Canada's Future

I ask the Canadians and the Canadian transfers here, what is the cost/benefit analysis of maintaining the Commonwealth versus becoming an independent republic?

I can only see Constitutional Monarchy as a step backward.  Why would any country free of a Monarchy want to install a hereditary ruler with any powers whatsoever?  Even the English have scaled back their House of Lords.

I can only see Constitutional Monarchy as a step backward.  Why would any country free of a Monarchy want to install a hereditary ruler with any powers whatsoever?   Even the English have scaled back their House of Lords.

The British Royal Family has been reduced to a national mascot, but even they have more political sway than other European monarchs, who are purely a holdover from times past and ornamental. 

I can only see Constitutional Monarchy as a step backward.  Why would any country free of a Monarchy want to install a hereditary ruler with any powers whatsoever?  Even the English have scaled back their House of Lords.


OK, I guess I'll be the first Canadian to weigh in on this one.

First off, let me say that Canada is free with a Monarchy. The Canadian Head of State is HRH Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. Canada has always ben a consttutional monarchy, so we are not deciding if we want a monarch or not. We already have one, and while there are some people who think that we ought to be a republic, these people are in the minority for the time being. I suppose it is possible there will be talks of dropping the monarchy arfter Her Majesty passes on, but we'll have to cross that bridge when we get there, and doing so would require an entire constitutional makeover which is anything but easy and, in my view, totally unnecessary. We are a totally free, independent, and sovereign country even with the Queen as our (totally ceremonial) Head of State. We don't pay her one red cent for anything, unless we invite her to visit us for something. We do pay for her representative, the Governer General, but she actually works for us almost year round by going around and doing the ribbon-cutting while the real Head of State, the Prime Minister, does the actual business of running the country. We retain the traditional British Commonwealth system by choice because it is part of our heritage and it has worked well. Assuming we did one day drop the Monarchy, we would still be a member of the Commonwealth, as there are several Commonwealth nations who have done so. I am totally against this. I think retention of our traditional system of government is vital in our struggle to retain our identity in North America. How can we continue to be Canadian if we gradually eliminate everything that distinguishes us from the United States?

As for Canadian nationalism, Canada has a unique brand of nationalism, as in this country nationalism is a largely leftist affair, whereas it is a right-wing movement in most other countries. Our right-wing usually advocates closer ties with the US, while our nationalists usually hold American imperialism as public enemy number one. The US is our most important ally, and everyone agrees with this, but the challenge we face is how to maintain excellent economic ties with that country, while at the same time safe-guarding our sovereignty against both cultural and economic imperialism. There are people who will tell you that Canada is an economic colony of the United States. I think this is a misleading statement, as both countries are totally willing participants in our economic relationship, and either one of us could back out at any time.

Regionalism is still strong and always has been. Diversity is a key factor in not only Canada's future, but in our past as well. Atlantic Canadians are not the same as Ontarians, or Prairies people, or Westerners, or certainly Quebeckers. Reconciling English and French Canadian relations is a critical factor in our future as well. and it will involve some constitutional reform.

Our only viable choice is federalism, and it always has been. British North America came together willingly to protect British territory from American invasions, which we had been successful at holding back despite several attempts at takeover. In fact, Fenian raids from the States were a great factor in Confederation. Canada has a unifying principal behind it, and that is that together we can help each other protect our sovereignty from foreign (mostly American) threats. And this is what we will have to continue to do, otherwise face breakup and American takeover.

Also, to add on to what I have already said, I think it is prudent to explain to people foremost that one cannot look at Canada from an American mindset to give it advice for our future. Honestly, as far as government and history is concerned, we have a totally different system and perspective. For example, in Canada, unlike the US, there is no separation of church and state enshrined in our constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures all of us the freedom of religion, as well as pretty much all the freedoms in the American Bill of Rights and more, but the first sentence of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...

As you can see, here is a fundamental difference. In Canada, publically funded religious education exists, primarily in the provinces of Ontario and Alberta. If I were an Ontarian, I could send my child to a publically funded Catholic school, which would be my constitutional right. In Alberta, there are public schools for a variety of religions. Most other provinces have phased them out. In Quebec, back in my father's day, all children went to parochial schools. English kids (e.g. my Pop) went to protestant schools, while French kids went to Catholic ones. Only just recently were confessional schools completely phased out of the public system in Quebec.

Certain parts of the constitution apply only to certain provinces, as in the case of New Brunswick, for example, whose citizens enjoy bilingualism on the provincial level instead of just at the federal level. These linguistic rights are laid out in the Charter whilst other provinces are left to their own devices to set their own linguistic policies.

All in all, Canadian constitutional law is much more complicated than that of American law, as the American Constitution is shorter and intended for application in every state and so forth. The Canadian Constitution is totally different from that, because the nature of our country is basically a civic union between vastly different regions (like Switzerland, for example). We are multi-national (our country traditionally comprising the English Canadian Nation, the French Canadian Nation, and several Aboriginal Canadian Nations), multi-lingual (officially a bilingual country with English and French as our official national languages), and multi-cultural (immigrants are encouraged to hold onto their culture and add something to ours, however this has recently been met with opposition, as some see it as a detriment to traditional Canadian customs).

Well said in both of your posts.
We are different and most of us wish to remain so.  The US may be our best friends but we have different values on certain issues and for the most part our history and government has been more along the lines of the collective rights before the individual rights (changing) but still a major influence in our policies (public health care to name a big one).
As for the head of state the vast majority of people don't care too much they cost a bit but many like a bit of pomp and circumstance...the current GG is a bright, bilingual, female, Haitian refugee who seems to be well received by the world and seems to be well liked by the various immigrant communities in the country (bit of a hottie too).  She and the previous GG (an English speaking Chinese immigrant) have put a very good public face on for our country.

http://www.gg.ca/gg/index_e.asp

I forgot to mention something. The original post said something about Alberta separatism. This does exist, but it's important to realise that this brand of separatism is a) barely existent and has almost no fervent support, and b) it is not based at all on regional identity, but more about money matters. Right now, Alberta is making lots of money because of the vast oil deposits within its territory. So there are some politicos in Alberta who regret the fact that the province currently pays more to the federal government each year than it gets back in federal transfer payments. This is due the the fact that in order to ensure a decent quality of life for everyone in Canada regardless of their region, a large chunk of the federal tax money collected from every province is added up and then redistributed to the provinces according to their population and particular needs. Currently only three provinces get back less money than they contribute (Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia) and the other seven provinces get back more.

You don't hear B.C. or Ontario complaining, but you hear it from Alberta because it fancies itself the champion of Western Canada. There have always been gripes in the West about how Ottawa doesn't pay enough attention to them, and there have been a few examples of Ottawa mishandling western resources in favour of the East, but on the whole it's blown out of proportion by these particular people.

The truth is that 99.9% of Albertans are proud and loyal Canadians, and would never vote to separate from Canada. This is not anything like the situation in Québec, where people have had their culture and language differences played up to them as political stakes. This could never happen in Alberta. Each province has its own nuances of culture, but traditional Canadian culture is really broken down into English and French (notwithstanding all the various Aboriginal cultures). Therefore, English-Canadians are English-Canadians, no matter what province they live in. There are slight cultural and regional variations on this culture, but not enough to ever justify political fissure with any of the others on cultural grounds.

Also, there was a time not too long ago when Alberta would have been getting back more than it paid in while a province like Nova Scotia would have been more than self-sufficient.