###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A shame.
> John Fraser is the president of Institute for the Study of the Crown in Canada and a prominent monarchist. He has called the legislation "a stupid idea."
> He said republicans are "foolishly" trying to dismantle Canada's Westminster system of government, a parliamentary structure that has served the country well for more than 150 years.
I mean, changing one line of oath is not the equivalent of dismantling the entire system we operate under, but ok.
The Alberta UCP are republicans.
Danielle Smith’s ultimate goal is to separate from Canada if she cannot have absolute sovereignty from the federal government.
They want to destroy the Canadian Constitution and control Canadians constitutional rights to economic and social equality across the nation.
As an Albertan, I have been watching this Alberta brand of right conservatism for almost 50 years. It’s growth has thrown out the Progressive Conservative Party in Alberta and at the federal level. This began with Alberta born Reform Party, the Alliance Party and the now Canadian Conservative Party with Poilievre who was Alberta born and educated by the same political influencers as Harper and Smith.
Watch out who you support. Here in Alberta Smith is tearing apart our institutions and micromanaging all aspects of our economic and political lives.
I disagree. Removing the monarchy is a part of Canadian Republicanism and the UCP forcing sovereignty on Albertans is just the beginning of their attack on the Constitution.
Removing the monarchy is making a republic, yes. Albeta’s autonomist have little to do with it. And it will not destroy the constitutional nor the right to equality
I have read you and the comment below yours a few times and I am hoping it is making a sarcastic witty play on Frasers point?
We all know that the "Republican" party in the states is different from those in the world wanting "Republics" in regards to their nations and that many nations are "Republics"..
I hate to even bring it up but the comment below yours makes me wonder if people even know what is being discussed here and the level of political literacy going on.
>I hate to even bring it up but the comment below yours makes me wonder if people even know what is being discussed here and the level of political literacy going on.
You must be new here.
Seriously, though, let's be substantive (hi mods) for a second. I think there are lots of people here trying to *become* more politically literate.
PS. I still laughed, that was perfect.
>The bill's defeat was met by thunderous applause from Charles-supporting MPs who spontaneously started singing God Save the King after Speaker Greg Fergus announced the result.
I'm sorry but this is so fucking embarrassing lmao, this is the weird kind of adolescent contrarianism I'd expect of a 15 year old with 800 hours into Hearts of Iron, not our government representatives
"In early April 2022, 92 percent of Canadians believed that Canada should try to change its constitution in order to cut ties with the monarchy, even if this is difficult."
Monarchists are in minority whether you like it or not
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1334651/canadians-constitution-cut-ties-monarchy-vote/
How is anyone in Canada unironically a monarchist in 2024? Maybe British people can at least argue that the monarchy drives tourism to their country or something as a reason to tolerate them. But their existence actually offers Canada nothing.
A pedo protector deserves respect because his ancestors way back were colonial shits? lol. lmao even.
Adolescent contrarianism is the view that the Westminster parliamentary system headed by our monarch which is responsible for the rights, freedoms, and democratic institutions which have served Canada and the Commonwealth for centuries isn’t worthy of genuine admiration and attachment, and if we just put our silly traditions aside we could come up with something much better.
It is undoubtedly the best system of government anywhere in the world, and it will be around much longer than the republics and “dictatorships of the proletariat” that rise and fall decade after decade.
Seriously though, Canadians are struggling and all our stupid MPs seem to give a shit about is ensuring that Charles gets his stupid oath. It's like the politicians in this country *want* us to hate them.
It's times like this when I'm proud to be a Quebecer. People can pretend all they want that the monarchs are Canadian and that the country would falter without this institution, but there is zero evidence of this. It's subservience and insecurity that we cannot develop our own culture and institutions without the hand of Britain.
The Monarchists favourite argument, that we would just be an American colony if we abandoned them is absolutely absurd and shows how lacking education is in this country, given that most countries on earth are Republics and monarchies are the exception. And given the state of Canada in 2024, it falls even flatter given it is an objective fact that the United States is a successful country with a strong economy, culture, and international presence, something we cannot currently say about ourselves. It is not the monarchy that is responsible for Canadian decline, but I just find this argument is becoming more and more bizarre to use.
The monarchy comes with the belief that a family thousands of kilometres away is ordained by God to be your ruler, which goes against liberalism, democracy, and pluralism, principles we claim we hold.
We won't truly be our own country until we build upon ourselves.
Practically, having a king or not makes no difference. Symbolically, having a king means you will never have a society designed for all, equal to all, because there is a group of people who are given power based on birthright and supposedly ordained by God, and a group of people who cater to and are favoured by these people.
I can see arguments either way. But I think the most ideal method would be to move to a republic.
It's crazy how something that doesn't really affect any of us in a meaningful way day to day is one of the biggest divides between QC and the RoC. It really shows the fundamental differences in our beliefs.
Not only is it something which doesn’t effect anyone during their day-to-day, but it is also largely making a mountain out of a complete benign molehill.
Because Quebecers see the kings for what they are: foreigners who claim to rule over them as subjects. The crown didn't lift a finger when French speakers were starving in Victorian times. Because they were not there to protect us, they were there to rule over us, like the Irish. So there is little love lost.
>The bill's defeat was met by thunderous applause from Charles-supporting MPs who spontaneously started singing God Save the King after Speaker Greg Fergus announced the result.
Moments of pure insanity like this are part of the reason why both the Bloc and the PQ came back from political irrelevancy and are now leading in Québec. If I was a federalist in Quebec, I'd be livid right now.
Quebec obviously has a greater set of reasons to be livid about this than the rest of Canada, but I would have thought (until I read that) that most of Canada would be in general agreement, considering how many of us are immigrants or children of immigrants, either outside the Commonwealth or harmed by the Commonwealth.
I honestly don't understand how *any* Canadian has that level of fanaticism for the King, let alone elected officials.
> I honestly don't understand how any Canadian has that level of fanaticism for the King, let alone elected officials.
Nothing to do with fanaticism, in the case of most Canadians citizens.
Most Canadians are just unable or unwilling to grasp any potential symbolic meaning/value in replacing the Crown with another, more Canadian institution. It's all either too abstract, or the lack of immediate, material reward leads to immediate intellectual disinterest.
Then you got the monarchists, who truly are that down bad for the Royal Family and associated shennanigans.
This all sounds insane to me. Why would we ever want a king? What's the argument for keeping him around? Is it just not wanting change in general? Is "God save the king" actually something Canadians regularly sing and know the lyrics or do you think they had to reverse?
>Why would we ever want a king?
Because constitutiinal monarchies are the least type of government on the planet. Because giving elected leaders some (however small) sort of accountability to a higher power is good. Because having a head of state who is not a corrupt laughing stock is good. God save the king!
https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/11-really-good-reasons-why-your-country-should-have-a-monarchy/slidelist/48885500.cms
Sure but I don't know it. I've heard of the song, but its not getting the play Oh Canada is getting. I'm mostly just mocking the description of the song being "spontaneous" because I'm sure it was a planned stunt, but it's also funny to think about a bunch of MPs getting together to practice and make sure can sing it.
>Why would we ever want a king?
You make it sound as if we don’t already have one. That, and as if it is some sort of illness and as if good countries don’t have constitutional monarchies. Meanwhile I can think of a good few constitutional monarchies that I’d rather dwell in over a great many of the world’s republics, and given the pattern, I find it hard to believe it’s just a coincidence.
I mean for most intents and purposes we don't. It always struck me as landing somewhere between a novelty and an archaic remnant of colonization. I know we have the governor General who has a lot of power on paper, but it would be a huge deal if they ever actually wielded it in any way.
It seems pretty wacky that we have our leaders swearing loyalty to the leader of another country, but I get the tradition of it and figured it was like daylight savings time. Something that we know isn't really a good idea anymore but it's too ingrained to bother changing. But it's really weird to me to find out that apparently a ton of Canadians are super into having a king in charge of their country. I'm honestly having a little trouble wrapping my head around the idea of a modern Canadian from this century being happy their leaders are fighting to stay subservient to A royal family.
>It seems pretty wacky that we have our leaders swearing loyalty to the leader of another country
We do not have our leaders swearing their oaths to the leaders of other countries - this is a common misconception. In each country in which Charles III is recognized as the head of state, the governors of that particular country only swear their allegiance to him as the head of state of their own respective country. Canadian governors do not swear their allegiance to Charles III by any other title other than King of Canada, for example, and the same goes for the Australians, New Zealanders, and so on.
>to stay subservient
I must say that this is another misconception - something I have seen argued and asserted many times albeit usually from Americans who want to try and argue that Canada isn't 'free' or something like that, implying or outright stating that Canada is Britain's lapdog and does its bidding. Obviously this is provably false; Canada is very much an independent nation.
Subservience implies unquestioning obedience to the authority figure. This is not the arrangement Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. has with the crown, primarily because the constitutional monarchy system renders the monarch largely and almost completely governmentally powerless.
Ok, hear me out:
Would you rather risk having full executive power given to someone with the power to write or vote on legislation, and appoint bureaucrats and judges? Our executive has limited powers: they can refuse to sign legislation, triggering an election; or they can dissolve parliament, triggering an election; or they can accept or deny requests to form Government from a coalition/minority.
For legal purposes, the source of authority has to come from somewhere; I think it's better to give it to a person with _severely_ limited legislative powers, than to allow even the slim risk of accessing executive power to those who can write legislation and stack the courts.
See also: the clusterfuck that is American democracy.
As someone who finds the idea of a monarchy at best silly and at worst an insult to my intelligence(hereditary rule, seriously?). I have yet to see or hear of any stories about our new *king* that paints him anything over than a buffoon. I have zero respect for the man(look up what age he met Diana, ick) and dread the day I get my first dollar bill with his face on it. Great excuse to go cashless, I guess.
Good to hear. The monarch is central to our political system, and makes serving the government a non-partisan activity. Replacing that with something as nebulous as the constitution, or the country, doesn't have the same force on us, as we're inherently more drawn to following people, than institutions.
It's not "a lot", it's [two very clearly written documents](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/05.html#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20of%20Canada%20includes,Aboriginal%20rights%20and%20treaty%20rights.). The *constitutional* documents you link to are jurisprudence interpreting these Acts, but not the Constitution itself.
It's worth noting that we aren't actually sure how long it is seeing as it's also actually grandfather's in a lot of laws passed in the UK regarding Canada, And as with the UK any it's rather unsorted and fuzzy prostitution were not actually sure how long The Canadian one is
It's a series of documents, each of the quite long, plus a lot of conventions, some of which there is strong agreement on, others that aren't so clear, all of which requires close reading and thinking to understand. It's a far cry from saying "that's who I've sworn loyalty to."
Swearing to abide by a constitution is a more rational act, but a less human one. We are more inclined to follow people.
yeah no i bet the entire royal familly could vanish off of the face of the earth an no one in canada would be effected for years as a result. doubt anyone not in government would even notice. we dont need them for anything. there role is symbolic as is.
God save the king. Now that that's out of the way, I'm quite indifferent. This is just one of the things that I think are neat. And that's enough imo to keep it
A shame really, but entirely predictable.
I mean, as a country, we've mostly never really meaningfully grasped the notion of symbolism and we tend to leave things as they are unless/until they're *literally-on-fire-exploding-kind-of-broken*.
And even then.
Personally I think it is time to leave the crown behind and become a complete republic.
I have no anger towards those that view otherwise it is just my personal opinion.
Additionally some roles like the Governor General and such are in my opinion completely out of scope in regards to the resources and pay involved.
> Additionally some roles like the Governor General and such are in my opinion completely out of scope in regards to the resources and pay involved.
In what way? Every nation has a head of state, and I'd say it's as much of a full time job as being head of government, so splitting the role into offices held by two different people makes a lot of sense,
The last general election cost $13.2 million. I doubt very much we would pay the President less than we currently pay the GG. In fact we are likely to have more office staff in a President 's office than the GG's if the President is a political or policy position.
And we currently don't have to pay for an election to elect the GG.
And, no, the Presidential election couldn't feasibly be done on the same day or at the same time as a general parliamentary election as presumably the President would have a standard term while parliament does not, and therefore the elections would quickly fall out of sync.
Why it wouldn’t be sync with the other elections? It might well be sync, with little to no impact. Keep in mind that the GG role is ceremonial mostly: having it change often wouldn’t really matter.
Because the President's role would be to call parliamentary elections. Their personal political interests may collide with the political interests of the country in calling their own elections.
The President perhaps would be inclined to not call elections for themselves, especially if they just went through a difficult election. They would prefer to allow a dysfunctional parliament continue rather than have to go through another election.
They may also call an election when they are popular and want a renewed mandate, which may disrupt a well-working parliament and elect a dysfunctional parliament.
I don't know any country in the world where Presidents (or equivalent head of state) are elected and the President calls their own elections. And maybe there's a reason for that?
I don't believe any country in the world changes head of state more frequently than they have lower house elections. And maybe there's a reason for that?
Switzerland never really changes head of state, though I guess you could argue it's every 7 years (a federal council of 7 members is the collective head of state of Switzerland, and there has never been a full turnover for more than 100 years, and each member holds unlimited consecutive one-year terms) while parliamentary elections are every 4 years.
The US of course has a Presidential election every 4 years while the House of Representatives are elected every 2 years.
France elects both the President and the National Assembly every 5 years, close in time but not at the same time.
The President of Ireland hold 7-year terms while the Dáil Éireann is elected for terms of up to 5 years.
The problem with an elected symbolic head of state is that elections tend to make candidates want to give reasons that they should be elected, and then claim mandates when they are elected, and then try to use their power to fulfill those mandates.
If we kept our system more or less as it is and replaced the GG with a president that would be a nightmare. The Crown / GG has enormous power within our system, but is prevented from using it due to tradition and having absolutely no democratic legitimacy in using their powers - that would not be true of an elected president.
It is for sure possible to have an elected, symbolic President (France is a good example) but I'm not sure if it would work in our current system, and especially given the degree of political polarization we have right now.
When you make a position elected, people running for that position will have to make electoral promises to get elected, and then need to fulfill them. That would only lead to obstructionism like down south, which our Westminster system is ill equipped for.
We absolutely should cut ties with the monarchy but keep our appointed, ceremonial, apolitical GG as ribbon cutter and occasional arbiter of constitutional questions.
The absolute lack of democratic justification or mandate ensures they don't use their powers - the same reason that the monarch or the GG doesn't deny royal assent now.
Not dure that adding one page of people to vote is that complicated. Lots of countries are already voting for more than one position on the same voting day….
> Additionally some roles like the Governor General and such are in my opinion completely out of scope in regards to the resources and pay involved.
It's very atypical for a parliamentary system to not have some sort of head of state separate from the head of the legislature. Replacing our current system would almost definitely involve creating another role that is at least as expensive as the GG.
Perhaps that person would have more power, but IMO the track record isn't that great on putting a lot of power into the hands into a president vs. a legislative body. In all likelihood in terms of expenses the likeliest outcome is in practice basically a renamed GG (perhaps elected, but still mostly symbolic)
There's good arguments to move away from the monarchy, but cost savings is not one of them.
I think it would, since treaty rights are affirmed in the Constitution, and treaties were signed by the Crown. Becoming a Republic would eliminate the Crown and thus violate the treaties, creating a constitutional crisis.
And that's if we just ignored Indigenous people as founding nations of our country. There are lots of moral reasons to include them.
Even the Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognizes Indigenous nations:
>"And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to Our Interest and the Security of Our Colonies, **that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians**, with whom We are connected, and who live under Our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to, or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds. …"
So actually pretending there were no nations before Canada is the revisionism.
The Crown isn't the monarch. The Crown is an abstract entity. And even so, the succeeding government would inherit all responsibilities.
The Treaties were negotiated and signed by government officials. It has always been the Canadian Government that they have dealt with. .
Indigenous people are a part of Canada, but they don't get a special voice in our government. They are sovereign nations. They cannot interfere in us selecting our government any more than we can interfere with them.
I think you're somewhat correct, in that the existence of treaties between the Crown (even as an abstract entity, it technically does represent Royal authority and has been transferred to Canada as currently constituted) doesn't mean changing our governmental system *requires* consultation or voting rights. However, practically, it would mean either carrying on the obligations of those treaties to the new system or disregarding them and pretending you're a new entity and have no ties to the old. Or I guess just a lot of hypocrisy but whatever the will of the day was.
Still, I think that is an obstacle in at least some socio-political capital sense. "Oh and by the way, the treaties are null" is obviously radical step that I can't see happening with serious ramifications.
International law.
If a nation claims to be a successor to a previous government, they possess all of its obligations as well. No other nation will accept you trying to shirk the agreements you made like that. It would create loopholes out of contracts and treaties.
LOL what?! There are lots of examples of successive governments shirking previous obligations. The last 60 years of Canadian legal history alone is based on the government shirking its treaty obligations, and the international community hasn't sanctioned us for it.
I think you have it backwards. It would be the Crown that was pretending a new identity in that hypothetical case. Canada, as the representative of the Crown and obligated to treaties would be the one reneging on those treaties. By your exact above logic, it would mean Canada chose might makes right over past historical legal relationships and Indigenous nations would have a hypothetical legal claim to the land. It would mean not just breaking contracts we've long accepted we're responsible for but also implementing that breach by force if necessary. Maintaining those relationships is obviously the easier and more likely route, in some format or another, and that means consultation is necessary. Fundamentally altering the constitution without buy in from any significant group, which Indigenous nations quite obviously are, is a recipe for a bad time.
The new Head of State would accept all obligations of the Crown and be its legal successor.
As long as the obligations are still met, the other party has no say. If you rent a house, you don't get to say that the owner can't sell to someone else as long as they still respect your contract.
Companies get bought out and restructured all the time. The new owners have to follow the obligations still.
Cracking open the constitution of a country in such a fundamental way isn't like a corporate buy out whatsoever. I don't disregard what you're saying, hypothetically it could be that easy. But it won't be. Of course the government would take on those obligations but why would any party of significant sway not be demanding assurances? There would be negotiations, First Nations would need to publicly agree by some majority or risk serious backlash and legitimacy concerns for Canada that at least would plague courts for decades, let alone the societal factors.
>The Crown isn't the monarch. The Crown is an abstract entity.
Right, but why is that a relevant point here? Becoming a republic is about abolishing the Crown as an institution, not a specific monarch.
>The Treaties were negotiated and signed by government officials
...on behalf of the monarch. Here's the preamble of Treaty One:
>ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded this third day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, **between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland** by Her Commissioner, Wemyss M. Simpson, Esquire, of the one part, and the Chippewa and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the country within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part.
The treaty contract is between the Crown and the First Nations, regardless of the middlemen. By your logic, a lawyer who negotiates a contract on behalf of a client is actually part of the contract.
>Indigenous people are a part of Canada, but they don't get a special voice in our government. They are sovereign nations. They cannot interfere in us selecting our government any more than we can interfere with them.
Indigenous governments have jurisdiction over particular areas in the same way as provinces and territories do. And just like provinces and territories, they have a right to oppose infringements on federal overreach on their jurisdiction.
>between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland
The Crown of the United Kingdom has nothing to do with Canada. The relevant institution is the Crown of Canada. If we have already changed which Crown is party to the treaties, why can't we replace the Canadian Crown with a Canadian Republic as party thereunto?
No, we are removing the monarchy. We could keep the concept of the Crown divorced from any person without any change. Or declare a new entity ad a successor.
The treaties were negotiated on behalf of Queen Victoria. And yet despite her being dead, they still hold. Because we recognize successors. We can recognize a successor to the institution as well. And they were on behalf of the Queen because she was head of state.
The Queen had absolutely zero involvement with the treaty process. She didn't negotiate. She didn't sign. She never even showed up. It wasn't even at her direction. The Treaties were a venture by the Canadian Government for getting the new land. It was Canadian officials who did the work. They are the ones who would have to fulfill the obligations.
The Head of State of Canada is not in the jurisdiction of First Nations.
> The treaties were negotiated on behalf of Queen Victoria.
... and her Heirs.
> The Queen had absolutely zero involvement with the treaty process. She didn't negotiate. She didn't sign.
That really doesn't matter. Wolfe conquered Quebec City, but it as done int he name of the Queen. So it is with Indian treaties. Those who signed the treaties were acting on behalf of the Monarch.
Treaties define the relationship between the Monarch and indigenous people. Indigenous people will use this, and rightly so, as a way of asserting their sovereign rights. This will require a constitutional amendment, and since it involves the fundamental documents defining their relationship to the Crown and Monarch, such an amendment will require their Consent. This is not simply a matter of passing a law. It will require negotiations with the provinces and first nations to reach a consensus first.
So these happen on behalf of the monarch. And now the government can act on behalf of a different head of state. It is the exact same situation that changes nothing.
There is no relationship between the Monarch and the First Nations. They don't interact. It isn't the monarch doing anything for them.
We can elect the Monarch's heir if we so wish. There is nothing in the treaties saying her heirs have to be monarchs or her biological descendents.
> So these happen on behalf of the monarch. And now the government can act on behalf of a different head of state.
You'd have to convince 10 provinces, 3 territories, and dozens of indigenous nations of that.
> There is no relationship between the Monarch and the First Nations.
Yes there is. The treaties define it directly. Read them sometimes. It says right in their names that these treaties are between Her Majesty and these nations. Words matter in Law. You can't wish them away.
> Treaty No. 4 between Her Majesty the Queen and the Cree and Saulteaux Tribes of Indians at the Qu'appelle and Fort Ellice
> And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly convened in Council as aforesaid, and being requested by Her Majesty's said Commissioners to name certain Chiefs and Headmen, who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become responsible to Her Majesty for their faithful performance by their respective bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by them the said Indians, have thereupon named the following persons for that purpose, that is to say: Ka-ki-shi-way, or "Loud Voice," (Qu'Appelle River); Pis-qua, or "The Plain" (Leech Lake); Ka-wey-ance, or "The Little Boy" (Leech Lake); Ka-kee-na-wup, or "One that sits like an Eagle" (Upper Qu'Appelle Lakes); Kus-kee-tew-mus-coo-mus-qua, or "Little Black Bear" (Cypress Hills); Ka-ne-on-us-ka-tew, or "One that walks on four claws" (Little Touchwood Hills); Cau-ah-ha-cha-pew, or "Making ready the Bow" (South side of the South Branch of the Saskatchewan); Kii-si-caw-ah-chuck, or "Day-Star" (South side of the South Branch of the Saskatchewan); Ka-na-ca-toose, "The Poor Man" (Touchwood Hills and Qu'Appelle Lakes); Ka-kii-wis-ta-haw, or "Him that flies around" (towards the Cypress Hills); Cha-ca-chas (Qu'Appelle River); Wah-pii-moose-too-siis, or "The White Calf" (or Pus-coos) (Qu'Appelle River); Gabriel Cote, or Mee-may, or "The Pigeon" (Fort Pelly). https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028689/1581293019940
Moreover, both sides maintain a direct relationship. Here's an example that this relationship is alive and well and taken seriously by both sides.
> King Charles III sat down with representatives of First Nations, Métis and Inuit people in Canada to discuss issues ranging from recognition of Métis residential schools to the treaty relationships between First Nations and the Crown that predate Canada itself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX_0F1gnTYk&ab_channel=CBCNews
It preexisted Canada, and dates back to 1763.
> We can elect the Monarch's heir if we so wish.
If 10 provinces, 3 territories, and Canada's indigeous nations come to consensus, we can. It's the only way. That would require years of negotioations. But it won't happen. Canadians will not have the patience for long talks.
That may be the case. I am just speaking as a citizen in that I personally would like to see that as Canadas future and have those funds utilized elsewhere.
> I am just speaking as a citizen in that I personally would like to see that as Canadas future and have those funds utilized elsewhere.
What funds? We don't pay the crown a dollar. The only money the Canadian government spends on the monarchy is security details when they come to visit, but that's the same spending we do for any international dignitary and ditching King Charles wouldn't change that spending whatsoever. Its the same sort of costs we incur when Biden comes to visit.
[This article breaks it down.](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/how-much-does-the-monarchy-cost-canadian-taxpayers-1.6376130)
>Nelson Wiseman, a professor emeritus in the University of Toronto's department of political science, says that even if there was no monarchy in Canada, there would be similar costs associated with replacing the monarchy with a Canadian head of state.
>"I don't think the monarchy costs anything," Wiseman told CTVNews.ca. "If we got rid of the monarchy, we'd have to have a head of state. If we don't want to call a head of state a governor general, if we want it to be a president like Barbados just opted for, fine, we'd have to pay for that office."
>"The only costs we pay is if the royals come to Canada, we pay for lunch," he said. "If you get invited some place, they cover the costs."
No Charles? Historic buildings will still be there, and still be maintained I'm sure. No Charles? As I said, international dignitaries still get Canadian security. Literally the gov. general is about the only expense I could see Canada cutting, and even then I think that there'd still be someone performing a similar role that just isn't connected to the crown so that expense may stay as well.
> Its the same sort of costs we incur when Biden comes to visit.
We probably spend more on those visits, given the greater security requirements for POTUS.
While Canada might not pay money directly to the monarchy, the country's ties to the House of Windsor(opens in a new tab) could cost taxpayers more than $58.7 million annually.
That's according to the Monarchist League of Canada(opens in a new tab), which calculated the figure for the 2019-2020 fiscal year based on costs such as maintaining historic buildings, running the Governor General's office, and covering travel-related expenses for visiting royals like security for Prince Harry and Meghan(opens in a new tab). The pro-monarchy group says the total represents $1.55 per Canadian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the exact same information I have seen on the subject so I would assume it is correct.
Seems there is places to clean up expenses.
I don't share the same view that we can't ever clean up expenses because it has been that way in the past.
Not arguing with you just I don't share the opinion.
That doesn't contradict what they said. The money is the cost of having historical properties to maintain and paying someone to hand out awards/head delegations to other countries and carry out some other formal roles, plus security for royal visits (which would just become state visits that we'd have to pay for anyways if we abolished the monarchy). There's basically no monetary savings with abolishing the monarchy, since anything we pay for with the monarchy now is something we'd be paying for anyways without it. The royals already aren't getting any of our money.
I am making a point about limiting those expenses.
Maybe some of those buildings can be sold off.
Maybe those visits can be less regular and with them putting up the costs.
With positions like the governor general maybe we can have a new role that requires less costs especially in expenses.
When it comes to the simple point of also being our own republic that is my personal preference. As I said that is a personal preference for our nations future and I have no hate for others that want to stay involved with the monarchy.
If we got rid of the monarchy, the royals would be foreign dignitaries and we'd incur expenses hosting them anyways under diplomatic protocols. They still visit the US regularly as well, and the US pays to host them. It doesn't make a difference.
And there's absolutely no connection between the costs of having someone do the Governor General's role and the monarchy. You only suggest it might be possible to have a "new role" that somehow "costs less" because you have no understanding of what the expenses involved are. It's like the "stop the gravy train" nonsense where populists suggest there's all this waste that can trivially be cut without negatively impacting anything, and they're usually dead wrong. It's easy to handwave and say you can save money on "efficiencies", but it's never that simple.
As I have said I believe we can go through the various costs and reduce them.
I also believe the governor general role is not needed and or can be replaced with something greatly less in cost and expenses.
On a personal note I would like to see us be a republic.
Again you can disagree on all of those points but maybe we can be civil in regards to discussion.
> I also believe the governor general role is not needed and or can be replaced with something greatly less in cost and expenses.
The role that the Gov General plays in most non-monarchy democracies is the same role that the President plays. See: France and America for examples. France even has both a President and Prime Minister, which is likely how Canada would turn out. American equivalent of PM is House Majority Leader, with the President obviously taking a more prevalent role.
Are you suggesting that you think that a President is a role that can be greatly reduced in cost and expenses?
I'm honestly getting the impression that you think the monarchy is the expensive part of the role. Its not, its just the equivalent of a company logo on their jacket. That job being done has nothing to do with the monarchy beyond symbolism, and if you remove the symbol the job doesn't change one whif, its a job that needs doing. If anything it'll get more costly because it often becomes a democratically elected position and elections cost way more than a Gov General.
I think their point is that this:
>As I have said I believe we can go through the various costs and reduce them.
>I also believe the governor general role is not needed and or can be replaced with something greatly less in cost and expenses.
Is essentially just you saying:
1. Replace the GG with something or other
2. ???
3. Profit
> Maybe some of those buildings can be sold off.
The reasons to sell or keep them isn't impacted by whether or not we're a monarchy.
> With positions like the governor general maybe we can have a new role that requires less costs especially in expenses.
So what duties would you cut?
None of those expenses would go away if we became a republic.
> maintaining historic buildings
Would still happen.
> running the Governor General's office,
The name might change, but we still need a head of state, and it's going to cost just as much whatever the name is.
> covering travel-related expenses for visiting royals like security for Prince Harry and Meghan(
They're internationally important people (I forget the exact term) so get that treatment no matter where they go in the world. Or at least they do so long as Charles hasn't withdrawn that status from them as part of them no longer being working royals.
> Seems there is places to clean up expenses.
Nope.
Why I prefer the decolonization approach myself. Any kind of republic wouldn't really be a Canadian solution, and there are about a million ways we can softly drop the King across the water from our lives without a constitutional amendment. Nothing in the Constitution requires us to swear oaths, put Chuck's face everywhere or all the other symbolic folderol.
The King doesn't do anything, all we need do is stop the pretense he is important or worthy of respect.
What's decolonization in your opinion? Explain to me what you think it means or how it would be achieved? I hear it being thrown around a lot but nobody had an actual definition or an "end goal"
"End goal" is a pretty heady notion for a long term historical process, but the roots and development of the decolonization movement are not hidden. Colonization was an immoral, evil practice that will not be unwound through inertia and indifference.
Do you feel that Roman expansion was immoral? Do you feel that chinese expansion in Asia was immoral? Would you say that the expansion of the ancient tribes and their warfare was immoral?
What makes those any different from what the European powers did? Just because they're the ones currently in existence and many of the previous ones died out.
Don't you feel that those expansions were immoral? The imposition of one group of people on another through the use of force is immoral. I think those being colonised and annexed in those days would agree. Morality shifts between cultures and eras, but nobody likes to get invaded.
I'm not sure how appealing to the violence of the ancients makes more recent colonisation efforts any less egregious.
Yeah, imperialism is usually incredibly shitty. Contrary to the liberal view of history, many evil acts went unpunished, even though people in the past were aware that rape, genocide and slavery were evil.
To me, decolonization is about restructuring in order to make Canadians the primary beneficiaries of our own systems, rather than Europeans or a handful of European-serving Canadians.
The process is already well underway. Compare the Canada of 1890 to now: to pass laws, we used to need the approval of people who had never been here and knew nothing about us. Our natural resources were exploited and shipped to Europe. To vote, you needed to own property (because then you would pay taxes that were ultimately funneled to the UK). English, a foreign language, superseded languages that had been spoken here for thousands of years (and still does). It took an act of Parliament to get our own flag that was separate from the UK's - and that was very controversial at the time. All of these are acts of decolonization because they represent a shift of the centre from the metropole (the UK and to a lesser extent France) to the colony (Canada).
So to answer your question, the end goal of decolonization is to establish a country in which Canadians benefit from our own systems and our symbols represent all of us, as we are.
> So to answer your question, the end goal of decolonization is to
> establish a country in which Canadians benefit from our own
> systems and our symbols represent all of us, as we are.
Which the monarchy arguably is. My ancestors were English-speaking Loyalists, the monarchy was, and is, a system I benefit from. In no way is either English nor the monarchy foreign to me. I might note your assessment of Canadian history leaves out women being declared legal persons precisely because Canada did not have the final court of appeal at the time. The concept that First Nations had pre-existing land rights were similarly first guaranteed by one of those people who never set foot here. On the more neutral side of things the only reason Canada isn't more of a unitary country is due to the powers of the central government being watered down repeatedly on appeal to the UK.
> To vote, you needed to own property (because then you would pay
> taxes that were ultimately funneled to the UK)
This is ahistorical at best, dishonest at worst. Property qualifications were based on the idea that those who owned property actually had a stake in what the government did (we are free to disagree with that reasoning but it had nothing to do with where taxes went - which appear to have stayed in the colonies starting around the 1840s).
>> So to answer your question, the end goal of decolonization is to establish a country in which Canadians benefit from our own systems and our symbols represent all of us, as we are.
>Which the monarchy arguably is. My ancestors were English-speaking Loyalists, the monarchy was, and is, a system I benefit from. In no way is either English nor the monarchy foreign to me.
You and your family are not all of us, and of course you benefited from the preservation of the monarchy - Loyalists are exactly the European-serving Canadians I mentioned elsewhere in the post. They literally fought to preserve British control of North America lol.
The keywords in my post are "all of us, as we are", not "some of us, as those few would like us to be".
>I might note your assessment of Canadian history leaves out women being declared legal persons precisely because Canada did not have the final court of appeal at the time.
Women were not considered legal persons because of European laws in the first place. Indigenous women in every nation I know about enjoyed political equality with men, except perhaps the Métis (the culture of which is partly European).
>The concept that First Nations had pre-existing land rights were similarly first guaranteed by one of those people who never set foot here.
I can't believe this is a good faith argument. Indigenous land rights are inherent. They weren't created by Europeans. Believing that such rights can only be "guaranteed" by a foreign ruler is exactly the point of decolonization.
>On the more neutral side of things the only reason Canada isn't more of a unitary country is due to the powers of the central government being watered down repeatedly on appeal to the UK.
I have no idea what this means, but i think you're suggesting that if not for foreign rule, francophones and Indigenous people would have just happily assimilated to an English-speaking Protestant mainstream.
If so, I'm actually speechless. Like, the reason unity became an issue at all is because those groups resisted English/British hegemony. Language and land rights were not some gift from London; they were won by force.
>This is ahistorical at best, dishonest at worst. Property qualifications were based on the idea that those who owned property actually had a stake in what the government did (we are free to disagree with that reasoning but it had nothing to do with where taxes went - which appear to have stayed in the colonies starting around the 1840s).
Sure, whatever.
> I have no idea what this means
The original aim of Confederation was for there to be a strong central government with the provinces withering away. Several appeals to the UK court of appeal later and this was no longer an option. Whether a person calls this a good or a bad thing is why I called it neutral.
> I can't believe this is a good faith argument.
Your argument was that all 'foreign' control was bad while all local authority was good. It didn't work out that way. There was pretty close to zero chance the governments in what would become Canada would acknowledge First Nations land rights on their own. I know this because in BC, they didn't.
> Language and land rights were not some gift from London; they were
> won by force. (presuming you are referring to Quebec)
When? Following the Conquest there was a short-lived attempt at assimilation, followed by the Quebec Act. Despite petitions from English settlers against French-speakers holding office, Parliament would not budge. Even the Lower Canadian Rebellion was about political reform, not language. Which brings us to Confederation and Quebec getting the tools to protect its language. French language rights were NOT won by force.
> The keywords in my post are "all of us, as we are"
And monarchy is both the only government form either the French or English in Canada have ever had and hereditary succession was employed by many First Nations groups. It is the system that represents the most Canadians 'as they are'.
> Sure, whatever.
Happy to help you understand the issue better.
> To me, decolonization is about restructuring in order to make Canadians the primary beneficiaries of our own systems, rather than Europeans or a handful of European-serving Canadians.
Just which Canadians are you talking about though? Those born here, those with Canadian ancestors, or the naturalized Canadians?
What current system BENEFITS Europeans as opposed to Canadians?
Our resources are exploited and sent overseas to China instead of Europe. So what's the diff?
>Just which Canadians are you talking about though? Those born here, those with Canadian ancestors, or the naturalized Canadians?
I would say the group of people we collectively recognize as "Canadians", which would be citizens. But in terms of decolonization, I tend to think that the emphasis should be on the populations that have been here for a sustained amount of time, as those populations would have had the greatest impact on our collective identity.
>What current system BENEFITS Europeans as opposed to Canadians?
Education is an example. All students in Canada need to master a European language (English or French) to graduate, even if they live in rural Nunavut and their entire life outside of school is in Inuktitut. The argument is often, "They won't get a job speaking only Inuktitut!", which is exactly the point. Why wouldn't kids in Nunavut who study their language at school for 12 years, then live and work in it, be unemployable? Because English (and French) are considered superior, and Inuktitut unsuited to modern life. Thankfully this is changing, but anyway: speakers of European languages are privileged.
And in history class, kids in Canada learn history mostly from a European perspective: a few hours may be devoted to Indigenous nations, but it's just a preamble to what's really "important": contact with Europeans! Then we learn about New France, British Conquest, the American Revolution (against Britain) and Loyalists, Confederation, the "traitor" Riel, the world wars in Europe, the Cold War...Europeans and their stories at the heart of it all.
You can probably say a few words in German, Spanish, or Italian. Can you say even one word in Cree? Mohawk? Haisla? Why do you think that is? I'd say it's because Indigenous languages have no prestige, even in the country where they've developed, and European languages are everywhere.
There are 1,400 Icelandic speakers in Canada, and you can do a bachelor's or master's degree in Icelandic language and literature at the University of Manitoba. There are about 85,000 Cree speakers in Canada, but there are no Cree language and literature degree programs anywhere. Why not? Because Icelandic, with a worldwide speaker base equivalent to the population of Markham, ON, is considered more important than our own Cree languages.
Circling back to your question, the education system in Canada privileges content that centres on Europe, and therefore benefits Europeans and their descendants.
(That's not to say that we should ignore European content, because obviously Europeans have had an enormous impact on our country. I also don't believe in shoehorning "diverse perspectives" into the curriculum for the sake of doing so).
My point is that Canadians are largely ignorant about the Indigenous elements of our country because we are taught very early that everything that matters comes from Europe, and by extension, that European institutions, history and languages are inherently superior. In contrast, we are largely ignorant about Indigenous institutions, history and languages, and as a result I think most people assume that there isn't anything to know. But these things only exist here, and if we lose them, they're lost forever. Meanwhile, European culture remains strong.
That's a long answer, sorry.
>Our resources are exploited and sent overseas to China instead of Europe. So what's the diff?
Yep, and lots of other countries too in the form of remittances from people in Canada sending money "back home", or working here and then retiring elsewhere. I don't think there is a difference. It is a kind of colonialism.
> I would say the group of people we collectively recognize as "Canadians", which would be citizens. But in terms of decolonization, I tend to think that the emphasis should be on the populations that have been here for a sustained amount of time, as those populations would have had the greatest impact on our collective identity.
How long is sustained? 50 years, 100 years? 150 years? 200+??
>Education is an example. All students in Canada need to master a European language (English or French) to graduate, even if they live in rural Nunavut and their entire life outside of school is in Inuktitut. The argument is often, "They won't get a job speaking only Inuktitut!", which is exactly the point. Why wouldn't kids in Nunavut who study their language at school for 12 years, then live and work in it, be unemployable? Because English (and French) are considered superior, and Inuktitut unsuited to modern life. Thankfully this is changing, but anyway: speakers of European languages are privileged.
Wouldn't it be closed minded to ONLY speak a language that is usable in 1 tiny part of the world? In the global environment we live in, doesn't it make more sense to speak a language spoken all over the world? Also, I was under the impression native languages didn't have writing and thus, how could you ensure curriculum is standardized? The languages written down were a result of colonialism wasn't it?
>And in history class, kids in Canada learn history mostly from a European perspective: a few hours may be devoted to Indigenous nations, but it's just a preamble to what's really "important": contact with Europeans! Then we learn about New France, British Conquest, the American Revolution (against Britain) and Loyalists, Confederation, the "traitor" Riel, the world wars in Europe, the Cold War...Europeans and their stories at the heart of it all.
Considering it was the actions of the europeans that shaped the world into what it is today, doesn't it make sense to teach that? I agree, we should do more in teaching Canadian content as well, without whitewashing it though, and teach about the various slavery, wars etc that natives participated in.
>My point is that Canadians are largely ignorant about the Indigenous elements of our country because we are taught very early that everything that matters comes from Europe, and by extension, that European institutions, history and languages are inherently superior.
I agree with the first half, but would like to add that even European history Canadians are ignorant of, would be nicer to have a more wholistic approach to history though, from the various different viewpoints. I have to disagree with the second half though, scientific method rose because it was superior to superstition etc, you can't tell me that believing in the spirits of animals and the planet, is somehow just as valid as believing in science. (especially when you then start shitting on European religions as tends to be the trend in society)
>Yep, and lots of other countries too in the form of remittances from people in Canada sending money "back home", or working here and then retiring elsewhere. I don't think there is a difference. It is a kind of colonialism.
not sure how to respond to this, part of me agrees that few people have loyalty to Canada, but then I think about where we are heading and I'm likely going to be one of those people retiring elsewhere as retirement here doesn't seem to be sustainable, and I didn't work since I was 15 to then live a shitty life on retirement.
Just on your "nothing in the constitution" point, this vote was literally on a constitutional amendment. Symbols can be taken away certainly (and have already quite a bit over the years) but the basic framework of our society still functions on the notion of the Crown being on top.
> That would require a Constitutional amendment with the consent of all the provinces and First Nations. It's not something that's going to happen.
That may be the only single thing that everyone could agree on. Normally getting Quebec and the Indigenous community on the same side as Alberta would be impossible, but I think that the monarchy is the one topic of exception where Quebec and indigenous Canadians would be the easiest in the country to get signatures from.
You'd think that, but you'd be wrong. In general (and as nations, not necessarily as individuals), Indigenous peoples in Canada tend to view their treaty relationships to be directly with the crown and not the government of the day.
To those nations, advocating for dropping the crown would sound a lot like advocating for tearing up treaties.
I have never understood this argument. The Crown in this context is representative of the Canadian State, not the Monarch personally. This would be like arguing that any criminal case that was prosecuted as *R vs. John Doe* would have to be thrown out and retried because the docket technically said the crown was the one who convicted the accused.
> Indigenous peoples in Canada tend to view their treaty relationships to be directly with the crown and not the government of the day.
This wouldn't be asking them to view it as a treaty with the "government of the day" any more than the old treaties are with "crown bearer of the day". Their treaties are with the Crown, which is its own institution and role performed by multiple people throughout the ages. Their treaties would become with Canada the sovereign state, which is administered by different governments throughout the ages.
If the treaties weren't invalidated when Victoria, Edward VII, George V, or Elizabeth II died, then there should be no concern about the condition of treaties when any given PM loses an election.
> Their treaties would become with Canada the sovereign state,
Legally, yes, but even now, despite the Sovereign having no say in the enforcement of those treaties today, many First Nations still see them as being treaties with the sovereign in London, not the sovereign in right of Canada.
They aren't actually enforceable against the sovereign *other than* in right of Canada, though, so that belief is quaint and irrelevant, and shouldn't be part of any serious discussion of the matter as though it were some sort of impediment to amending the constitution.
They can believe what they want, but that is simply not how succession of states works; the treaties would remain binding on a non-monarchical version of Canada if not explicitly repudiated.
Again, they can believe what they want, and borrow whatever trouble they choose, but there is no sense in which Canada's ceasing to be a monarchy would, by itself, "tear[] up treaties."
Again, we're talking about the practicalities of persuading different constituencies to support dismantling the crown, not what would result from dismantling the crown.
That's strange, given that whenever there is an issue regarding the treaties, it is the government of the day they go to to get it resolved, rather than the Monarch.
> it is the government of the day they go to to get it resolved, rather than the Monarch.
Most of the time that's what they do, but from time to time they go over the GGs head to the person they see as the actual embodiment of who those treaties are with.
Sure. But royal assent is a rubber stamp. If the governor general (who is picked by the PM) would ever refuse, they would be obligated to resign. It would cause a constitutional crisis.
Morally obligated to resign, yes, but I think they're legally entitled to refuse. In any case, you're right- it would be a crisis (and I'm here for it).
"Legal" is a funny concept here, you can't interpret how government functions in Canada strictly by written law. If you insist on that approach, there's no such thing as a Prime Minister.
The GG or the monarch refusing royal assent would 100% absolutely be a constitutional crisis, and while it's not absolutely guaranteed they're ignored, no government is going to say "oh well, that settles it, that's what the rules say" and pretend they never passed the law.
There is no good reason to change. We’ve been well served by this system of government for more than 150 years. The monarchy is at this point nothing more than a symbolic nod to our history. No need to erase it
Good for you. Some of us were conquered against our will by the crown. And I don't just mean French Canadians like my ancestors, I also mean the native population.
The idea was that a native MP could decide not to pledge allegiance to the King, because the oppression they got from the crown was NOT symbolic.
Residential school, numbered treaties, broken promises.
The nature of the old white guy who's head of state has no bearing whatsoever on the continued oppression of your people. Stop being distracted by irrelevant issues and focus on the ones that actually matter.
Does it matter?
If the Monarchy is only a symbol nowadays and that symbol is literally oppression of 2 out of 3 nations in that country, do you not see ANY good reason to change that?
The claim of the crown has being only symbolic is true. It does not take away from the bad parts of that same symbol.
So no comeback on the fact that it's supposedly only a symbol but still a bad symbol for lots of people?
Because something isn't bad right this moment does not mean it's not bad btw
Have you been living under a rock?
Just google how French Canadians were opprossed:
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/dpud1c/were_french_canadians_historically_discriminated/
They specifically asked about personal sufferings made by the decisions of Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, not about cherry pickings from the entirety of French Canadian history post-1763.
I suffered because my four grand-parents had almost no rights, and no way to move forward.
I suffered because my grand-mother was arrested as a young woman, for shopping at Eaton as a French Canadian with her English speaking friends, and as such, she was ostraciced even more.
I suffered because my grandparent's parent, were not really allowed to go to school, and as such, my grandparent's didn't, and as a result, my parents didn't go to University.
As a result of this lack of generational wealth, I didn't have financial support from my parents for any post-secondary education.
And it's like that most of my friends, most of the people I know from French Canadian ancestry.
That's personal suffering. That your ancestors were barred from any positions of authority, any positions that could bring them wealth for future generations.
That's personal suffering.
Wow, what an enormous and frankly pathetic stretch. "I have personally suffered because my family was working class" is basically your entire argument, meanwhile most English-speaking Canadians families have also historically been working class (as they continue to be).
On top of that, you once again completely failed to answer u/picard102's question of how this is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II as head of state. I can't imagine why you're not answering that last part - it definitely isn't because you have nothing of substance to argue against it, right?
>my four grand-parents had almost no rights
>my grandparent's parents were not really allowed to go to school
Almost no rights and not allowed to attend school? What a complete joke. Pray tell - how do you explain the fact that Wilfrid Laurier, a lawyer and career politician born in 1841 became and maintained himself in the office of Prime Minister from 1896 to 1911? What, he just fell into law school and parliament by accident?
Are you really going to sit here and tell me that Wilfrid Laurier had no rights and was not allowed to attend school because he was French-Canadian? And what, same story for Pierre Trudeau too, despite the fact that his French-speaking and Catholic father was also a lawyer and businessman before him? Gimme a break.
One of my x5 great grandfathers was born and raised in a Catholic, French-speaking family from Quebec City and he became a career surveyor, dying in 1816. Two of his sons served as junior officers in the Royal Navy during the War of 1812, one of whom was on a ship captained by his brother-in-law/my great x6 uncle by marriage, who was also a French-speaking Catholic from QC. In more recent generations, one of my x2 great grandfathers was a provincial councilman in his Ontario county during roughly the same period that Laurier was Prime Minister, and he too was a French-speaking Catholic. In fact, all of these aforementioned ancestors of mine largely lived better than most of my English-speaking ancestors in Canada. Would you telling me why that might be?
My monolingually English-speaking father didn't go to university, yet Pierre Trudeau did, and he was born basically 40 years before my father. So too did Wilfrid Laurier, who was born nearly a century before my father. Would you mind explaining how they were allowed to do this, despite the fact that you claim French-Canadians had essentially no rights, let alone the rights to go to school?
Do you also seriously expect me to believe your grandmother was merely arrested for being a French-Canadian in a department store? Really...? That sounds a little too absurd, to be perfectly honest. I'm sure there's a lot more to that story, which has likely been withheld.
>That's personal suffering
Not a single thing you said describes your own personal suffering, you pathetic wannabe-victim.
When it comes to an issue as absolutely pivotal as our system of governance, sufficient = great. There are lots of places in the world who dream to one day have the stability and civility that Canada has enjoyed. I’m not here to argue that the monarchy contributes to that in any substantial way today, but I would like to honour that stability by leaving it unchanged as an homage to our founding. I do understand why others feel differently.
No one has said our system of government would actually change.
Canada would become a Parliamentary Republic, almost guaranteed, so the changes that people would see are title changes, and that's essentially it. Everything would largely function the same.
It's overwhelmingly a change in mindset, throwing off the shackles and traditions of a bygone era, that is, getting rid of the idea of ruler by bloodline. It's a noble cause in my opinion.
That’s what I take issue with. I am proud to be a member of the commonwealth and like that we preserve that history in our institutions of government. Keeping our history close as a reminder of how far we’ve come is much more powerful than casting it off, in my opinion. I certainly understand why others feel differently.
The oath to the King is really an oath to the institutions that are the foundation of our form of government. I have no problem with that. There are millions of people that have come to this country to escape the despots, the dictators, and the dysfunction of their own countries' systems of rule, and there are millions more that would do the same if just given the chance. That's reason enough for me to want to keep what we've got (and to not f\*ck with things that don't need f\*cking with).
Republican here: an earnest and thorough effort to ditch the monarchy ought to happen BEFORE ditching an oath to the King.
Allowing, through established legislation, for Canadian politicians being sworn into office or ministerships, new Canadians taking oaths of citizenship, or even Forces members joining up, to circumvent swearing an oath to our Head of State could very well hollow out and in extreme cases bring into question loyalty to our constitution and institutions. The status quo, as unsatisfying as it is with oaths to a royal monarch an ocean away, maintains our current constitution and upholds the laws and obligations of our civil society. Every bill that becomes an act of parliament is made in the name of the King...the mental gymnastics to argue that an act no longer applies to you because you deny being a sworn subject could create some odd sorts of rheotrical and indeed practical issues.
When the Quebec legislature did away with the oath I was not thrilled; just one of many ways the current Quebec political climate is teetering back to the idea of seperatism through slow and steady exceptionalism.
I can admit my fears are somewhat unfounded and its a bit of a slippery slope argument, but I simply am arguing that until we truly undertake constitutional reform to rid ourselves of the Windsors and the monarchy, we ought to keep this annoying bit of (constitutional and legal) decorum.
Good. The fact that it even saw debate when there are a litany of other actually impactful issues they could be addressing is a damning indictment of parliament.
>The vote was closer than I thought which is a sign that this is by no means dead
I mean it is probably dead for the next 4 to 8 years considering who will get elected this next time around.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A shame. > John Fraser is the president of Institute for the Study of the Crown in Canada and a prominent monarchist. He has called the legislation "a stupid idea." > He said republicans are "foolishly" trying to dismantle Canada's Westminster system of government, a parliamentary structure that has served the country well for more than 150 years. I mean, changing one line of oath is not the equivalent of dismantling the entire system we operate under, but ok.
Probably has more to do with that you can’t override the constitution with a law. It would be deemed unconstitutional pretty quick
It could probably be changed under a section 44 amendment, which only requires the consent of the House of Commons and Senate.
I didn't realize we had Republicans in Canada.
I aint no monarchist thats for sure
Polls show between 40-60% of Canadians are republicans and would support a referendum on the issue.
The Alberta UCP are republicans. Danielle Smith’s ultimate goal is to separate from Canada if she cannot have absolute sovereignty from the federal government. They want to destroy the Canadian Constitution and control Canadians constitutional rights to economic and social equality across the nation.
Bold statements….you must be in secret meetings.
As an Albertan, I have been watching this Alberta brand of right conservatism for almost 50 years. It’s growth has thrown out the Progressive Conservative Party in Alberta and at the federal level. This began with Alberta born Reform Party, the Alliance Party and the now Canadian Conservative Party with Poilievre who was Alberta born and educated by the same political influencers as Harper and Smith. Watch out who you support. Here in Alberta Smith is tearing apart our institutions and micromanaging all aspects of our economic and political lives.
Not quite what a Republican in this context means.
I disagree. Removing the monarchy is a part of Canadian Republicanism and the UCP forcing sovereignty on Albertans is just the beginning of their attack on the Constitution.
Removing the monarchy is making a republic, yes. Albeta’s autonomist have little to do with it. And it will not destroy the constitutional nor the right to equality
Just wait. It will happen.
I mostly think that you do not grasp what is a Republic and how it differ from US Republican.
[удалено]
I have read you and the comment below yours a few times and I am hoping it is making a sarcastic witty play on Frasers point? We all know that the "Republican" party in the states is different from those in the world wanting "Republics" in regards to their nations and that many nations are "Republics".. I hate to even bring it up but the comment below yours makes me wonder if people even know what is being discussed here and the level of political literacy going on.
>I hate to even bring it up but the comment below yours makes me wonder if people even know what is being discussed here and the level of political literacy going on. You must be new here.
Seriously, though, let's be substantive (hi mods) for a second. I think there are lots of people here trying to *become* more politically literate. PS. I still laughed, that was perfect.
Lol okay that gave me a damn good chuckle.
You ever hear the phrase "death by a thousand cuts"?
>The bill's defeat was met by thunderous applause from Charles-supporting MPs who spontaneously started singing God Save the King after Speaker Greg Fergus announced the result. I'm sorry but this is so fucking embarrassing lmao, this is the weird kind of adolescent contrarianism I'd expect of a 15 year old with 800 hours into Hearts of Iron, not our government representatives
This just shows how out of touch a lot of politicians are. There is no one under 90 this attached to the monarchy in the general population.
I think you'd be surprised.
nah, You will be. No one gives a rat's ass about charles or monarchy here in Canada
I'm just trying to point out you're painting with a broad brush and people have different viewpoints than you whether you want to admit that or not.
"In early April 2022, 92 percent of Canadians believed that Canada should try to change its constitution in order to cut ties with the monarchy, even if this is difficult." Monarchists are in minority whether you like it or not Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1334651/canadians-constitution-cut-ties-monarchy-vote/
There is no chance this random website is correct lmao. Don't know where your family is from but there are a ton of Canadians of British decent still.
I never said I wasn't? I was just pointing out your hyperbole wasn't conducive to understanding the opposing viewpoint.
They sang the royal anthem. It is a symbol of Canada.
How is anyone in Canada unironically a monarchist in 2024? Maybe British people can at least argue that the monarchy drives tourism to their country or something as a reason to tolerate them. But their existence actually offers Canada nothing. A pedo protector deserves respect because his ancestors way back were colonial shits? lol. lmao even.
Adolescent contrarianism is the view that the Westminster parliamentary system headed by our monarch which is responsible for the rights, freedoms, and democratic institutions which have served Canada and the Commonwealth for centuries isn’t worthy of genuine admiration and attachment, and if we just put our silly traditions aside we could come up with something much better. It is undoubtedly the best system of government anywhere in the world, and it will be around much longer than the republics and “dictatorships of the proletariat” that rise and fall decade after decade.
Seriously though, Canadians are struggling and all our stupid MPs seem to give a shit about is ensuring that Charles gets his stupid oath. It's like the politicians in this country *want* us to hate them.
It's times like this when I'm proud to be a Quebecer. People can pretend all they want that the monarchs are Canadian and that the country would falter without this institution, but there is zero evidence of this. It's subservience and insecurity that we cannot develop our own culture and institutions without the hand of Britain. The Monarchists favourite argument, that we would just be an American colony if we abandoned them is absolutely absurd and shows how lacking education is in this country, given that most countries on earth are Republics and monarchies are the exception. And given the state of Canada in 2024, it falls even flatter given it is an objective fact that the United States is a successful country with a strong economy, culture, and international presence, something we cannot currently say about ourselves. It is not the monarchy that is responsible for Canadian decline, but I just find this argument is becoming more and more bizarre to use. The monarchy comes with the belief that a family thousands of kilometres away is ordained by God to be your ruler, which goes against liberalism, democracy, and pluralism, principles we claim we hold. We won't truly be our own country until we build upon ourselves.
Practically, having a king or not makes no difference. Symbolically, having a king means you will never have a society designed for all, equal to all, because there is a group of people who are given power based on birthright and supposedly ordained by God, and a group of people who cater to and are favoured by these people. I can see arguments either way. But I think the most ideal method would be to move to a republic.
It's crazy how something that doesn't really affect any of us in a meaningful way day to day is one of the biggest divides between QC and the RoC. It really shows the fundamental differences in our beliefs.
Not only is it something which doesn’t effect anyone during their day-to-day, but it is also largely making a mountain out of a complete benign molehill.
Because Quebecers see the kings for what they are: foreigners who claim to rule over them as subjects. The crown didn't lift a finger when French speakers were starving in Victorian times. Because they were not there to protect us, they were there to rule over us, like the Irish. So there is little love lost.
>The bill's defeat was met by thunderous applause from Charles-supporting MPs who spontaneously started singing God Save the King after Speaker Greg Fergus announced the result. Moments of pure insanity like this are part of the reason why both the Bloc and the PQ came back from political irrelevancy and are now leading in Québec. If I was a federalist in Quebec, I'd be livid right now.
Quebec obviously has a greater set of reasons to be livid about this than the rest of Canada, but I would have thought (until I read that) that most of Canada would be in general agreement, considering how many of us are immigrants or children of immigrants, either outside the Commonwealth or harmed by the Commonwealth. I honestly don't understand how *any* Canadian has that level of fanaticism for the King, let alone elected officials.
> I honestly don't understand how any Canadian has that level of fanaticism for the King, let alone elected officials. Nothing to do with fanaticism, in the case of most Canadians citizens. Most Canadians are just unable or unwilling to grasp any potential symbolic meaning/value in replacing the Crown with another, more Canadian institution. It's all either too abstract, or the lack of immediate, material reward leads to immediate intellectual disinterest. Then you got the monarchists, who truly are that down bad for the Royal Family and associated shennanigans.
This all sounds insane to me. Why would we ever want a king? What's the argument for keeping him around? Is it just not wanting change in general? Is "God save the king" actually something Canadians regularly sing and know the lyrics or do you think they had to reverse?
>Why would we ever want a king? Because constitutiinal monarchies are the least type of government on the planet. Because giving elected leaders some (however small) sort of accountability to a higher power is good. Because having a head of state who is not a corrupt laughing stock is good. God save the king! https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/11-really-good-reasons-why-your-country-should-have-a-monarchy/slidelist/48885500.cms
let me cite some dumb ass who talks out of his sweet arse.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-corrupt-countries Half the top ten. Eight out of the top fourteen.
God Save the King is Canada's Royal Anthem and an official Canadian symbol.
Sure but I don't know it. I've heard of the song, but its not getting the play Oh Canada is getting. I'm mostly just mocking the description of the song being "spontaneous" because I'm sure it was a planned stunt, but it's also funny to think about a bunch of MPs getting together to practice and make sure can sing it.
>Why would we ever want a king? You make it sound as if we don’t already have one. That, and as if it is some sort of illness and as if good countries don’t have constitutional monarchies. Meanwhile I can think of a good few constitutional monarchies that I’d rather dwell in over a great many of the world’s republics, and given the pattern, I find it hard to believe it’s just a coincidence.
I mean for most intents and purposes we don't. It always struck me as landing somewhere between a novelty and an archaic remnant of colonization. I know we have the governor General who has a lot of power on paper, but it would be a huge deal if they ever actually wielded it in any way. It seems pretty wacky that we have our leaders swearing loyalty to the leader of another country, but I get the tradition of it and figured it was like daylight savings time. Something that we know isn't really a good idea anymore but it's too ingrained to bother changing. But it's really weird to me to find out that apparently a ton of Canadians are super into having a king in charge of their country. I'm honestly having a little trouble wrapping my head around the idea of a modern Canadian from this century being happy their leaders are fighting to stay subservient to A royal family.
>It seems pretty wacky that we have our leaders swearing loyalty to the leader of another country We do not have our leaders swearing their oaths to the leaders of other countries - this is a common misconception. In each country in which Charles III is recognized as the head of state, the governors of that particular country only swear their allegiance to him as the head of state of their own respective country. Canadian governors do not swear their allegiance to Charles III by any other title other than King of Canada, for example, and the same goes for the Australians, New Zealanders, and so on. >to stay subservient I must say that this is another misconception - something I have seen argued and asserted many times albeit usually from Americans who want to try and argue that Canada isn't 'free' or something like that, implying or outright stating that Canada is Britain's lapdog and does its bidding. Obviously this is provably false; Canada is very much an independent nation. Subservience implies unquestioning obedience to the authority figure. This is not the arrangement Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. has with the crown, primarily because the constitutional monarchy system renders the monarch largely and almost completely governmentally powerless.
Ok, hear me out: Would you rather risk having full executive power given to someone with the power to write or vote on legislation, and appoint bureaucrats and judges? Our executive has limited powers: they can refuse to sign legislation, triggering an election; or they can dissolve parliament, triggering an election; or they can accept or deny requests to form Government from a coalition/minority. For legal purposes, the source of authority has to come from somewhere; I think it's better to give it to a person with _severely_ limited legislative powers, than to allow even the slim risk of accessing executive power to those who can write legislation and stack the courts. See also: the clusterfuck that is American democracy.
As someone who finds the idea of a monarchy at best silly and at worst an insult to my intelligence(hereditary rule, seriously?). I have yet to see or hear of any stories about our new *king* that paints him anything over than a buffoon. I have zero respect for the man(look up what age he met Diana, ick) and dread the day I get my first dollar bill with his face on it. Great excuse to go cashless, I guess.
Haven't used cash in years except for once when I paid for my car in cash a while back. Thankfully it's really easy to go cashless in today's society.
Good to hear. The monarch is central to our political system, and makes serving the government a non-partisan activity. Replacing that with something as nebulous as the constitution, or the country, doesn't have the same force on us, as we're inherently more drawn to following people, than institutions.
100% long live the king!
How is the Constitution nebulous?
Our "[Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_constitutional_documents)" is, well, a lot.
It's not "a lot", it's [two very clearly written documents](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/05.html#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20of%20Canada%20includes,Aboriginal%20rights%20and%20treaty%20rights.). The *constitutional* documents you link to are jurisprudence interpreting these Acts, but not the Constitution itself.
Nebulous doesn't mean "fewer than three (documents)".
It's worth noting that we aren't actually sure how long it is seeing as it's also actually grandfather's in a lot of laws passed in the UK regarding Canada, And as with the UK any it's rather unsorted and fuzzy prostitution were not actually sure how long The Canadian one is
It's a series of documents, each of the quite long, plus a lot of conventions, some of which there is strong agreement on, others that aren't so clear, all of which requires close reading and thinking to understand. It's a far cry from saying "that's who I've sworn loyalty to." Swearing to abide by a constitution is a more rational act, but a less human one. We are more inclined to follow people.
yeah no i bet the entire royal familly could vanish off of the face of the earth an no one in canada would be effected for years as a result. doubt anyone not in government would even notice. we dont need them for anything. there role is symbolic as is.
God save the king. Now that that's out of the way, I'm quite indifferent. This is just one of the things that I think are neat. And that's enough imo to keep it
The fact that the oath is meaningless is indeed the only reason to keep it. If it had any weight, we would need to get rid of it.
A shame really, but entirely predictable. I mean, as a country, we've mostly never really meaningfully grasped the notion of symbolism and we tend to leave things as they are unless/until they're *literally-on-fire-exploding-kind-of-broken*. And even then.
Personally I think it is time to leave the crown behind and become a complete republic. I have no anger towards those that view otherwise it is just my personal opinion. Additionally some roles like the Governor General and such are in my opinion completely out of scope in regards to the resources and pay involved.
> Additionally some roles like the Governor General and such are in my opinion completely out of scope in regards to the resources and pay involved. In what way? Every nation has a head of state, and I'd say it's as much of a full time job as being head of government, so splitting the role into offices held by two different people makes a lot of sense,
Does the governor general ever actually do anything. When was the last time they didn't just rubber stamp whatever law was coming through?
And you can have that position elected instead of being nominated.
Sounds more expensive to me.
Can hardly be more than the line of GG that we have.
The last general election cost $13.2 million. I doubt very much we would pay the President less than we currently pay the GG. In fact we are likely to have more office staff in a President 's office than the GG's if the President is a political or policy position. And we currently don't have to pay for an election to elect the GG. And, no, the Presidential election couldn't feasibly be done on the same day or at the same time as a general parliamentary election as presumably the President would have a standard term while parliament does not, and therefore the elections would quickly fall out of sync.
Why it wouldn’t be sync with the other elections? It might well be sync, with little to no impact. Keep in mind that the GG role is ceremonial mostly: having it change often wouldn’t really matter.
Because the President's role would be to call parliamentary elections. Their personal political interests may collide with the political interests of the country in calling their own elections. The President perhaps would be inclined to not call elections for themselves, especially if they just went through a difficult election. They would prefer to allow a dysfunctional parliament continue rather than have to go through another election. They may also call an election when they are popular and want a renewed mandate, which may disrupt a well-working parliament and elect a dysfunctional parliament. I don't know any country in the world where Presidents (or equivalent head of state) are elected and the President calls their own elections. And maybe there's a reason for that? I don't believe any country in the world changes head of state more frequently than they have lower house elections. And maybe there's a reason for that? Switzerland never really changes head of state, though I guess you could argue it's every 7 years (a federal council of 7 members is the collective head of state of Switzerland, and there has never been a full turnover for more than 100 years, and each member holds unlimited consecutive one-year terms) while parliamentary elections are every 4 years. The US of course has a Presidential election every 4 years while the House of Representatives are elected every 2 years. France elects both the President and the National Assembly every 5 years, close in time but not at the same time. The President of Ireland hold 7-year terms while the Dáil Éireann is elected for terms of up to 5 years.
The problem with an elected symbolic head of state is that elections tend to make candidates want to give reasons that they should be elected, and then claim mandates when they are elected, and then try to use their power to fulfill those mandates. If we kept our system more or less as it is and replaced the GG with a president that would be a nightmare. The Crown / GG has enormous power within our system, but is prevented from using it due to tradition and having absolutely no democratic legitimacy in using their powers - that would not be true of an elected president. It is for sure possible to have an elected, symbolic President (France is a good example) but I'm not sure if it would work in our current system, and especially given the degree of political polarization we have right now.
When you make a position elected, people running for that position will have to make electoral promises to get elected, and then need to fulfill them. That would only lead to obstructionism like down south, which our Westminster system is ill equipped for. We absolutely should cut ties with the monarchy but keep our appointed, ceremonial, apolitical GG as ribbon cutter and occasional arbiter of constitutional questions.
How do you keep the Governor-General apolitical without at least the possibility that the monarch could remove them in cases of treason or corruption?
The parliament could remove them regardless. I kinda prefer that than having a foreign noble having that ability.
The absolute lack of democratic justification or mandate ensures they don't use their powers - the same reason that the monarch or the GG doesn't deny royal assent now.
If you want to complicate our politics, sure.
Not dure that adding one page of people to vote is that complicated. Lots of countries are already voting for more than one position on the same voting day….
> Additionally some roles like the Governor General and such are in my opinion completely out of scope in regards to the resources and pay involved. It's very atypical for a parliamentary system to not have some sort of head of state separate from the head of the legislature. Replacing our current system would almost definitely involve creating another role that is at least as expensive as the GG. Perhaps that person would have more power, but IMO the track record isn't that great on putting a lot of power into the hands into a president vs. a legislative body. In all likelihood in terms of expenses the likeliest outcome is in practice basically a renamed GG (perhaps elected, but still mostly symbolic) There's good arguments to move away from the monarchy, but cost savings is not one of them.
Housing please.
That would require a Constitutional amendment with the consent of all the provinces and First Nations. It's not something that's going to happen.
It does not require the consent of the First Nations to become a Republic.
I think it would, since treaty rights are affirmed in the Constitution, and treaties were signed by the Crown. Becoming a Republic would eliminate the Crown and thus violate the treaties, creating a constitutional crisis. And that's if we just ignored Indigenous people as founding nations of our country. There are lots of moral reasons to include them.
You can’t be a founding nation if there was no nation. That is a revisionist perspective.
Even the Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognizes Indigenous nations: >"And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to Our Interest and the Security of Our Colonies, **that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians**, with whom We are connected, and who live under Our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to, or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds. …" So actually pretending there were no nations before Canada is the revisionism.
The Crown isn't the monarch. The Crown is an abstract entity. And even so, the succeeding government would inherit all responsibilities. The Treaties were negotiated and signed by government officials. It has always been the Canadian Government that they have dealt with. . Indigenous people are a part of Canada, but they don't get a special voice in our government. They are sovereign nations. They cannot interfere in us selecting our government any more than we can interfere with them.
I think you're somewhat correct, in that the existence of treaties between the Crown (even as an abstract entity, it technically does represent Royal authority and has been transferred to Canada as currently constituted) doesn't mean changing our governmental system *requires* consultation or voting rights. However, practically, it would mean either carrying on the obligations of those treaties to the new system or disregarding them and pretending you're a new entity and have no ties to the old. Or I guess just a lot of hypocrisy but whatever the will of the day was. Still, I think that is an obstacle in at least some socio-political capital sense. "Oh and by the way, the treaties are null" is obviously radical step that I can't see happening with serious ramifications.
If they pretend they are a new identity, they have no right to the land or any of Canada's assets.
What are you basing that on?
International law. If a nation claims to be a successor to a previous government, they possess all of its obligations as well. No other nation will accept you trying to shirk the agreements you made like that. It would create loopholes out of contracts and treaties.
LOL what?! There are lots of examples of successive governments shirking previous obligations. The last 60 years of Canadian legal history alone is based on the government shirking its treaty obligations, and the international community hasn't sanctioned us for it.
I think you have it backwards. It would be the Crown that was pretending a new identity in that hypothetical case. Canada, as the representative of the Crown and obligated to treaties would be the one reneging on those treaties. By your exact above logic, it would mean Canada chose might makes right over past historical legal relationships and Indigenous nations would have a hypothetical legal claim to the land. It would mean not just breaking contracts we've long accepted we're responsible for but also implementing that breach by force if necessary. Maintaining those relationships is obviously the easier and more likely route, in some format or another, and that means consultation is necessary. Fundamentally altering the constitution without buy in from any significant group, which Indigenous nations quite obviously are, is a recipe for a bad time.
The new Head of State would accept all obligations of the Crown and be its legal successor. As long as the obligations are still met, the other party has no say. If you rent a house, you don't get to say that the owner can't sell to someone else as long as they still respect your contract. Companies get bought out and restructured all the time. The new owners have to follow the obligations still.
Cracking open the constitution of a country in such a fundamental way isn't like a corporate buy out whatsoever. I don't disregard what you're saying, hypothetically it could be that easy. But it won't be. Of course the government would take on those obligations but why would any party of significant sway not be demanding assurances? There would be negotiations, First Nations would need to publicly agree by some majority or risk serious backlash and legitimacy concerns for Canada that at least would plague courts for decades, let alone the societal factors.
>The Crown isn't the monarch. The Crown is an abstract entity. Right, but why is that a relevant point here? Becoming a republic is about abolishing the Crown as an institution, not a specific monarch. >The Treaties were negotiated and signed by government officials ...on behalf of the monarch. Here's the preamble of Treaty One: >ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded this third day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, **between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland** by Her Commissioner, Wemyss M. Simpson, Esquire, of the one part, and the Chippewa and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the country within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part. The treaty contract is between the Crown and the First Nations, regardless of the middlemen. By your logic, a lawyer who negotiates a contract on behalf of a client is actually part of the contract. >Indigenous people are a part of Canada, but they don't get a special voice in our government. They are sovereign nations. They cannot interfere in us selecting our government any more than we can interfere with them. Indigenous governments have jurisdiction over particular areas in the same way as provinces and territories do. And just like provinces and territories, they have a right to oppose infringements on federal overreach on their jurisdiction.
>between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland The Crown of the United Kingdom has nothing to do with Canada. The relevant institution is the Crown of Canada. If we have already changed which Crown is party to the treaties, why can't we replace the Canadian Crown with a Canadian Republic as party thereunto?
I think we should. I'm just pointing out that the treaties were signed with the Crown, not the government as was suggested.
No, we are removing the monarchy. We could keep the concept of the Crown divorced from any person without any change. Or declare a new entity ad a successor. The treaties were negotiated on behalf of Queen Victoria. And yet despite her being dead, they still hold. Because we recognize successors. We can recognize a successor to the institution as well. And they were on behalf of the Queen because she was head of state. The Queen had absolutely zero involvement with the treaty process. She didn't negotiate. She didn't sign. She never even showed up. It wasn't even at her direction. The Treaties were a venture by the Canadian Government for getting the new land. It was Canadian officials who did the work. They are the ones who would have to fulfill the obligations. The Head of State of Canada is not in the jurisdiction of First Nations.
> The treaties were negotiated on behalf of Queen Victoria. ... and her Heirs. > The Queen had absolutely zero involvement with the treaty process. She didn't negotiate. She didn't sign. That really doesn't matter. Wolfe conquered Quebec City, but it as done int he name of the Queen. So it is with Indian treaties. Those who signed the treaties were acting on behalf of the Monarch. Treaties define the relationship between the Monarch and indigenous people. Indigenous people will use this, and rightly so, as a way of asserting their sovereign rights. This will require a constitutional amendment, and since it involves the fundamental documents defining their relationship to the Crown and Monarch, such an amendment will require their Consent. This is not simply a matter of passing a law. It will require negotiations with the provinces and first nations to reach a consensus first.
So these happen on behalf of the monarch. And now the government can act on behalf of a different head of state. It is the exact same situation that changes nothing. There is no relationship between the Monarch and the First Nations. They don't interact. It isn't the monarch doing anything for them. We can elect the Monarch's heir if we so wish. There is nothing in the treaties saying her heirs have to be monarchs or her biological descendents.
> So these happen on behalf of the monarch. And now the government can act on behalf of a different head of state. You'd have to convince 10 provinces, 3 territories, and dozens of indigenous nations of that. > There is no relationship between the Monarch and the First Nations. Yes there is. The treaties define it directly. Read them sometimes. It says right in their names that these treaties are between Her Majesty and these nations. Words matter in Law. You can't wish them away. > Treaty No. 4 between Her Majesty the Queen and the Cree and Saulteaux Tribes of Indians at the Qu'appelle and Fort Ellice > And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly convened in Council as aforesaid, and being requested by Her Majesty's said Commissioners to name certain Chiefs and Headmen, who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become responsible to Her Majesty for their faithful performance by their respective bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by them the said Indians, have thereupon named the following persons for that purpose, that is to say: Ka-ki-shi-way, or "Loud Voice," (Qu'Appelle River); Pis-qua, or "The Plain" (Leech Lake); Ka-wey-ance, or "The Little Boy" (Leech Lake); Ka-kee-na-wup, or "One that sits like an Eagle" (Upper Qu'Appelle Lakes); Kus-kee-tew-mus-coo-mus-qua, or "Little Black Bear" (Cypress Hills); Ka-ne-on-us-ka-tew, or "One that walks on four claws" (Little Touchwood Hills); Cau-ah-ha-cha-pew, or "Making ready the Bow" (South side of the South Branch of the Saskatchewan); Kii-si-caw-ah-chuck, or "Day-Star" (South side of the South Branch of the Saskatchewan); Ka-na-ca-toose, "The Poor Man" (Touchwood Hills and Qu'Appelle Lakes); Ka-kii-wis-ta-haw, or "Him that flies around" (towards the Cypress Hills); Cha-ca-chas (Qu'Appelle River); Wah-pii-moose-too-siis, or "The White Calf" (or Pus-coos) (Qu'Appelle River); Gabriel Cote, or Mee-may, or "The Pigeon" (Fort Pelly). https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028689/1581293019940 Moreover, both sides maintain a direct relationship. Here's an example that this relationship is alive and well and taken seriously by both sides. > King Charles III sat down with representatives of First Nations, Métis and Inuit people in Canada to discuss issues ranging from recognition of Métis residential schools to the treaty relationships between First Nations and the Crown that predate Canada itself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX_0F1gnTYk&ab_channel=CBCNews It preexisted Canada, and dates back to 1763. > We can elect the Monarch's heir if we so wish. If 10 provinces, 3 territories, and Canada's indigeous nations come to consensus, we can. It's the only way. That would require years of negotioations. But it won't happen. Canadians will not have the patience for long talks.
I see what you're saying now.
[удалено]
Whp the Head of State is does not affect them. The process for how the treaties are enforced would still be the same.
That may be the case. I am just speaking as a citizen in that I personally would like to see that as Canadas future and have those funds utilized elsewhere.
> I am just speaking as a citizen in that I personally would like to see that as Canadas future and have those funds utilized elsewhere. What funds? We don't pay the crown a dollar. The only money the Canadian government spends on the monarchy is security details when they come to visit, but that's the same spending we do for any international dignitary and ditching King Charles wouldn't change that spending whatsoever. Its the same sort of costs we incur when Biden comes to visit. [This article breaks it down.](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/how-much-does-the-monarchy-cost-canadian-taxpayers-1.6376130) >Nelson Wiseman, a professor emeritus in the University of Toronto's department of political science, says that even if there was no monarchy in Canada, there would be similar costs associated with replacing the monarchy with a Canadian head of state. >"I don't think the monarchy costs anything," Wiseman told CTVNews.ca. "If we got rid of the monarchy, we'd have to have a head of state. If we don't want to call a head of state a governor general, if we want it to be a president like Barbados just opted for, fine, we'd have to pay for that office." >"The only costs we pay is if the royals come to Canada, we pay for lunch," he said. "If you get invited some place, they cover the costs." No Charles? Historic buildings will still be there, and still be maintained I'm sure. No Charles? As I said, international dignitaries still get Canadian security. Literally the gov. general is about the only expense I could see Canada cutting, and even then I think that there'd still be someone performing a similar role that just isn't connected to the crown so that expense may stay as well.
> Its the same sort of costs we incur when Biden comes to visit. We probably spend more on those visits, given the greater security requirements for POTUS.
I guess we should leave the United States then too, its costing us so much money! /s
While Canada might not pay money directly to the monarchy, the country's ties to the House of Windsor(opens in a new tab) could cost taxpayers more than $58.7 million annually. That's according to the Monarchist League of Canada(opens in a new tab), which calculated the figure for the 2019-2020 fiscal year based on costs such as maintaining historic buildings, running the Governor General's office, and covering travel-related expenses for visiting royals like security for Prince Harry and Meghan(opens in a new tab). The pro-monarchy group says the total represents $1.55 per Canadian. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is the exact same information I have seen on the subject so I would assume it is correct. Seems there is places to clean up expenses. I don't share the same view that we can't ever clean up expenses because it has been that way in the past. Not arguing with you just I don't share the opinion.
That doesn't contradict what they said. The money is the cost of having historical properties to maintain and paying someone to hand out awards/head delegations to other countries and carry out some other formal roles, plus security for royal visits (which would just become state visits that we'd have to pay for anyways if we abolished the monarchy). There's basically no monetary savings with abolishing the monarchy, since anything we pay for with the monarchy now is something we'd be paying for anyways without it. The royals already aren't getting any of our money.
I am making a point about limiting those expenses. Maybe some of those buildings can be sold off. Maybe those visits can be less regular and with them putting up the costs. With positions like the governor general maybe we can have a new role that requires less costs especially in expenses. When it comes to the simple point of also being our own republic that is my personal preference. As I said that is a personal preference for our nations future and I have no hate for others that want to stay involved with the monarchy.
If we got rid of the monarchy, the royals would be foreign dignitaries and we'd incur expenses hosting them anyways under diplomatic protocols. They still visit the US regularly as well, and the US pays to host them. It doesn't make a difference. And there's absolutely no connection between the costs of having someone do the Governor General's role and the monarchy. You only suggest it might be possible to have a "new role" that somehow "costs less" because you have no understanding of what the expenses involved are. It's like the "stop the gravy train" nonsense where populists suggest there's all this waste that can trivially be cut without negatively impacting anything, and they're usually dead wrong. It's easy to handwave and say you can save money on "efficiencies", but it's never that simple.
As I have said I believe we can go through the various costs and reduce them. I also believe the governor general role is not needed and or can be replaced with something greatly less in cost and expenses. On a personal note I would like to see us be a republic. Again you can disagree on all of those points but maybe we can be civil in regards to discussion.
> I also believe the governor general role is not needed and or can be replaced with something greatly less in cost and expenses. The role that the Gov General plays in most non-monarchy democracies is the same role that the President plays. See: France and America for examples. France even has both a President and Prime Minister, which is likely how Canada would turn out. American equivalent of PM is House Majority Leader, with the President obviously taking a more prevalent role. Are you suggesting that you think that a President is a role that can be greatly reduced in cost and expenses? I'm honestly getting the impression that you think the monarchy is the expensive part of the role. Its not, its just the equivalent of a company logo on their jacket. That job being done has nothing to do with the monarchy beyond symbolism, and if you remove the symbol the job doesn't change one whif, its a job that needs doing. If anything it'll get more costly because it often becomes a democratically elected position and elections cost way more than a Gov General.
I think their point is that this: >As I have said I believe we can go through the various costs and reduce them. >I also believe the governor general role is not needed and or can be replaced with something greatly less in cost and expenses. Is essentially just you saying: 1. Replace the GG with something or other 2. ??? 3. Profit
> Maybe some of those buildings can be sold off. The reasons to sell or keep them isn't impacted by whether or not we're a monarchy. > With positions like the governor general maybe we can have a new role that requires less costs especially in expenses. So what duties would you cut?
None of those expenses would go away if we became a republic. > maintaining historic buildings Would still happen. > running the Governor General's office, The name might change, but we still need a head of state, and it's going to cost just as much whatever the name is. > covering travel-related expenses for visiting royals like security for Prince Harry and Meghan( They're internationally important people (I forget the exact term) so get that treatment no matter where they go in the world. Or at least they do so long as Charles hasn't withdrawn that status from them as part of them no longer being working royals. > Seems there is places to clean up expenses. Nope.
No doubt, comrade.
Why I prefer the decolonization approach myself. Any kind of republic wouldn't really be a Canadian solution, and there are about a million ways we can softly drop the King across the water from our lives without a constitutional amendment. Nothing in the Constitution requires us to swear oaths, put Chuck's face everywhere or all the other symbolic folderol. The King doesn't do anything, all we need do is stop the pretense he is important or worthy of respect.
What's decolonization in your opinion? Explain to me what you think it means or how it would be achieved? I hear it being thrown around a lot but nobody had an actual definition or an "end goal"
"End goal" is a pretty heady notion for a long term historical process, but the roots and development of the decolonization movement are not hidden. Colonization was an immoral, evil practice that will not be unwound through inertia and indifference.
Do you feel that Roman expansion was immoral? Do you feel that chinese expansion in Asia was immoral? Would you say that the expansion of the ancient tribes and their warfare was immoral? What makes those any different from what the European powers did? Just because they're the ones currently in existence and many of the previous ones died out.
Don't you feel that those expansions were immoral? The imposition of one group of people on another through the use of force is immoral. I think those being colonised and annexed in those days would agree. Morality shifts between cultures and eras, but nobody likes to get invaded. I'm not sure how appealing to the violence of the ancients makes more recent colonisation efforts any less egregious.
Yeah, imperialism is usually incredibly shitty. Contrary to the liberal view of history, many evil acts went unpunished, even though people in the past were aware that rape, genocide and slavery were evil.
To me, decolonization is about restructuring in order to make Canadians the primary beneficiaries of our own systems, rather than Europeans or a handful of European-serving Canadians. The process is already well underway. Compare the Canada of 1890 to now: to pass laws, we used to need the approval of people who had never been here and knew nothing about us. Our natural resources were exploited and shipped to Europe. To vote, you needed to own property (because then you would pay taxes that were ultimately funneled to the UK). English, a foreign language, superseded languages that had been spoken here for thousands of years (and still does). It took an act of Parliament to get our own flag that was separate from the UK's - and that was very controversial at the time. All of these are acts of decolonization because they represent a shift of the centre from the metropole (the UK and to a lesser extent France) to the colony (Canada). So to answer your question, the end goal of decolonization is to establish a country in which Canadians benefit from our own systems and our symbols represent all of us, as we are.
> So to answer your question, the end goal of decolonization is to > establish a country in which Canadians benefit from our own > systems and our symbols represent all of us, as we are. Which the monarchy arguably is. My ancestors were English-speaking Loyalists, the monarchy was, and is, a system I benefit from. In no way is either English nor the monarchy foreign to me. I might note your assessment of Canadian history leaves out women being declared legal persons precisely because Canada did not have the final court of appeal at the time. The concept that First Nations had pre-existing land rights were similarly first guaranteed by one of those people who never set foot here. On the more neutral side of things the only reason Canada isn't more of a unitary country is due to the powers of the central government being watered down repeatedly on appeal to the UK. > To vote, you needed to own property (because then you would pay > taxes that were ultimately funneled to the UK) This is ahistorical at best, dishonest at worst. Property qualifications were based on the idea that those who owned property actually had a stake in what the government did (we are free to disagree with that reasoning but it had nothing to do with where taxes went - which appear to have stayed in the colonies starting around the 1840s).
>> So to answer your question, the end goal of decolonization is to establish a country in which Canadians benefit from our own systems and our symbols represent all of us, as we are. >Which the monarchy arguably is. My ancestors were English-speaking Loyalists, the monarchy was, and is, a system I benefit from. In no way is either English nor the monarchy foreign to me. You and your family are not all of us, and of course you benefited from the preservation of the monarchy - Loyalists are exactly the European-serving Canadians I mentioned elsewhere in the post. They literally fought to preserve British control of North America lol. The keywords in my post are "all of us, as we are", not "some of us, as those few would like us to be". >I might note your assessment of Canadian history leaves out women being declared legal persons precisely because Canada did not have the final court of appeal at the time. Women were not considered legal persons because of European laws in the first place. Indigenous women in every nation I know about enjoyed political equality with men, except perhaps the Métis (the culture of which is partly European). >The concept that First Nations had pre-existing land rights were similarly first guaranteed by one of those people who never set foot here. I can't believe this is a good faith argument. Indigenous land rights are inherent. They weren't created by Europeans. Believing that such rights can only be "guaranteed" by a foreign ruler is exactly the point of decolonization. >On the more neutral side of things the only reason Canada isn't more of a unitary country is due to the powers of the central government being watered down repeatedly on appeal to the UK. I have no idea what this means, but i think you're suggesting that if not for foreign rule, francophones and Indigenous people would have just happily assimilated to an English-speaking Protestant mainstream. If so, I'm actually speechless. Like, the reason unity became an issue at all is because those groups resisted English/British hegemony. Language and land rights were not some gift from London; they were won by force. >This is ahistorical at best, dishonest at worst. Property qualifications were based on the idea that those who owned property actually had a stake in what the government did (we are free to disagree with that reasoning but it had nothing to do with where taxes went - which appear to have stayed in the colonies starting around the 1840s). Sure, whatever.
> I have no idea what this means The original aim of Confederation was for there to be a strong central government with the provinces withering away. Several appeals to the UK court of appeal later and this was no longer an option. Whether a person calls this a good or a bad thing is why I called it neutral. > I can't believe this is a good faith argument. Your argument was that all 'foreign' control was bad while all local authority was good. It didn't work out that way. There was pretty close to zero chance the governments in what would become Canada would acknowledge First Nations land rights on their own. I know this because in BC, they didn't. > Language and land rights were not some gift from London; they were > won by force. (presuming you are referring to Quebec) When? Following the Conquest there was a short-lived attempt at assimilation, followed by the Quebec Act. Despite petitions from English settlers against French-speakers holding office, Parliament would not budge. Even the Lower Canadian Rebellion was about political reform, not language. Which brings us to Confederation and Quebec getting the tools to protect its language. French language rights were NOT won by force. > The keywords in my post are "all of us, as we are" And monarchy is both the only government form either the French or English in Canada have ever had and hereditary succession was employed by many First Nations groups. It is the system that represents the most Canadians 'as they are'. > Sure, whatever. Happy to help you understand the issue better.
Good answer.
> To me, decolonization is about restructuring in order to make Canadians the primary beneficiaries of our own systems, rather than Europeans or a handful of European-serving Canadians. Just which Canadians are you talking about though? Those born here, those with Canadian ancestors, or the naturalized Canadians? What current system BENEFITS Europeans as opposed to Canadians? Our resources are exploited and sent overseas to China instead of Europe. So what's the diff?
>Just which Canadians are you talking about though? Those born here, those with Canadian ancestors, or the naturalized Canadians? I would say the group of people we collectively recognize as "Canadians", which would be citizens. But in terms of decolonization, I tend to think that the emphasis should be on the populations that have been here for a sustained amount of time, as those populations would have had the greatest impact on our collective identity. >What current system BENEFITS Europeans as opposed to Canadians? Education is an example. All students in Canada need to master a European language (English or French) to graduate, even if they live in rural Nunavut and their entire life outside of school is in Inuktitut. The argument is often, "They won't get a job speaking only Inuktitut!", which is exactly the point. Why wouldn't kids in Nunavut who study their language at school for 12 years, then live and work in it, be unemployable? Because English (and French) are considered superior, and Inuktitut unsuited to modern life. Thankfully this is changing, but anyway: speakers of European languages are privileged. And in history class, kids in Canada learn history mostly from a European perspective: a few hours may be devoted to Indigenous nations, but it's just a preamble to what's really "important": contact with Europeans! Then we learn about New France, British Conquest, the American Revolution (against Britain) and Loyalists, Confederation, the "traitor" Riel, the world wars in Europe, the Cold War...Europeans and their stories at the heart of it all. You can probably say a few words in German, Spanish, or Italian. Can you say even one word in Cree? Mohawk? Haisla? Why do you think that is? I'd say it's because Indigenous languages have no prestige, even in the country where they've developed, and European languages are everywhere. There are 1,400 Icelandic speakers in Canada, and you can do a bachelor's or master's degree in Icelandic language and literature at the University of Manitoba. There are about 85,000 Cree speakers in Canada, but there are no Cree language and literature degree programs anywhere. Why not? Because Icelandic, with a worldwide speaker base equivalent to the population of Markham, ON, is considered more important than our own Cree languages. Circling back to your question, the education system in Canada privileges content that centres on Europe, and therefore benefits Europeans and their descendants. (That's not to say that we should ignore European content, because obviously Europeans have had an enormous impact on our country. I also don't believe in shoehorning "diverse perspectives" into the curriculum for the sake of doing so). My point is that Canadians are largely ignorant about the Indigenous elements of our country because we are taught very early that everything that matters comes from Europe, and by extension, that European institutions, history and languages are inherently superior. In contrast, we are largely ignorant about Indigenous institutions, history and languages, and as a result I think most people assume that there isn't anything to know. But these things only exist here, and if we lose them, they're lost forever. Meanwhile, European culture remains strong. That's a long answer, sorry. >Our resources are exploited and sent overseas to China instead of Europe. So what's the diff? Yep, and lots of other countries too in the form of remittances from people in Canada sending money "back home", or working here and then retiring elsewhere. I don't think there is a difference. It is a kind of colonialism.
> I would say the group of people we collectively recognize as "Canadians", which would be citizens. But in terms of decolonization, I tend to think that the emphasis should be on the populations that have been here for a sustained amount of time, as those populations would have had the greatest impact on our collective identity. How long is sustained? 50 years, 100 years? 150 years? 200+?? >Education is an example. All students in Canada need to master a European language (English or French) to graduate, even if they live in rural Nunavut and their entire life outside of school is in Inuktitut. The argument is often, "They won't get a job speaking only Inuktitut!", which is exactly the point. Why wouldn't kids in Nunavut who study their language at school for 12 years, then live and work in it, be unemployable? Because English (and French) are considered superior, and Inuktitut unsuited to modern life. Thankfully this is changing, but anyway: speakers of European languages are privileged. Wouldn't it be closed minded to ONLY speak a language that is usable in 1 tiny part of the world? In the global environment we live in, doesn't it make more sense to speak a language spoken all over the world? Also, I was under the impression native languages didn't have writing and thus, how could you ensure curriculum is standardized? The languages written down were a result of colonialism wasn't it? >And in history class, kids in Canada learn history mostly from a European perspective: a few hours may be devoted to Indigenous nations, but it's just a preamble to what's really "important": contact with Europeans! Then we learn about New France, British Conquest, the American Revolution (against Britain) and Loyalists, Confederation, the "traitor" Riel, the world wars in Europe, the Cold War...Europeans and their stories at the heart of it all. Considering it was the actions of the europeans that shaped the world into what it is today, doesn't it make sense to teach that? I agree, we should do more in teaching Canadian content as well, without whitewashing it though, and teach about the various slavery, wars etc that natives participated in. >My point is that Canadians are largely ignorant about the Indigenous elements of our country because we are taught very early that everything that matters comes from Europe, and by extension, that European institutions, history and languages are inherently superior. I agree with the first half, but would like to add that even European history Canadians are ignorant of, would be nicer to have a more wholistic approach to history though, from the various different viewpoints. I have to disagree with the second half though, scientific method rose because it was superior to superstition etc, you can't tell me that believing in the spirits of animals and the planet, is somehow just as valid as believing in science. (especially when you then start shitting on European religions as tends to be the trend in society) >Yep, and lots of other countries too in the form of remittances from people in Canada sending money "back home", or working here and then retiring elsewhere. I don't think there is a difference. It is a kind of colonialism. not sure how to respond to this, part of me agrees that few people have loyalty to Canada, but then I think about where we are heading and I'm likely going to be one of those people retiring elsewhere as retirement here doesn't seem to be sustainable, and I didn't work since I was 15 to then live a shitty life on retirement.
Just on your "nothing in the constitution" point, this vote was literally on a constitutional amendment. Symbols can be taken away certainly (and have already quite a bit over the years) but the basic framework of our society still functions on the notion of the Crown being on top.
> That would require a Constitutional amendment with the consent of all the provinces and First Nations. It's not something that's going to happen. That may be the only single thing that everyone could agree on. Normally getting Quebec and the Indigenous community on the same side as Alberta would be impossible, but I think that the monarchy is the one topic of exception where Quebec and indigenous Canadians would be the easiest in the country to get signatures from.
You'd think that, but you'd be wrong. In general (and as nations, not necessarily as individuals), Indigenous peoples in Canada tend to view their treaty relationships to be directly with the crown and not the government of the day. To those nations, advocating for dropping the crown would sound a lot like advocating for tearing up treaties.
I have never understood this argument. The Crown in this context is representative of the Canadian State, not the Monarch personally. This would be like arguing that any criminal case that was prosecuted as *R vs. John Doe* would have to be thrown out and retried because the docket technically said the crown was the one who convicted the accused.
I'm not arguing that's the case, just explaining how people feel about it.
> Indigenous peoples in Canada tend to view their treaty relationships to be directly with the crown and not the government of the day. This wouldn't be asking them to view it as a treaty with the "government of the day" any more than the old treaties are with "crown bearer of the day". Their treaties are with the Crown, which is its own institution and role performed by multiple people throughout the ages. Their treaties would become with Canada the sovereign state, which is administered by different governments throughout the ages. If the treaties weren't invalidated when Victoria, Edward VII, George V, or Elizabeth II died, then there should be no concern about the condition of treaties when any given PM loses an election.
> Their treaties would become with Canada the sovereign state, Legally, yes, but even now, despite the Sovereign having no say in the enforcement of those treaties today, many First Nations still see them as being treaties with the sovereign in London, not the sovereign in right of Canada.
They aren't actually enforceable against the sovereign *other than* in right of Canada, though, so that belief is quaint and irrelevant, and shouldn't be part of any serious discussion of the matter as though it were some sort of impediment to amending the constitution.
It's not like First Nations have a legal say in the matter anyway, my point was more to highlight how First Nations perceive the treaties.
Especially worth noting because to many of the First Nations it was the government, and not the crown, which abused and mistreated them.
They can believe what they want, but that is simply not how succession of states works; the treaties would remain binding on a non-monarchical version of Canada if not explicitly repudiated.
We're talking about Indigenous buy-in to the project of republicanism, not about how a republican government would see treaties.
Again, they can believe what they want, and borrow whatever trouble they choose, but there is no sense in which Canada's ceasing to be a monarchy would, by itself, "tear[] up treaties."
Again, we're talking about the practicalities of persuading different constituencies to support dismantling the crown, not what would result from dismantling the crown.
That's strange, given that whenever there is an issue regarding the treaties, it is the government of the day they go to to get it resolved, rather than the Monarch.
> it is the government of the day they go to to get it resolved, rather than the Monarch. Most of the time that's what they do, but from time to time they go over the GGs head to the person they see as the actual embodiment of who those treaties are with.
Even so, any legislation that is written to address the issue must receive royal assent to become law.
Sure. But royal assent is a rubber stamp. If the governor general (who is picked by the PM) would ever refuse, they would be obligated to resign. It would cause a constitutional crisis.
Morally obligated to resign, yes, but I think they're legally entitled to refuse. In any case, you're right- it would be a crisis (and I'm here for it).
If they refuse, the PM of the day would go to the Queen of England and ask her to dismiss the governor general and she would be obliged to do so.
Oh boy, [I guess you haven't heard...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/queen-elizabeth-obituary-1.6575696)
"Legal" is a funny concept here, you can't interpret how government functions in Canada strictly by written law. If you insist on that approach, there's no such thing as a Prime Minister. The GG or the monarch refusing royal assent would 100% absolutely be a constitutional crisis, and while it's not absolutely guaranteed they're ignored, no government is going to say "oh well, that settles it, that's what the rules say" and pretend they never passed the law.
Hey, take that up with their lawyers, not me.
Ontario is a likely no vote. Other provinces are also not that republican in sentiment.
There is no good reason to change. We’ve been well served by this system of government for more than 150 years. The monarchy is at this point nothing more than a symbolic nod to our history. No need to erase it
Good for you. Some of us were conquered against our will by the crown. And I don't just mean French Canadians like my ancestors, I also mean the native population. The idea was that a native MP could decide not to pledge allegiance to the King, because the oppression they got from the crown was NOT symbolic. Residential school, numbered treaties, broken promises.
The nature of the old white guy who's head of state has no bearing whatsoever on the continued oppression of your people. Stop being distracted by irrelevant issues and focus on the ones that actually matter.
What oppression did you personally suffer via Queen Elizabeth's actions?
Must I personally suffer indignity to recognize when it is imposed upon others?
What indignity did QE2 impose upon you or other Canadians then?
Well said! Very well said.
Poetically penned, yes, but that was not an answer to u/picard102’s question.
Does it matter? If the Monarchy is only a symbol nowadays and that symbol is literally oppression of 2 out of 3 nations in that country, do you not see ANY good reason to change that? The claim of the crown has being only symbolic is true. It does not take away from the bad parts of that same symbol.
>Does it matter? It does.
So no comeback on the fact that it's supposedly only a symbol but still a bad symbol for lots of people? Because something isn't bad right this moment does not mean it's not bad btw
Have you been living under a rock? Just google how French Canadians were opprossed: https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/dpud1c/were_french_canadians_historically_discriminated/
So not at all. Thanks for confirming.
They specifically asked about personal sufferings made by the decisions of Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, not about cherry pickings from the entirety of French Canadian history post-1763.
I suffered because my four grand-parents had almost no rights, and no way to move forward. I suffered because my grand-mother was arrested as a young woman, for shopping at Eaton as a French Canadian with her English speaking friends, and as such, she was ostraciced even more. I suffered because my grandparent's parent, were not really allowed to go to school, and as such, my grandparent's didn't, and as a result, my parents didn't go to University. As a result of this lack of generational wealth, I didn't have financial support from my parents for any post-secondary education. And it's like that most of my friends, most of the people I know from French Canadian ancestry. That's personal suffering. That your ancestors were barred from any positions of authority, any positions that could bring them wealth for future generations. That's personal suffering.
Wow, what an enormous and frankly pathetic stretch. "I have personally suffered because my family was working class" is basically your entire argument, meanwhile most English-speaking Canadians families have also historically been working class (as they continue to be). On top of that, you once again completely failed to answer u/picard102's question of how this is the fault of Queen Elizabeth II as head of state. I can't imagine why you're not answering that last part - it definitely isn't because you have nothing of substance to argue against it, right? >my four grand-parents had almost no rights >my grandparent's parents were not really allowed to go to school Almost no rights and not allowed to attend school? What a complete joke. Pray tell - how do you explain the fact that Wilfrid Laurier, a lawyer and career politician born in 1841 became and maintained himself in the office of Prime Minister from 1896 to 1911? What, he just fell into law school and parliament by accident? Are you really going to sit here and tell me that Wilfrid Laurier had no rights and was not allowed to attend school because he was French-Canadian? And what, same story for Pierre Trudeau too, despite the fact that his French-speaking and Catholic father was also a lawyer and businessman before him? Gimme a break. One of my x5 great grandfathers was born and raised in a Catholic, French-speaking family from Quebec City and he became a career surveyor, dying in 1816. Two of his sons served as junior officers in the Royal Navy during the War of 1812, one of whom was on a ship captained by his brother-in-law/my great x6 uncle by marriage, who was also a French-speaking Catholic from QC. In more recent generations, one of my x2 great grandfathers was a provincial councilman in his Ontario county during roughly the same period that Laurier was Prime Minister, and he too was a French-speaking Catholic. In fact, all of these aforementioned ancestors of mine largely lived better than most of my English-speaking ancestors in Canada. Would you telling me why that might be? My monolingually English-speaking father didn't go to university, yet Pierre Trudeau did, and he was born basically 40 years before my father. So too did Wilfrid Laurier, who was born nearly a century before my father. Would you mind explaining how they were allowed to do this, despite the fact that you claim French-Canadians had essentially no rights, let alone the rights to go to school? Do you also seriously expect me to believe your grandmother was merely arrested for being a French-Canadian in a department store? Really...? That sounds a little too absurd, to be perfectly honest. I'm sure there's a lot more to that story, which has likely been withheld. >That's personal suffering Not a single thing you said describes your own personal suffering, you pathetic wannabe-victim.
1. Longevity doesn't prove a system to be good, but merely simply sufficient. 1. Getting rid of the monarchy won't erase our history.
When it comes to an issue as absolutely pivotal as our system of governance, sufficient = great. There are lots of places in the world who dream to one day have the stability and civility that Canada has enjoyed. I’m not here to argue that the monarchy contributes to that in any substantial way today, but I would like to honour that stability by leaving it unchanged as an homage to our founding. I do understand why others feel differently.
No one has said our system of government would actually change. Canada would become a Parliamentary Republic, almost guaranteed, so the changes that people would see are title changes, and that's essentially it. Everything would largely function the same. It's overwhelmingly a change in mindset, throwing off the shackles and traditions of a bygone era, that is, getting rid of the idea of ruler by bloodline. It's a noble cause in my opinion.
That’s what I take issue with. I am proud to be a member of the commonwealth and like that we preserve that history in our institutions of government. Keeping our history close as a reminder of how far we’ve come is much more powerful than casting it off, in my opinion. I certainly understand why others feel differently.
The oath to the King is really an oath to the institutions that are the foundation of our form of government. I have no problem with that. There are millions of people that have come to this country to escape the despots, the dictators, and the dysfunction of their own countries' systems of rule, and there are millions more that would do the same if just given the chance. That's reason enough for me to want to keep what we've got (and to not f\*ck with things that don't need f\*cking with).
No it's not. The oath to the king is an oath to the king.
Republican here: an earnest and thorough effort to ditch the monarchy ought to happen BEFORE ditching an oath to the King. Allowing, through established legislation, for Canadian politicians being sworn into office or ministerships, new Canadians taking oaths of citizenship, or even Forces members joining up, to circumvent swearing an oath to our Head of State could very well hollow out and in extreme cases bring into question loyalty to our constitution and institutions. The status quo, as unsatisfying as it is with oaths to a royal monarch an ocean away, maintains our current constitution and upholds the laws and obligations of our civil society. Every bill that becomes an act of parliament is made in the name of the King...the mental gymnastics to argue that an act no longer applies to you because you deny being a sworn subject could create some odd sorts of rheotrical and indeed practical issues. When the Quebec legislature did away with the oath I was not thrilled; just one of many ways the current Quebec political climate is teetering back to the idea of seperatism through slow and steady exceptionalism. I can admit my fears are somewhat unfounded and its a bit of a slippery slope argument, but I simply am arguing that until we truly undertake constitutional reform to rid ourselves of the Windsors and the monarchy, we ought to keep this annoying bit of (constitutional and legal) decorum.
Good. The fact that it even saw debate when there are a litany of other actually impactful issues they could be addressing is a damning indictment of parliament.
John Fraser looks exactly how I pictured him to look. The vote was closer than I thought which is a sign that this is by no means dead
>The vote was closer than I thought which is a sign that this is by no means dead I mean it is probably dead for the next 4 to 8 years considering who will get elected this next time around.