Why the monarchy can't be abolished in Canada

[Allan]

Of course it's possible legally to change our government structure to eliminate the monarchy. The hitch: everyone has to agree to it. Parliament including the Senate, the Provinces including Quebec, and Indigenous groups (who are very much loyalists), all need to sign up.

So you want to get rid of the monarchy in Canada?

Legal and constitutional experts agree: It’s practically impossible.

The Canadian constitution sets a very high bar for making fundamental changes to the monarchy, including abolishing it: the House of Commons, the Senate, and all 10 provincial legislatures must agree.

“Given just the sheer complexity of actually achieving the total unanimity of the provinces plus the federal Parliament, which includes the Senate, just on that technical basis it is impossible,” said University of Ottawa law Prof. Errol Mendes.

There’s also been a reluctance over the last few decades for federal governments to deal with “fundamental constitutional change,” said Andrew McDougall, professor of Canadian politics and public law at the University of Toronto.

“There’s been this long-standing taboo around mega constitutional change because there’s the sense that if you start on some of these issues, then you start bringing in everything else, and that can be really quite risky,” he said.

“It can trigger a national unity debate. It could reopen Quebec’s place in the country. There would be a whole bunch of other issues that would come up.

The government, whether it be Conservative or Liberal, has no incentive to make this kind of change. Under the current system the federal government has unfettered legislative power whilst still being able to point to guardrails in place (the Senate, Governor General, Supreme Court) to prevent irresponsible governance.

There are two other impediments to this when it comes to government reticence in making changes in my opinion. The first is that any change would invite a power-grab from the provinces. As soon as you open the Constitutional can of worms the provinces would demand changes to their share of the pie. The other impediment is our southern neighbour as a cautionary tale. Competing legislative power centers don't work very well in practice. If the Senate or our Head of State were ever to become politicized we might see the same level of disfunction Americans face.

Rest of the opinion piece

 

[bomberfox]

Of course it's possible legally to change our government structure to eliminate the monarchy. The hitch: everyone has to agree to it. Parliament including the Senate, the Provinces including Quebec, and Indigenous groups (who are very much loyalists), all need to sign up.



The government, whether it be Conservative or Liberal, has no incentive to make this kind of change. Under the current system the federal government has unfettered legislative power whilst still being able to point to guardrails in place (the Senate, Governor General, Supreme Court) to prevent irresponsible governance.

There are two other impediments to this when it comes to government reticence in making changes in my opinion. The first is that any change would invite a power-grab from the provinces. As soon as you open the Constitutional can of worms the provinces would demand changes to their share of the pie. The other impediment is our southern neighbour as a cautionary tale. Competing legislative power centers don't work very well in practice. If the Senate or our Head of State were ever to become politicized we might see the same level of disfunction Americans face.

Rest of the opinion piece

Im surprised indigenous groups would be loyalists considering what was done to them all the way up to the 21st century.

 

[Allan]

Im surprised indigenous groups would be loyalists considering what was done to them all the way up to the 21st century.

Treaties between Indigenous groups and the government were signed by the monarch, and are enforceable to this day. Whenever disputes arise between the government and those groups they appeal to the monarch for redress. Of course the monarch doesn't interfere, but the nature of the appeal embarrasses the government of the day and serves as a reminder that commitments were made that are legally valid.

What Indigenous groups have experienced is something they hold the government responsible for. And they're right.

 

[Chagos]

The question may be moot at this stage in time (in the manner of high-fallutin' speculation) but Canadian say in the matter could be compromised by the monarchy going out of existence where it resides.

Perhaps not necessarily by it being flushed altogether, but what happens if it ceases to be (for) the United Kingdom?

Would Canada maintain a HoS that is merely King of England?

 

[Allan]

The question may be moot at this stage in time (in the manner of high-fallutin' speculation) but Canadian say in the matter could be compromised by the monarchy going out of existence where it resides.

Perhaps not necessarily by it being flushed altogether, but what happens if it ceases to be (for) the United Kingdom?

Would Canada maintain a HoS that is merely King of England?

The article deals with that possibility. The monarch is Head of State in Canada via a separate Act (so here Charles III is King of Canada). Legally if the monarchy were abolished in the UK the monarch could continue to reign in Canada. That would be a strange situation and would likely I think trigger another look at this.

 

[Ug make hammer]

It's just a matter of national pride, and Canada seems to have enough of that already.

Commonwealth Realms:

Realm​	Population​
United Kingdom (monarchy)​	67281039​
Canada (monarchy)​	38155012​
Australia (monarchy)​	25921089​
Papua New Guinea (monarchy)​	9949437​
New Zealand (monarchy)​	5129727​
Jamaica (monarchy)​	2827695​
Solomon Islands (monarchy)​	707851​
The Bahamas (monarchy)​	407906​
Belize (monarchy)​	400031​
Saint Lucia (monarchy)​	179651​
Grenada (monarchy)​	124610​
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (monarchy)​	104332​
Antigua and Barbuda (monarchy)​	93219​
Saint Kitts and Nevis (monarchy)​	47606​
Tuvalu (monarchy)​	11204​

 

[Ug make hammer]

Rest of the opinion piece

“It can trigger a national unity debate. It could reopen Quebec’s place in the country. There would be a whole bunch of other issues that would come up.

Quexit!

 

[Chagos]

The article deals with that possibility. The monarch is Head of State in Canada via a separate Act (so here Charles III is King of Canada). Legally if the monarchy were abolished in the UK the monarch could continue to reign in Canada. That would be a strange situation and would likely I think trigger another look at this.

Aaah, thanks.

I admit to not having read the article, just the thread title and your comment and the thought crossed my mind.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Article: If the U.K. became a republic, Lagassé said there are essentially three scenarios for Canada, “depending on where the Department of Justice’s head is at.” The first would be Canada simply retaining a monarch who no longer rules separately in the U.K. — “an odd situation of having monarchs who are not monarchs except in Canada but they don’t live in Canada.” The second would be Parliament deciding it can identify a monarch for Canada. The third would be declaring the office of the monarch vacant and that all powers and functions will be exercised by the governor general going forward.

Or poach the whole Monarchy, Windsors, castles, beefeaters, the lot.

Australia or New Zealand won't want them, and none of the others could afford them. It would be the new Commonwealth of Canada!

 

[tosca1]

Of course it's possible legally to change our government structure to eliminate the monarchy. The hitch: everyone has to agree to it. Parliament including the Senate, the Provinces including Quebec, and Indigenous groups (who are very much loyalists), all need to sign up.



The government, whether it be Conservative or Liberal, has no incentive to make this kind of change. Under the current system the federal government has unfettered legislative power whilst still being able to point to guardrails in place (the Senate, Governor General, Supreme Court) to prevent irresponsible governance.

There are two other impediments to this when it comes to government reticence in making changes in my opinion. The first is that any change would invite a power-grab from the provinces. As soon as you open the Constitutional can of worms the provinces would demand changes to their share of the pie. The other impediment is our southern neighbour as a cautionary tale. Competing legislative power centers don't work very well in practice. If the Senate or our Head of State were ever to become politicized we might see the same level of disfunction Americans face.

Rest of the opinion piece

Why it won't be abolished - it will be so complicated since it means opening the Constitution?

 

[bomberfox]

I wonder how Brexit will change some views about the rule of a monarch far far away that isnt even in your country. I find this notion rather strange.

 

[Chagos]

I wonder how Brexit will change some views about the rule of a monarch far far away that isnt even in your country. I find this notion rather strange.

Especially seeing how Canada was never in the EU and thus never left it.

But economic relations with the EU are more than amiable and becoming more profitable by the minute.

 

[bomberfox]

Especially seeing how Canada was never in the EU and thus never left it.

But economic relations with the EU are more than amiable and becoming more profitable by the minute.

Yeah im glad i wasnt part of that vote or i would have kicked myself for a long time lol.

 

[Allan]

Why it won't be abolished - it will be so complicated since it means opening the Constitution?

That's the can of worms. The stakeholders who have to agree on the necessary changes can't even reach consensus on what day of the week it is.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Especially seeing how Canada was never in the EU and thus never left it.

But economic relations with the EU are more than amiable and becoming more profitable by the minute.

The EU needs resource-rich partners like Canada or Australia (or indeed the US, a huge food exporter). But more than that they need low-wage countries, like India or Egypt. Eastern Europe is developing quickly, so the "hybrid vigor" of having post-industrial and industrial economies inside the zone, won't last forever.

Canada's top ten exports (2021):

1. Mineral fuels including oil: US$119.9 billion (23.8% of total exports)
2. Vehicles: $45.8 billion (9.1%)
3. Machinery including computers: $33 billion (6.5%)
4. Gems, precious metals: $24.3 billion (4.8%)
5. Wood: $22.6 billion (4.5%)
6. Plastics, plastic articles: $16.9 billion (3.4%)
7. Ores, slag, ash: $13.3 billion (2.6%)
8. Electrical machinery, equipment: $12.6 billion (2.5%)
9. Aluminum: $12.2 billion (2.4%)
10. Aircraft, spacecraft: $10.5 billion (2.1%)

That's a good portfolio, though it's heavy on fossil fuels. Enjoy (1) while it lasts, but also tax it to subsidize the more endurable industries.

 

[Chagos]

The EU needs resource-rich partners like Canada or Australia (or indeed the US, a huge food exporter). But more than that they need low-wage countries, like India or Egypt. Eastern Europe is developing quickly, so the "hybrid vigor" of having post-industrial and industrial economies inside the zone, won't last forever.

Canada's top ten exports (2021):

1. Mineral fuels including oil: US$119.9 billion (23.8% of total exports)
2. Vehicles: $45.8 billion (9.1%)
3. Machinery including computers: $33 billion (6.5%)
4. Gems, precious metals: $24.3 billion (4.8%)
5. Wood: $22.6 billion (4.5%)
6. Plastics, plastic articles: $16.9 billion (3.4%)
7. Ores, slag, ash: $13.3 billion (2.6%)
8. Electrical machinery, equipment: $12.6 billion (2.5%)
9. Aluminum: $12.2 billion (2.4%)
10. Aircraft, spacecraft: $10.5 billion (2.1%)

That's a good portfolio, though it's heavy on fossil fuels. Enjoy (1) while it lasts, but also tax it to subsidize the more endurable industries.

I wasn't referring exclusively to Canada's exports, more to the overall trade with the EU (EU exports to Canada included).

Cars, machinery and chemicals making up the bulk of the latter.

As such (just as an example) the EU exports more cars and machinery to Canada than it imports, some of the cars produced in Canada being, of course, European makes for the Americas.

And while Canadian oil and gas certainly plays a role for the EU (and will do so even more, what with the Russian shenanigans), Lithium for E-Car batteries is going to be a big future issue.

 

[Moi621]

Dissolve the union of provinces.
Let more autonomous provinces create their own way.

For those that forgot.


​

 

[Allan]

Dissolve the union of provinces.
Let more autonomous provinces create their own way.

View attachment 67414796
For those that forgot.


​

No.

 

[Chagos]

No.

/solved

 

[joluoto]

Im surprised indigenous groups would be loyalists considering what was done to them all the way up to the 21st century.

The monarchy often sided with natives in disputes between natives and colonists, as a way to increase it's own influence. That has made natives remember the Crown as something less bad.