Frequently Asked Questions
- What
exactly is a republic?
- How
does the monarchy work in Canada?
- Canada's
monarchy has served us well for 130 years. Why tamper with it?
- The
monarchy is what makes us different from Americans. If we get rid of the
Queen, won't we just eventually be absorbed by the USA?
- How
will removing the Queen as Canada's Head of State change our government?
- What
republican system should Canada use as a model?
- Is
it possible to be a republic and still be a member of the Commonwealth?
- How
do we go about declaring a republic?
In political systems, a republic
is one whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a
president. The supreme power lies in the body of its citizens who are entitled
to vote for representatives responsible to them.
Of course the latter part of this
definition is already true in Canada's case. Since our constitution allows
for Canadians to remove the monarchy by it's own legislation (albeit with some
difficulty) and also severely limits the power of the monarch, we are in fact
already a republic in all but name. Some constitutional experts even call it, a
"crowned republic."
Back to Top
Although Canada was
established as a self-governing
"Dominion" in the British Empire in 1867, full legislative
independence was established only in 1931 by the Statute of
Westminster. However, it wasn't until the patriation of our constitution in
1982, that amendments to it could be made without the approval of Britain's
Parliament.
Elizabeth II, Queen
of the United Kingdom, is also Queen of Canada, sovereign of a number of realms
- and Canada's official Head of State. In the Letters Patent 1947, all
effective Royal Prerogatives of the sovereign were delegated to the Canadian Governor General
and lieutenants govenor. As part of the Canadian Constitution, the monarchy is
thus limited by our constitution, therefore making Canada a
constitutional monarchy. Technically, some Royal Prerogative power could be
excercised independently by the monarch, but this has not happened since the
Letters Patent. Due to convention, it's widely recognized that these powers
would never be used, for to do so without consent of Canada's parliament would
trigger a constitutional crisis, and most certainly the end of the monarchy
entirely.
There are many
reasons. For one thing, Canada and for that matter, most developed nations in
the twenty-first century, simply don't accept the archaic concept of peerage and
inherited rights in government and society. Symbolic as our connection to the
monarchy is, many Canadians are beginning to realize that, a nation like ours -
advanced in so many other ways, deserves something better than a head of state
who not only doesn't live in Canada and isn't a citizen, but also represents a
type of inegalitarian society that we have gradually evolved away from.
Another reason is
that along with Canada's economic and cultural development, how we define
ourselves as a people has become a significant part of our lives. To most of us,
being Canadian means something more than just citizenship or a place to call
home. As a mature nation, we take pride in our country and our accomplishments
as a people. More and more, we also care about what our international peers
think of us. Perhaps that explains why we get a little testy when some believe us to be less of a nation, simply because
we're too polite to cut our remaining colonial link to Britain.
And let's not
neglect the potential benefit that creating our own republic will have on
calming our unity crisis. Many would argue that the current impasse between our
two English and French solitudes is enhanced by our reluctance to make "the
whole greater than the sum of the parts" and to forge a new merged
political entity without ties to the country that subjugated the French-speaking
nation that resides within Canada.
Nothing could be further from the
truth. Canada is a nation of ethnically diverse and proud people with a rich and
unique society, culture and history. Cutting our last subservient ties to a
foreign sovereign can only enhance that. And think about it ... how does Canada
becoming less British make us more American? The reality is that it won't,
we'll become more Canadian!
Our current
executive head of state, the Governor
General, has a
largely ceremonial role in the operation of Canada's government. One option
would be for a President (or whatever we choose to call the position) to simply
inherit that role initially, with a later process to decide if any further
changes are required for the position. Another more likely scenario would be to
democratize and clearly codify the constitutional role of the present office of
the Governor General - essentially establishing a sort of "president in
waiting". Then, when the opportunity arises, possibly at the end of the Queen's
reign, a functioning replacement will already be in place. Either way, with the exception of being the
representative of the People of Canada rather than the Crown, it's possible -
perhaps even likely - that the functional change will barely be noticeable to most
Canadians.
Back to Top
Much as it is in
Australia, New Zealand, Britain and elsewhere in the world where the
monarchy/republic debate is
already ongoing, Canadians will have many decisions and choices to make about
what kind of head of state we want and how to select them. However, one thing
that unites republicans throughout the Commonwealth is the belief that the
transition will most easily be done by evolving the present Westminster-style
parliamentary monarchies into Westminster-style parliamentary republics. This
would retain a largely ceremonial, politically-neutral and symbolic head of
state as president (with some reserve powers for special circumstances) and a
prime minister as head of government.
Here are some of the
more likely models:
1) Indirect election by parliament
- Instead of the Governor General being selected by the Prime
Minister and officially appointed by the Queen, nominations and/or approval of a
candidate or candidates would be made by provincial or federal legislatures.
Constitutionally, this could be an easy formula to implement. India, a
member of the Commonwealth and a former constitutional monarchy, presently has the most
successful version of this model in the election of its president.
2) Indirect election by a selection
committee of political peers such as judges, former or sitting federal or
provincial politicians, academics, etc. - This model, a variation of which is practiced by Germany, offers
some solace to those who think a president elected by parliament
would somehow be indebted or subservient to it.
3) Direct election by all eligible voters
-
Nominees could be selected by a variety of methods, possibly by provincial
legislatures or peer committees, with the top candidates facing the electorate
in a federal election. A similar system is currently in use in Ireland. Notably,
the Republic of Ireland is a former Dominion that successfully transformed their
own governor general into an elected presidency.
In all examples, candidates can, and we
believe should, be selected outside of our political party system. This
feature would maintain the role of head of state as an independent and impartial
constitutional referee, a feature most agree is an essential part of the
operation of a Westminster Parliamentary System.
One other option that's viable is the
South African model of parliamentary republic where the offices of head of state
and head of government have been merged since becoming a republic. However, since many Canadian political observers
already believe our Prime Minister's Office
wields too much power, it may be one of
the least likely choices.
Back to Top
One of the more
popular misconceptions in the monarchy/republic debate is that Canada would be
forced to relinquish membership in the Commonwealth. In reality, among the Commonwealth's
member-states, most are republics with only sixteen being constitutional monarchies with Queen Elizabeth
II as Head of State. Some even have their own indigenous monarchies. So the answer is yes, Canada would still be an active member
of
the Commonwealth after the change from constitutional monarchy to republic.
Click here for more
information on Canada's
role in the Commonwealth.
Back to Top
It would require the
unanimous consent of the federal parliament and each of the provincial
parliaments for a constitutional amendment. This process would would be a major
undertaking. However, 2009 and 2010 public
opinion polls show that Canadians now welcome the prospect of parliamentary
debate and a constitutional convention to discuss the monarchy.
So tell your friends and
family to spread the word. Write some letters to your MP, make discussion around
the water cooler. To learn how to do this, visit our Get
Involved page.
|
