Buckdog

We untangled ourselves in 1776.

Dawg, there's a cartoon in my Open Thread today that you may want to steal.

Tom ... I LOVE it! Thanks!

I agree with you as far 'not being British' but "the Quebecois" are going way too far. Prince Charles has as much right to visit this country as the Pope of Rome, more so really, and can visit any province he wants. Quebecer's seem to forget they are still a province in Canada and according to their own referendum;s always will be. I say we dump the OLA instead and invite 'the good prince'to visit anywhere in this country he would like or care to visit.

Hold on for a second Hooey .. I don't mind him coming to Canada as a 'tourist' ... I welcome here as that. BUT this is a trip to Canada in his role as our future King. I want none of that. What about you?

There is no reason in principle that cannot can't either abolish or Canadianize the monarchy. The devil, however, is in the details.

Our constitutional system presumes a head of state that is separate from the legislative branch and the head of government, so simply abolishing the monarchy without replacing it would mean opening the constitution in its entirety and creating a new system.

Most republicans would seem to support a simpler solution - that is, essentially, to turn the Governor General into a President of Canada (though perhaps we wouldn't call it that). At one level, this would be relatively simple. But then we get into the mess of how that person is chosen.

The Governor General, as it stands, is appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister of the day. It would appear to be a small thing to change that to a direct appointment by the Prime Minister - or the sitting GG appointing their successor on advice. But here is where we get into the tricky bits.

One of the weaknesses of our present system is that the GG is the last resort check against a dictatorial Prime Minister in a majority Parliament. If that office becomes a personal gift of the PM - and hence replaceable at whim by the PM - then the capzcity of the GG to act independently in extremis (and it would and should only be in extremis) is undermined.

Well, (says my imaginary republican) why not elect the President of Canada by direct election or some other process?

Not bad. But we still have a constitutional problem - at least potentially.

The monarch (delegated to the GG) has virtually autocratic power according to our constitution. Everything that happens, notionally at least, happens because the GG says so.

Now, in practice, the GG only acts on advice (except in extremis). This convention has evolved because the unelected office of monarch / GG has no electoral legitimacy.

But if we elect the GG / President (directly or otherwise) then the reason for the previous convention is lost. So, if the ex-Tory or ex-Liberal MP who has become GG / President doesn't like the advice proffered by a future NDP Prime Minister, where does that leave us?

Now, I don't think squaring this circle is impossible. But we kid ourselves if the think it would be anything less than a complete overhaul of major portions of the Constitution requiring the consent of the federal Parliament and all ten provincial legislatures.

So, fill your boots. I just think there are about 80 bejillion more important things to spend our energy and political capital on.

Well said, Malcolm+.

sorry, there's nothing wrong with the system as it exists now, the monarchy represented here by the GG is nothing more than a figurehead and can and should stay that way. We probably have one of the best representative government's in the world if not the best, we need to take better care of what we have though imo.ie, get the BQ removed from the federal parliament.

Why can't we have a Canadian figurehead? Why a British Queen? That's just ridiculous!

ok, if you say so

why not go with the President idea and get rid of the crown altogether. then we can have some real good government like the U.S and France and Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan and Zimbabwa.

I'm not saying you don't have a point, LeftDog. I'm just not convinced it is worth the significant effort that would be involved.

But if you would like a suggestion about how to make a uniquely Canadian monarchy over about two generations with far less constitutional hassle, I have a suggestion.

An Act of Succession passed in the Canadian Parliament (which might not require consent of the provinces - but still might), superceding the bigoted Act of 1702 designates a person in the line of succession as Mrs. Battenburg's heir in right of Canada on the condition that the said heir renounces (for themselves and their issue) all other hereditary rights to other crowns.

IOW, we designate, say, Prince Andrew as QEII's heir for Canada. (Why Andrew? Well a) he's unlikely to succeed to the throne of the UK and he actually went to school in Canada.) Andrew's still a Brit, but he moves here so he's a "naturalized" ex-Brit. His daughter Beatrice as well. By the time she's snuffed it, the family is pretty much thoroughly Canadian.

In addition, we drop the bigotted BS about the monarch not being an RC or married to an RC. We can also alter the sexist bits of primogeniture and give female issue equal standing.

Granted, it's still a monarchy - but at least it's Canadianized (over time).

Doesn't have to be Randy Andy, of course. Mrs. Battenburg's grandson Peter Phillips (technically not even a prince anymore) is married to a Canadian.

Then there's this solution:

http://www.mcclelland.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780771033094

:)

That solution could not be worse than what we have .... and may even work out better.

He looks like Charlie Chaplin.