Yuck, another Meech Lake fiasco? Even if all the provinces agree, Quebec will be dickish just for the sake of being dickish.
And I say this a lifelong resident of Quebec.
Do you mean Quebec would be the only jurisdiction in favour of the monarchy?
And here I thought it was the final hope in getting rid of those king-size parasites, not that it could happen with Harper the monarchist reactionary (and still fighting the War of 1812) in power.
If everyone else was opposed… yeah, I could imagine that.
I’m not entirely serious, of course - the issue is kind of a long shot at best. If the NDP ever took power and if, say, Australia set a precedent… wiki reports this on Republicanism in Australia:
The Republic of Canada is one of those things I’d like to see in my lifetime, the other two being controlled fusion and a space elevator.
I doubt if any historians will refer to the “Elizabethan period”.Not because we are “past that sort of thing”, but because the country changed so much that the adjective “elizabethan” would be meaningless.
The phrase “Victorian era” means something specific, both in common speech, and to professional historians. You immediately think of rigid social castes, the British empire ruling half the globe, etc.
And the phase “Elizabethan era” (for Elizabeth the First) also brings to mind specific images: Shakespeare, big frilly collars, etc.
But if you try to say “Elizabethan England” for today’s queen, what image can it bring to mind?
England has changed so much during her long reign that it is meaningless to define 1952 thru (say)2020 as a single era, with a single adjective such as “Elizabethan”
As we’re living during the reign of Elizabeth II, we might not associate any specific trends or images with it. But perhaps the trends and images that seem so varied to us will blend for those living 200-400 years from now. Perhaps they’ll associate her reign with the end of the British Empire (never mind that it mostly ended during her father’s reign), the rise of the Asian superpowers and the beginnings of space exploration (much as the reign of Elizabeth I is associated with sea exploration).
It wouldn’t be mere dickishness. Quebec would probably worry that any special status which it has under the current government might not exist under the new government that would result from a switch to being a republic.
The integration of the United Kingdom into a European political system will probably be seen as a major historical trend that occurred mainly during her reign.
I remember a day in 1953, when my mother sat me down in front of our TV with the little round B&W screen. She said there’s something on that I’ll never forget. It was Elizabeth’s coronation. I remember the horses pulling the gold coach through the streets of London. I was 7.
Now, I’m about to turn 70. Elizabeth has been Queen for virtually a lifetime.
I’m no royalist but when EII goes it will be epic. I can’t think we’ll see the like of it again.
It’s obv. all planned out in minute detail.
Christ, I remember the week between Diana dying and the funeral. It was like stasis for a week except upside down. I walked the route the night before and London couldn’t have been more ‘mobilised’ and organised if aliens had landed. Every open space had some kind of control centre, with adjacent temp structures filled with nice ladies making tea all night. Totally calm, almost silent, it was awesome to witness.
I don’t think that many francophone Québécois view Her Majesty as a major bulwark of their rights. 
As with other debates about Canada going republican, it would depend on the republican model chosen.
If the change was from a weak monarchy-parliamentary system to a weak presidential-parliamentary system, there probably wouldn’t be much change in the balance of powers in Confederation.
However, if the change was to a strong presidential system, moving away from a system of responsible government, there may be concerns that could change the balance of power and minority rights.
That doesn’t mean either change would be very easily accomplished, in part because of the unanimity requirement.
Exactly. Meech foundered on the unanimity requirement, in that case because of the requirement that amendments to the amending formula also require unanimous consent under s 41.
In what way is the monarchy a parasite in Canada? We don’t pay them anything.
I don’t think that either and it wasn’t what I was saying. What I was saying is that Quebec would not want to risk changing the status quo.
We do when a royal makes a visit. We pay for their security and protection for their god-like bodies.
But I meant in general. They’ve haven’t done a stitch of work since Henry V, unless wielding a pair of scissors at ribbon-cuttings is a full-time job.
Oh, wait. It is.
Which we do for any foreign dignitary who visits. Wouldn’t change if we went republican, just like the US pays for security when the royals go visiting there.
It’s likely, however, that if Canada dumped those twits, there wouldn’t be any visits by them.
And with them, Canadians must pay for the lieut gov, all the lieut gov’s expenses and the lieut gov’s mansion. What, in Og’s name, does a lieut gov do except kowtow to the PM? Nothing. Nada, except, perhaps, throwing caviar and champagne parties for visiting dignitaries. Including that kept woman.
Why would you make that assumption?
Within the past decade, for example, the queen has made formal state visits to Lithuania, Slovakia, Ireland, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Turkey, France, and Germany, among others, while Prince Charles has visited Afghanistan, Spain, the USA, Egypt, Denmark, Colombia, Brazil, Belgium, Bosnia, etc., etc., etc. You’ll notice that some of those places are former British possessions, and others have no such connection, but the royals visited anyway and the country concerned paid the expenses.
Canada would still have to pay for somebody to perform the job of the governor general and the lieutenant governors unless you want to completely change the nation’s system of government.
Federally, of course, there’s the governor general, at the top of the heap of lieutenant governors and commissioners.
How many representatives of the absentee landlord does a country need?
Twelve, apparently.
Of course, as long as it’s a representative democracy, federally and below — a republic without that corrupt house of lords bulging at the seams with superannuated bagmen, otherwise termed the Senate.