change its statutes.
No, Amanda, no… I think having Prince Charles and Camilla being tag-team GGs trading off week to week with all of the members of Parliament, both male and female, wearing red and white fascinators in honour of their presence is a much better idea, don’t you!?!
That’s a cool idea.
Merci Dave.
Je le crois aussi. C’est positive seulement qu’à y penser.
This has to be the worst idea I’ve ever seen. Neither most Canadians nor Prince William would support this.
To all of the monarchists arguing against this motion:
Go look at the debates surrounding the adoption of the maple leaf flag and the repatriation of the Constitution. You make exactly the same arguments that were used against a Canadian flag and domestic Constitution.
And guess what? Here we stand, a strong country even without the British.
My Canada includes the Bilingual Constitutional Monarchy Quebec Ontario Thw West the Atlantic and the North and excludes the Republicans and the Separatists. Wear that on a T-Shirt
The monarchy is a unique part of the Canadian identity and Canadian culture. To excise this institution from the country would require a drawn out and burdensome constitutional procedure. To me, this would be a frivolous exercise. Our energies should be directed towards the multitude of other policies that can actually benefit Canadians and make a difference in the world.
I would be forced to search long and hard for a new place to park my vote if the party ever adopted a measure such as this.
Either Green or Progressive Canadians or form a new Canada Patriots PArty.
The introducer is definitely using the US CIA Handbook on Head of State Policy!
Using the logic of the Monarchists, one could go much further into history and suggest that the Royal family are all heretics for having left the Roman Catholic Church. That is obviously crazy but no more crazy than saying that “republicans” are xenophobic nihilists and that we can’t have a non-Windsor family Head of State for risk of being “traitors” to Her supposed Majesty the Queen.
I think you’ll find out if you actually cared to look that the majority of Canadians have never sworn allegiance to the Queen and would feel strange if someone told them they had to and with good reason – the “Queen” is just a person who does not deserve her special status nor our allegiance.
I wouldn’t have commented again but I keep receiving notices in my email of Dave Yadallee’s inane slanders on this thread. Is there a way to switch that feature – and him – off?
I am relieved this was turned down. As the one speaker said, who wants to hear “President Harper”. I think for the Liberals to lead this would lose us a lot of support. Thanks to the NO voters.
Too many on the pro side sounds as if there are using USA foreign policy to win this argument.
Carolyn Bennett is spot on!!
Anyone recalls why the British North America Act?
Right on aboriginals!! Indigenous rocks!!!
DEfeated 2 to 1 !! Yes!!!!
Patriotism and Republicanism is not in the same sentence in Canada!!
Well done folks, now let’s get on with the hard work ahead.
Remember Thomas More and the other murdered parliamentarians throughout history… one day Canadian society will be free of the last ugly and perverse shadows of Monarchy.
Ohh please John, spare us the drama. Anti-Mornarchist created this motion, they presented their arguments and they got defeated. Don’t be such a sore looser. And in case you did not know, Thomas More was catholic and the Vatican is also a Monarchy.
Marcos,
History speaks for itself and will scoff at what fools Monarchists are – especially Canadian ones…
I’m not being a sore loser as I am 100% behind the party, whatever hijacking the Monarchist League made out of it – unlike you Monarchist sucks who all blew long and hard about how you’d take your votes elsewhere had you lost.
Monarchists voices expressed their strongest opposition to a motion that go against what they considered a fundamental aspect of what they believe to be Canadian. I don’t think they can be blame for that.
On a different note, I believe you weakens your argument when you call those who disagree with you “monarchist sucks”.
What else would you call Liberals who would vote Conservative if they didn’t get their resolution passed?
…sycophants…
…or whatever word you want to use to describe those who like to feel subjugated…
What word I would used? Loyal. : )
You sound like Rousseau that predicated that people should be “forced to be free”. If individual freedom gives people choice, what is wrong in choosing the monarchy?
What really is bugging you is the fact that people chose to not have the freedom to run for head of state. That is what is bugging you. You cannot understand why someone would forsake such freedom.
No Marcos, what is bothering me is, as you said, philosophically, I do not accept the validity of even the concept of a Monarch – thus, even less that one would be our head of state.
But this argument is over for now as the Monarchists won today.
I’d invite you to investigate the history of the opening day of Parliament and why the Black Rod knocks on the door of the Commons and why the Speaker feigns resistance to take his seat… not a pretty story and one more reason.
Several people on this forum said they would leave the party… and Monarchism is a fundamentally Conservative value, so….
Good night and good luck, Marcos…
by the way, I don’t believe anybody said they would vote conservative. At least not in this forum.
or in this case defeated…
At least twice in the last few years the failure of the Governor General to protect democracy gave good reasons to move to a more effective head of state model… but obtuse political arguments are hard to win against cultish irrational allegiance to a deity figure…
To a majority of Canadians the Monarchy is meaningless and now just totally inconvenient to get rid of due to our Constitution’s recursive references to “the Crown”. Republicanism is better because it is democratic – that requires that you believe in democracy – something that by definition Monarchists can not wholly believe in, I suppose.
Ultimately, fear of the unknown and total indifference won the day.
Marcos, you’re saying, in a very rambling way that you believe that the Windsor family has a divine right to be a “Royal” family “Monarchs” and this is your mythical “Paradox”. “It’s self evident that human beings are equal” – except a family of aristocrats that some Canadians decide to worship like cult members. Whatever you like… enjoy it while you can. Your gang gets to continue to help foist that on Canadians for the foreseeable future but not forever…. give it a generation or two and the mention of Kings and Queens will just be met with the derisive laughter it deserves.
That’s it for me… I’m not answering any more pseudo-philisophical posts here because ultimately Monarchists are infinitely blinded by their fanatical obedience to their sovereign.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité.
The republican proposition was bound to fail. You and your republican friends are, until now, unable to articulate why a republican is better. So you are left to “trash the monarchy” in order to persuade people to change.
Maybe republicans don’t believe the republican ideal would inspire people or maybe they don’t know how exactly to share their ideal. Regardless of the reason, this proposition and much of the arguments you and the other republicans on this forum used were more anti-monarchist than pro-republic.
In a sense the republican project suffers from the law of diminishing returns. It is very hard to say that Canada has done badly under the monarchy. It is very hard to argue that canadians lack in freedom or individual liberty, it is very hard to argue that somehow the Windsors are oppressing canadians. So what really is left to argue against? You tried, unsuccessfully, to play Britain’s past against the monarchy. Of course it did not work.
During our discussion I often involved the philosophical aspect of the monarchy, and I also used the word paradox. Since now the debate is over I would like to put a question to you.
1) Are you familiar with the expression “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”? It is from the American constitution.
There are a couple of interesting paradoxs surrounding this phrase. Note that it is used to promote the notion of equality in the same way you tried to use the charter. However the phrase itself acknowledges unequal beings. There is the creator (who created men) and there is men (who was created equal).
Who created men? Was it nature? A God? the phrase does not answer.
In addition to that, one could argue that slavery and women subjugation ( to borrow your term) would had finished right there, right then. If men are created equal, how come slavey can be justified? Of course we know that slavery went on and on and it took a civil war to get rid off it.
Would you have any comments on that?
Well we tried. I spoke for it and voted for it, and we gave it our best shot. I’ll admit that there were issues (the question of Aboriginals, how the Head of State would have been selected) that we didn’t make as clear as possible. There were several failings with our campaign that made that hurt our cause. The no side made a much better case than we did, and I congratulate them. But it’s not over. We have people in our camp (including Marc Garneau, MP from Westmount-Ville Marie, who spoke) and we will be back. It took many attempts over many years to finally patriate the Constitution. One day, we’ll have our own Head of State, and I hope it will be the Liberals who make it happen. Until then, we’ll do all we can. In the end, we’re on the right side of history.
Ahh. A reasoned voice.
You are quite right, now we can have a calm discussion (where both sides listen, unlike what this thread has devolved into). I congratulate you on a well-fought (by which I mean respectful and passionate) campaign.
I hope we can have the same calm discussion with the subject of my own fight (we lost, too) on our electoral system.
I want to thank all Liberal Party Delegates who voted for the Party to remain LOYAL to Canada’s 515 year history.
To you republican nihilists: this Resolution was not about the future of the Canadian Monarchy which is soundly supported by Canadians. As we seen last year, 55% of Canadians nationally (including Quebec) supported the decision to restore the “Royal” titles to our Navy and Air Force — support was much higher in English Canada. What this Resolution was about is the future of the Liberal Party, and whether the Party was going to vote itself into oblivion. I’m glad the Party did not do this since the Liberal Party is the only Party which truly believes in Macdonald / Trudeau federalism. I’m not the least bit worried; republican nihilists will NEVER destroy Canada as they destroyed the countries of Eastern Europe!
Mr. Terry Mester
Welland, Ontario
Viva Regina! God Save our most gracious Queen of Canada! How lucky we are to have Her, and Americans know it!
Me too, Thank you. Vive la Reine !
http://www.900chml.com/Blogs/ScottThompsonsBlog/BlogEntry.aspx?blogEntryID=10015390&nsoc=1&CommentID=174687
(scroll to bottom of page)
Accept that you’re a Conservative – you’ll be happier!
Pingback:
Hello, folks! I completely missed the debate after my initial comment because this was so low in the votes, but now that the convention is over, I’m glad that they let this forum open. This way, I can express myself, one thing I wasn’t able to do at the convention, simply because there were too many “no” partisans.
Yes, at 22 years old, me, a french Quebecker, voted against this resolution. Not because I am a monarchist, but because of two tiny words : “popularly elected”. For me, given the current powers granted to the monarchy by our constitution, that means either a democracy like in USA, where the head of state is popularly elected (if I ignore the great electors) and have its power restricted by the constitution, which lead for me to a dysfunctionnal system were he is always battling against the chambers, or more likely a model like the French fifth republic, in which the president has enormous powers.
I’m for a republic which resemble the german one, and that means restricting the head of state power and not giving it the popular legitimacy. So this resolution was opposed to my views, not about monarchy, but about the type of republic we want. If it hadn’t been for the “popularly elected” words, I would surely have voted for this.
Simon,
I’m disappointed that you think that French Quebecers should automatically be republicans which suggests that you’re Anglophobic — which means that you perhaps are better suited to provincial politics. Being of maternal French-Canadian descent — my mother’s family was from Thetford Mines, I actually was a republican as a teenager until 1988 when I first read the magnificent British North America Act, and I instantly realized what a great country we have which must be preserved! You are not loyal to Canada if you want to throw it into the garbage. A “Republic of Canada” would drift apart, and break up into three countries within fifty years — just like America fell apart!
The simple truth of history is that had it not been for the British Conquest of New France in 1759, Quebec’s fate would have been sealed 44 years later in what would have become known as the Quebec-Louisiana Purchase. Annexation to the British Empire saved Quebec as a vibrant and flourishing French society in North America, and saved it from becoming a northern Louisiana as American and English-speaking as apple pie! You should be grateful for Quebec’s survival, and for the fact that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II learned to speak fantastic French out of duty to Her Subjects in Quebec. The Queen didn’t need to learn French. For Francophone Quebecers to want to dump such a stupendous monarch is atrocious ingratitude!
Simon, I really like what you said. I is a very good point of view. Thank you. Vive la Reine !
Simon, In my humble point of view, our Constitional Monarchy sets us apart from the U.S. It makes Canada a democratic country with distinctive difference. I think that if we became a republic, it would be too easy in the future to vote-out Canada and to be assimilated with our neighbours.
For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKQPw9vmG04
I would never want that to happen.
Hem, do I have the right to feel slightly insulted by what you said to me? I didn’t even implied that French Quebeckers should all be against the monarchy, I just said who I was. But you are right : I think my people is far less monarchist than other parts of Canada, and this antimonarchism is sometime linked with anglophobia.
However, let’s not jump to conclusion. I think monarchy is a thing of the past and that a people should be able to decide of its own institutions without relying, for their very survival, on a royal family, which is unequal to the other inhabitant of the country (worse, doesn’t even live in that country). Now, for Sweden and Netherland, two well-known and (maybe) good examples, there are also Germany and Finland, two republics.
I drag to your attention to the fact that, even in a province, we have to pledge allegiance to the british monarchy, for which I feel absolutely nothing. The past is the past, and while we shouldn’t forget it, we should look to the future, for which the monarchy plays no role. About your assumption for Quebec annexation by USA, I doesn’t reject the possibility, but it isn’t even sure that USA would have formed the way they did if the Seven Years War didn’t conclude the way it did.
I don’t know what you found so extraordinary in the BNAA, but I do want to promote a country in which different cultures can coexist. That has nothing to do with the monarchy, but everything to do with a better understanding between the provinces and the central government. For you to conclude I should go in provincial politic isn’t very nice, since I was just stating my beliefs, and I saw last weekend how our party respect beliefs when we voted calmly and with respect for each other the way we did.
I would really like to know how you came to the conclusion that Canada would be separated between three countries if we abolished the monarchy. We aren’t like the XIXth century latin American, there wouldn’t be a war to abolish monarchy. Even Australia considered it and rejected it partly for the same reasons I exposed (what do we do after?). I don’t feel a rejection of monarchy like it was a betrayal or an ingratitude, just as a change. The problem isn’t with the Windsor family, but with the institution of monarchy, which means that political power can be transferred hereditarily. It may have been the normal way a country was governed during a long part of human history, but since some key dates (1653, 1792, 1848, 1871, 1918,…) this is no longer the case. Many countries are republics and I don’t see why monarchy should be the cement of Canada.
My apologies, I forgot the spaces between paragraphs. I hope this won’t be too difficult to read. I know walls of text are never good…
Simon,
I’m afraid that you are very young which also means that you are very ignorant of history. You are also ignorant of the beliefs of English Canada which value the Monarchy and Canada’s British roots. (Just look at the Provincial Flags to see how English Canada values its Britishness.) You are too young to remember the atrocious national disunity and strife which this country suffered from the 1960s into the 1990s. You don’t know how divided this country was from 1987 to 1995 due to Mulroney’s Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords which led to horrible constitutional discord and bickering — resulting in the 1995 Near-Death Referendum. I’m not concerned about the future of the Canadian Monarchy since it enjoys majority support throughout English Canada. What I am concerned about is a Federal Party plunging this country back into constitutional discord and strife. My personal experience is the exact same as Sir Wilfrid Laurier and D’Arcy McGee: we were Anglophobic republicans when we were young, and then we turned into Anglophiles out of love for Canada. If you were to promote your republican views in English Canada you will see how hostile the response will be. You need to decide for yourself if you think republicanism is worth disrupting present national unity. Unlike yourself, I know from living memory just how fragile national unity is. I also know how horribly divided America has been throughout its 236 year history. Canada’s national unity has been founded in allegiance to the Crown and our British ancestry. This is an exceptionally great country worthy of preserving!
I think I understand your point, Amanda, but I disagree with it. What distinguishes us from the USA, in term of political organization, isn’t monarchy (the president is as if they elected their king, in USA), but parliementarism. This is why I’m so worried about M. Harper saying, in 2008, tat we elected a “government” and rejecting the coalition project on the country face with so false assumptions. I want a democratic renewal in Canada and I think I can find it in the LPC.
I agree with Adam Tantawi, on november 24th. Monarchy and the imperial link with United Kingdom is a divisive factor. I feel annoyed, or irritated, when I see the conservatives praising the monarchy. Having a president elected by the commons and a reformed Senate seems to me the way to go, but it is in the long run.
The argument that ultimately makes me wanting to get rid of monarchy in every country, whoever the king may be, is that it is unfair that some citizens are more equal than others by birth. I don’t think there is a reasonnable argument that can refute this. I’m not assuming by saying this that you are unrationnal, simply that I don’t see this reason to keep the monarchy.
There are many reasons we have a Constitutional Monarchy in Canada rather than a republic. Please refer to the many reasons mentioned at the 2012 convention.
Simon, Can you give me an example of what you mean by equal at birth ?
I observe that people in our modern society are not equal. Some are born poor and work hard all their lives. Others inherit millions and never have to work a day in their lives. Some are born tall and some are born short and can never make the basketball team because of genetics. (The short ones will be discriminated against all their lives.) Some are born fast runners and some can’t run at all. Some have fathers who are president of companies and are guaranteed a corner office job in daddy’s company. Some have fathers who were good politicians and because of this become good politicians themselves. Some have fathers who were good electricians and because of this also become good electricians. Some are born with energy to work 12-hour days with energy to spare. Others work 5-hour days and are totally exhausted. Some are born with disabilities and are challenged all their lives.
In my humble opinion, our Constitutional Monarchy protects us and sets us apart from the U.S. It prevents the assimilation of our governments.
Because of the good intentions of past Prime Ministers with majorities, it is my belief that if we were ever to become a republic, it would be too easy for a future head-of-state(president)to sign a deal for Canada to be assimilated with our neighbours.
For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKQPw9vmG04
Vive la Reine !
What I meant was that monarchy goes against the ideal of equality and that our supreme ruler shouldn’t be such a contradiction to our goal of equal opportunities. I am perfectly aware that the society isn’t so equal, but being ruled by someone whose job is inherited since centuries without any merit other than birth isn’t my goal for my society. I don’t have the slightest attach to the monarchy, but I don’t want either to divide this country by changing its parliementary nature or by cutting through old wounds.
Some people that I know aren’t proud at all of the british empire. So am I, but I’m not angry about it. It is part of our history. I believe we can put this behind us since, for me, it’s the last incarnation of an old feudal age, but apparently many people won’t agree and I won’t scream because of that.
Simon,
I respect — while not sharing — the beliefs of true republicans who believe that all government officials should be elected by the people. However, your support for a President elected by politicians in Parliament is not true republicanism. That type of President is not any more democratic than a Monarch supported by a majority of the people. The Queen’s approval rating last year was 84% in English Canada and 66% in Quebec!
I would urge you to read the original English version of the British North America Act if you haven’t done so. It was written by our great first Father of Confederation and Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald. The magnificent BNA Act is superior to the exalted American Constitution in every respect, and likewise Canada is also superior. I hope that by reading the BNA Act you can come to truly love Canada as it is, and turn away from your present desire to tear Canada down. Do you not realize that the House of Commons (the Third Estate) is part of the Monarchy, and to abolish the Monarchy also means abolishing the 145-year-old Parliament of Canada in order to replace it with a new republican Parliament? Do you not realize the strife this country would suffer if a future Prime Minister attempted this? Ask anyone over 50 about how horribly divisive the Mulroney Government was. He caused the 1995 Near Death Referendum!
Your desire to see equality and to rid all Monarchy from the World was undertaken by the communist nihilists of Eastern Europe who also espoused egalitarianism. However, they never got to the equality part. Read George Orwell’s book “Animal Farm” about the communist hypocrites: All Animals are equal, but some Animals are more equal than others. Monarchy doesn’t purport egalitarianism like the hypocrites of the Communist and French Revolutions! Monarchy is honest about the existence of class in society, and it calls upon all to serve the interests of society. Republicanism is a ‘me, myself and I’ mentality which is what has destroyed America!
Pingback: