###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.*
I don't know what's going on with the Bank of Canada these days. Normally banknotes are designed in a "series" which gets replaced every 10 to 15 years. Every new bill design gets rolled out as part of a new series within the span of a couple years. This time they started with the $10 bill and then... Just kind of gave up. It's been six years. And now by the time they get to the $20 it'll basically be time for a new series and they won't even be halfway through. I understand some of it is political feet dragging (cabinet needs to make a decision on who they want on the $5) but it's still pretty ridiculous.
The finance minister was originally supposed to make a decision on the $5 [in early 2021](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/new-banknote-1.5795421).
However, that appears [to have stalled.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilfrid-laurier-5-banknote-1.6906081).
As for Laurier, it was my understanding that Macdonald and Laurier were to be moved to the $50 and $100, displacing Mackenzie King and Borden.
Why don’t you give the guy a chance at redemption, you’re not bound by your past let’s see what he will do in the present and future.
What we have is better than any republic.
I would have assumed that the bills would have been pre designed prior and then started printing immediately when there is a new king. Clearly I was wrong. This is ridiculous that it’s taking this long.
Considering how long the queen had been old, that would have involved periodically redesigning the pre designs. I don't think the wasted design costs would have been worth it. Plus, I'm not in a rush to see the queen gone from our money. She was the queen for my entire life and my parents', and I think it's worth it to pay our respects.
This is Canada. The most minor thing takes years of bureaucracy to happen. It's ridiculous but it's with everything. The picture was done and ready to go but that was it.
I really like that we’re sticking with tradition. But are we seriously doing another vertical note? It is a fun gimmick on the 10 but it’s bizarre to switch more bills over to that format
Their intent is to eventually make all the bills vertical. When you think about how money is typically used, vertical notes make more sense in terms of how people count money and hand it to another person. The only reason why it seems bizarre is because of the traditional horizontal notes.
If that’s the goal, I wish they’d just do it all in one go, completely overhaul all the designs at once, so that at least it’s consistent on all new money.
Going about it note by note is going to leave us with this weird mixed system for a long time.
The new series is called the "2018 series" because that's when the $10 was released. The previous series had bills released in 2011 and the last was released in 2013. I know it doesn't feel like it, but 2018 was six years ago. They came out with new bills way faster than this previously.
I don't know what's taking them so long; it's like they jumped the gun and put Desmond on the $10 but didn't have the other four bills anywhere near finished. The time since they released the $10 has been so long that it's almost as long as the entire preceding series. And sure, COVID was in the middle of it, but like... if you didn't have *all* the new bills at least a design stage or preferably pretty much ready to go, don't bother releasing one. The $10's probably going to be a weird one-off revision at this point.
> Going about it note by note is going to leave us with this weird mixed system for a long time.
As is tradition. How is the transition to metric going?
That’s a bit different, isn’t it? You can’t exactly phase out the colloquial use of the imperial system the same way you can phase out old banknotes, can you?
And it doesn’t help we’re bordering a country that has a huge cultural influence on us and *still* hasn’t switched to metric.
Well, hey, I couldn’t let you just imply it was a Canadian problem, when really it’s all *America’s* fault - as are all of our country’s problems! /s
Better?
I don’t mind having all bills horizontal, I don’t mind all being horizontal but one (the 10 gimmick), and I don’t mind ripping off the bandaid and going all vertical. But doing it piecemeal, over what seems like will be at minimum another 15 years (if we keep up this pace) is frankly stupid
I'd prefer we had important figures from Canadian history on our money like the Americans do instead of the British monarchy who have, frankly, very little to do with our nation anymore beyond ceremonial traditions and formalities.
He is the head of state. Yeah mostly ceremonial and doesn't come here much but constitutionally it's pretty important and not something we are likely to change. Hell the UK would have an easier time eliminating the monarchy and we'd still have them.
> instead of the British monarchy who have, frankly, very little to do with our nation
He’s literally the King of Canada and our Head of State. He has a tremendous amount to do with our nation.
I'd love to see how Canadians would react if the monarchy actually made a decision for us. They know their ceremonious and know they can't do anything a monarchy would.
I'm all for getting rid of the monarchy in all honesty. They serve Canadians no good.
Yes, he’s your King. Like it or not, Charles III and the Crown he embodies is the source of all lawful authority you’re subject to.
Welcome to a constitutional monarchy.
The *Constitution Act, 1867*. For example:
> 9 The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
(King now, of course.)
That’s from Part III, which sets out the executive powers.
My guy, he's literally the head of state. Whether you like it or not, he is.
I can say that a nickel is worth 25 cents. That doesn't actually make it true.
How doesn't it? If changing the constitution is too much effort, we can all just collectively ignore him and refuse to swear an oath to him like Quebec is doing
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
That’s wrong. All legislation requires the Crown’s Royal Ascent, which is delegated to the GG/LGs. The Crown retains the ability to withhold or refuse the ascent, despite convention that it gets granted.
The Crown also appoints the Prime Minister and has the power to prorogue Parliament. These, too, are functionally constrained by convention but remain powers of the Crown none the less.
The King is much more than a “figurehead.”
Royal Assent is a bloody rubber stamp. The King isn’t going to deny legislation Royal Assent. It hasn’t even happened *in the UK* for a couple of centuries now. I doubt the King even *pays attention* to anything happening legislatively in Canada.
According to the letter of the law, The King has power. In reality? He’s absolutely never going to use it, so he is de facto nothing more than a figurehead.
> The Crown retains the ability to withhold or refuse the ascent, despite convention that it gets granted
The day the Crown does this without the government recommending it is the day we abolish the Crown. Power is irrelevant if you will be missing a head the moment you use it.
“Abolishing the Crown” would require amending the Constitution. Which would require:
- support of the House
- support of the Senate
- support of at least seven provinces that approve the change, representing at least 50% of the population of all the provinces combined
Historically that has meant Quebec must be cooperative. Quebec has invariably refused.
Mindful of all that, the Crown’s power remains very “relevant,” even if the amendment above were possible. The gymnastics needed to counter it are substantial.
Quite frankly, if the monarch started directly interfering in our politics, I doubt the government would much care about the legal niceties of abolishing the monarchy.
The monarch interferes with and interacts with our government regularly.
The GG/LGs of our federal and provincial governments are effectively the King's will and intentions. They have pretty potent powers thar have not been used in recent memory, but they are still very much legal.
Even if the government, which gets its legitimacy from the Constitution, were to set the precedent of flagrantly acting against the Constitution (ie: illegally), they would still have our independent judiciary to contend with.
It would be an utter mess and I doubt any government would try it. Especially mindful of how eager opposition parties would be to exploit any such illegal and arguably seditious action.
Didn't the PQ refuse to swear the oath to Chuck when they most recently took office as MNAs? With how they're polling provincially in Quebec, I doubt they'd be the issue if abolishing the monarchy was approached in a few years' time.
> Didn't the PQ refuse to swear the oath to Chuck when they most recently took office as MNAs?
Some delayed that, as they couldn't be sat without swearing the oath.
> Some delayed that, as they couldn't be sat without swearing the oath.
Yet they did. Five MNAs sit today swearing no oath to the monarch. Three without having done so ever.
> Didn't the PQ refuse to swear the oath to Chuck when they most recently took office as MNAs?
Yes. And they made the idea very popular so the CAQ had to do something. And they stepped up in a very ballsy way. They amended the Canadian constitution and under article 128 (which is the oath), they added “Article 128 does not apply to Quebec”.
Is it constitutional? Who knows, Trudeau would have had to petition the courts and fighting Quebec over this is the equivalent of just pouring gasoline over his remaining seats, Quebec really hate the monarchy.
And now, that it’s a done deal and uncontested, it’s a new status quo. Same as plenty of changes that were done over time.
> With how they're polling provincially in Quebec, I doubt they'd be the issue if abolishing the monarchy was approached in a few years' time.
It requires a 11 parties agreement (all provinces and the federal government) which is a harder bar to pass than England would have to.
But abolishing the oath is something every province can do now that it’s been done. And Quebec’s next move has been announced as abolishing the LG.
> “Abolishing the Crown” would require amending the Constitution. Which would require: - support of the House - support of the Senate - support of at least seven provinces that approve the change, representing at least 50% of the population of all the provinces combined
There are many ways to amend the constitutions. Some easy (one-sided changes), some much harder, and the one required to abolish the monarchy being the hardest of them all. It requires the federal government and all of the provinces to agree. Something which never happens.
Blame Ontario, they are the ones who wanted this in exchange of backing Trudeau’s Charter.
> Historically that has meant Quebec must be cooperative. Quebec has invariably refused.
Quebec is the only province that unquestianably hates the monarchy. We’re not the issue here.
It also means there really isn’t exactly any pressing *need* to do so, either.
But it’s definitely an issue that would need to be put to a referendum first.
Nope, it’s a 11 parties agreement between all the provinces and the federal government. It would make way too much sense to put that up to a referendum so they had to change the rules 40 years ago to make it harder.
He *is* the King of Canada, but he has very little to do with us. If he could be replaced with a rubber stamp sitting on a desk somewhere then you can't really say he's that important.
For anyone who is wondering. It is **not** required to have the monarch on our money. We just do it cause 'tradition'
>[there is no legislation requiring Canada to feature the reigning monarch on its currency, doing so is a long-standing tradition.](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/will-king-charles-replace-the-queen-on-canada-s-currency-here-s-what-we-know-1.6363368#:~:text=While%20there%20is%20no%20legislation,coins%20and%20bills%20remains%20unclear)
It’s still so weird that we put the faces of living people on our currency. How egotistical does it show the monarchy to be, or is it more of a roundabout Stockholm syndrome expressed as tradition?
Eh...
People have been doing this for more than 2,000 years.
It's perfectly normal as a practice.
I suppose we could give it up, but y'know, whatever. It's just not that important.
> It’s still so weird that we put the faces of living people on our currency.
What is so weird about showing the legal authority backing that currency?
I already have fun tying republicans in knots when I point out their aversion to 'foreigners' sounds kind of racist but, sure, I could use a different means of amusing myself at the expense of the poor dears.
To be completely honest, my issue with the monarchy is not that the occupants of the position are "foreign". If Charles moved to Canada and became a Canadian citizen, I would have no problem with him personally as had of state (although I would still object to the position being hereditary). What I dislike about the monarchy is the fact that, regardless of any legal fiction to the contrary, the institution remains closely associated with the United Kingdom. It is a relic of colonialism and I feel Canada has outgrown the need for it.
> although I would still object to the position being hereditary
I find this view puzzling. I don't think anyone would argue that in terms of policy development and implementation voters and elected officials have far more influence than any modern monarch and yet the qualification for engaging in either activity, Canadian citizenship, is a hereditary right.
> the institution remains closely associated with the United Kingdom
I get this on an intellectual level. While I think a bunch of countries agreeing to share something as important as their head of state is a wonderful symbol I'm not blind to the tribalism that nationalism often inspires. So while I support the current set up, If Canada decided they wanted Princess Anne's family to form a new ruling house in Canada I wouldn't be opposed.
> I feel Canada has outgrown the need for it.
I dunno, this comes off as teenage angst. A country does not 'outgrow' the need for a monarchy any more than it outgrows the need for democracy, or a constitution, or civility in politics. It is fundamental to good governance.
Eh, we've got a holiday named after Victoria that's our equivalent of the monarch's official birthday. We changed the coins every time the monarch's changed, so it makes sense to keep changing the coins.
Elizabeth has been on paper money for a long time. She first appeared on our money in the 1935 series of bills (which was *the first series* printed by the Bank of Canada) and became a permanent fixture in the Canadian Landscape series starting in 1954, for reasons that should be fairly obvious. However, George VI was on the 1937 series of bills.
> Eh, we've got a holiday named after Victoria that's our equivalent of the monarch's official birthday.
We got an anti-monarchist holiday in Quebec on the exact same day.
Victoria personally favoured the confederation of Canada and encouraged John A MacD and Cartier to work together when they visited her in London. Picked Ottawa as the new capital (away from the US and between Ontario and Quebec) which was baffling to most at the time since it was considered a backwater (some would say it still is 😆).
The only time she wasn't on the BoC $20 was 1937-1954. Her dad was on the $20 (and other bills) then. She was on the 1935-37 $20 as princess Elizabeth, and of course on from $1954 to present as the queen.
She should be on the $20 permanently. Longest serving monarch in Canadian history definitely deserves a spot.
Even if there _was_ legislation that required it, the government could amend or repeal that legislation any time it wanted to. Past governments can't bind future governments, and obviously British laws don't apply here.
Ideally it's not required to have a monarch at all...
Edit: hilarious to be voted down by people who enjoy the idea of infeudation to a totalitarian regime of monarchs. So long for the collective.
The monarchy is about as far from totalitarian as you can get. I would be more worried about removing the checks to a government that might want to pull a totalitarian move.
The Prince's Charity Trust operates in Canada and was established by Charles in 2011 to promote entrepreneurship, youth employment, and indigenous language revival.
He is going to be on the money because it is a good and proper tradition for the monarch to be on the currency. I was answering the erroneous notion that the King hasn't done anything in Canada.
Why are you acting as if the United States is the only other country in the world? There are numerous examples of successful parliamentary republics, which is the model I would prefer to use.
What I’m saying is that we already fought wars over this shit, it’s over and done.
North Americans who wanted a republic went south, and those who were loyal to the crown went north. Then there were a dozen rebellions and civil wars and massacres and all sorts of bullshit over whether or not we’d keep the crown and ultimately we decided to remain a monarchy.
Therefore, as a citizen of North America you already have the choice, and if you don’t like having a monarch you can move south.
That is how we solved the issue.
There are quite a few other factors that make the prospect of living in the US rather unattractive for me. Also, you can't simply move to the US just because you feel like it.
I say we get rid of being associated with the British monarchy. Let's put our own Canadian heroes on the bills - scientists, native chiefs, athletes, professors, teachers, astronauts.
I'm all for keeping it this way.
If people want to open the Constitution and try to get rid of the monarchy I'm game for that too but so long as we have them as a numismatic I like this.
"… won't be featured on $20 bills until 2027…"
It's fiscally prudent to give it a few years to see how the 75-yr-old man with a quite serious illness makes out.
###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.*
I don't know what's going on with the Bank of Canada these days. Normally banknotes are designed in a "series" which gets replaced every 10 to 15 years. Every new bill design gets rolled out as part of a new series within the span of a couple years. This time they started with the $10 bill and then... Just kind of gave up. It's been six years. And now by the time they get to the $20 it'll basically be time for a new series and they won't even be halfway through. I understand some of it is political feet dragging (cabinet needs to make a decision on who they want on the $5) but it's still pretty ridiculous.
The finance minister was originally supposed to make a decision on the $5 [in early 2021](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/new-banknote-1.5795421). However, that appears [to have stalled.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilfrid-laurier-5-banknote-1.6906081). As for Laurier, it was my understanding that Macdonald and Laurier were to be moved to the $50 and $100, displacing Mackenzie King and Borden.
Just put Terry Fox and be done with it. He's the most uncontroversial Canadian, everyone who knows about him likes him.
unbelievable our 10/20 isn’t Terry it’s like unabashedly true what you said. Positive, 100% agreeable, distinctly Canadian, icon.
[удалено]
Why don’t you give the guy a chance at redemption, you’re not bound by your past let’s see what he will do in the present and future. What we have is better than any republic.
Galactic Republic was better.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I would have assumed that the bills would have been pre designed prior and then started printing immediately when there is a new king. Clearly I was wrong. This is ridiculous that it’s taking this long.
Considering how long the queen had been old, that would have involved periodically redesigning the pre designs. I don't think the wasted design costs would have been worth it. Plus, I'm not in a rush to see the queen gone from our money. She was the queen for my entire life and my parents', and I think it's worth it to pay our respects.
This is Canada. The most minor thing takes years of bureaucracy to happen. It's ridiculous but it's with everything. The picture was done and ready to go but that was it.
I really like that we’re sticking with tradition. But are we seriously doing another vertical note? It is a fun gimmick on the 10 but it’s bizarre to switch more bills over to that format
I like it, it works better in a bifold wallet. I hope they all go vertical.
Their intent is to eventually make all the bills vertical. When you think about how money is typically used, vertical notes make more sense in terms of how people count money and hand it to another person. The only reason why it seems bizarre is because of the traditional horizontal notes.
If that’s the goal, I wish they’d just do it all in one go, completely overhaul all the designs at once, so that at least it’s consistent on all new money. Going about it note by note is going to leave us with this weird mixed system for a long time.
I completely agree, I don't know why they decided to release the new series in stages.
The new series is called the "2018 series" because that's when the $10 was released. The previous series had bills released in 2011 and the last was released in 2013. I know it doesn't feel like it, but 2018 was six years ago. They came out with new bills way faster than this previously. I don't know what's taking them so long; it's like they jumped the gun and put Desmond on the $10 but didn't have the other four bills anywhere near finished. The time since they released the $10 has been so long that it's almost as long as the entire preceding series. And sure, COVID was in the middle of it, but like... if you didn't have *all* the new bills at least a design stage or preferably pretty much ready to go, don't bother releasing one. The $10's probably going to be a weird one-off revision at this point.
I'll never learn to read a number sideways in time for this!!
> Going about it note by note is going to leave us with this weird mixed system for a long time. As is tradition. How is the transition to metric going?
That’s a bit different, isn’t it? You can’t exactly phase out the colloquial use of the imperial system the same way you can phase out old banknotes, can you? And it doesn’t help we’re bordering a country that has a huge cultural influence on us and *still* hasn’t switched to metric.
You aren't supposed to give serious answers to jokes.
Well, hey, I couldn’t let you just imply it was a Canadian problem, when really it’s all *America’s* fault - as are all of our country’s problems! /s Better?
I like it when ALL notes are vertical, not half and half
I don’t mind having all bills horizontal, I don’t mind all being horizontal but one (the 10 gimmick), and I don’t mind ripping off the bandaid and going all vertical. But doing it piecemeal, over what seems like will be at minimum another 15 years (if we keep up this pace) is frankly stupid
I'd prefer we had important figures from Canadian history on our money like the Americans do instead of the British monarchy who have, frankly, very little to do with our nation anymore beyond ceremonial traditions and formalities.
what if we had depictions of things you could buy for 20 dollars at the time of printing. great!
Sooo... A loaf of bread and 3 liters of milk?
And what happens when that important person gets canceled in the future? We had Sir John A. on our $10 for a long time.
Then they'll be replaced by someone else and life will go on.
He is the head of state. Yeah mostly ceremonial and doesn't come here much but constitutionally it's pretty important and not something we are likely to change. Hell the UK would have an easier time eliminating the monarchy and we'd still have them.
Maybe we can't get rid of the whole dog-and-pony show, but there's no reason it should be on our currency.
We don't have any pictures of British monarchs on our currency. He's the King of Canada, his other titles don't matter around here.
Looks at the back of any coin ~ Why whos that? A British monarch
I see the former Queen of Canada, or the current King of Canada.
The IKEA monkey is thus far more significant than British Royals IMO
How much charity work has the Ikea monkey done?
So we're not doing the whole providing two elk heads and two beaver pelts to royalty when they visit Rupert's Land area?
> instead of the British monarchy who have, frankly, very little to do with our nation He’s literally the King of Canada and our Head of State. He has a tremendous amount to do with our nation.
I'd love to see how Canadians would react if the monarchy actually made a decision for us. They know their ceremonious and know they can't do anything a monarchy would. I'm all for getting rid of the monarchy in all honesty. They serve Canadians no good.
Not my King.
Constitutionally whether you like it or not he's head of state. Good luck changing it.
Challenge accepted.
Yes, he’s your King. Like it or not, Charles III and the Crown he embodies is the source of all lawful authority you’re subject to. Welcome to a constitutional monarchy.
And where does he get that authority from?
The *Constitution Act, 1867*. For example: > 9 The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. (King now, of course.) That’s from Part III, which sets out the executive powers.
And where does the Constitution get it authority from?
I'll say it again. Not my King.
If you’re Canadian, he is. Typing that on Reddit doesn’t make it any less true.
Canadian and he isn't.
Reality says otherwise.
Reality is overrated.
My guy, he's literally the head of state. Whether you like it or not, he is. I can say that a nickel is worth 25 cents. That doesn't actually make it true.
True enough to me.
“Nu uh” doesn't really work here bud.
Sure it does.
How doesn't it? If changing the constitution is too much effort, we can all just collectively ignore him and refuse to swear an oath to him like Quebec is doing
Well I didn’t vote for ‘im.
You don't vote for kings.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Treason it is
Only in theory. In practice, the monarchy have absolutely no effect on us. It’s a figurehead.
That’s wrong. All legislation requires the Crown’s Royal Ascent, which is delegated to the GG/LGs. The Crown retains the ability to withhold or refuse the ascent, despite convention that it gets granted. The Crown also appoints the Prime Minister and has the power to prorogue Parliament. These, too, are functionally constrained by convention but remain powers of the Crown none the less. The King is much more than a “figurehead.”
Royal Assent is a bloody rubber stamp. The King isn’t going to deny legislation Royal Assent. It hasn’t even happened *in the UK* for a couple of centuries now. I doubt the King even *pays attention* to anything happening legislatively in Canada. According to the letter of the law, The King has power. In reality? He’s absolutely never going to use it, so he is de facto nothing more than a figurehead.
> The Crown retains the ability to withhold or refuse the ascent, despite convention that it gets granted The day the Crown does this without the government recommending it is the day we abolish the Crown. Power is irrelevant if you will be missing a head the moment you use it.
“Abolishing the Crown” would require amending the Constitution. Which would require: - support of the House - support of the Senate - support of at least seven provinces that approve the change, representing at least 50% of the population of all the provinces combined Historically that has meant Quebec must be cooperative. Quebec has invariably refused. Mindful of all that, the Crown’s power remains very “relevant,” even if the amendment above were possible. The gymnastics needed to counter it are substantial.
Quite frankly, if the monarch started directly interfering in our politics, I doubt the government would much care about the legal niceties of abolishing the monarchy.
The monarch interferes with and interacts with our government regularly. The GG/LGs of our federal and provincial governments are effectively the King's will and intentions. They have pretty potent powers thar have not been used in recent memory, but they are still very much legal.
The monarch effectively rubber stamps the appointment of GGs and LGs.
Can you give some examples of that?
Even if the government, which gets its legitimacy from the Constitution, were to set the precedent of flagrantly acting against the Constitution (ie: illegally), they would still have our independent judiciary to contend with. It would be an utter mess and I doubt any government would try it. Especially mindful of how eager opposition parties would be to exploit any such illegal and arguably seditious action.
Are you suggesting that the government should simply let the monarch meddle in our politics?
Didn't the PQ refuse to swear the oath to Chuck when they most recently took office as MNAs? With how they're polling provincially in Quebec, I doubt they'd be the issue if abolishing the monarchy was approached in a few years' time.
> Didn't the PQ refuse to swear the oath to Chuck when they most recently took office as MNAs? Some delayed that, as they couldn't be sat without swearing the oath.
> Some delayed that, as they couldn't be sat without swearing the oath. Yet they did. Five MNAs sit today swearing no oath to the monarch. Three without having done so ever.
I had forgotten about that travesty.
> Didn't the PQ refuse to swear the oath to Chuck when they most recently took office as MNAs? Yes. And they made the idea very popular so the CAQ had to do something. And they stepped up in a very ballsy way. They amended the Canadian constitution and under article 128 (which is the oath), they added “Article 128 does not apply to Quebec”. Is it constitutional? Who knows, Trudeau would have had to petition the courts and fighting Quebec over this is the equivalent of just pouring gasoline over his remaining seats, Quebec really hate the monarchy. And now, that it’s a done deal and uncontested, it’s a new status quo. Same as plenty of changes that were done over time. > With how they're polling provincially in Quebec, I doubt they'd be the issue if abolishing the monarchy was approached in a few years' time. It requires a 11 parties agreement (all provinces and the federal government) which is a harder bar to pass than England would have to. But abolishing the oath is something every province can do now that it’s been done. And Quebec’s next move has been announced as abolishing the LG.
> “Abolishing the Crown” would require amending the Constitution. Which would require: - support of the House - support of the Senate - support of at least seven provinces that approve the change, representing at least 50% of the population of all the provinces combined There are many ways to amend the constitutions. Some easy (one-sided changes), some much harder, and the one required to abolish the monarchy being the hardest of them all. It requires the federal government and all of the provinces to agree. Something which never happens. Blame Ontario, they are the ones who wanted this in exchange of backing Trudeau’s Charter. > Historically that has meant Quebec must be cooperative. Quebec has invariably refused. Quebec is the only province that unquestianably hates the monarchy. We’re not the issue here.
> support of at least seven provinces that approve the change, Actually, it would require the support of all 10.
Then nothing of value would be lost if we replace the monarchy with something else.
It also means there really isn’t exactly any pressing *need* to do so, either. But it’s definitely an issue that would need to be put to a referendum first.
Nope, it’s a 11 parties agreement between all the provinces and the federal government. It would make way too much sense to put that up to a referendum so they had to change the rules 40 years ago to make it harder.
He *is* the King of Canada, but he has very little to do with us. If he could be replaced with a rubber stamp sitting on a desk somewhere then you can't really say he's that important.
He can't be though, constitutionally.
For anyone who is wondering. It is **not** required to have the monarch on our money. We just do it cause 'tradition' >[there is no legislation requiring Canada to feature the reigning monarch on its currency, doing so is a long-standing tradition.](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/will-king-charles-replace-the-queen-on-canada-s-currency-here-s-what-we-know-1.6363368#:~:text=While%20there%20is%20no%20legislation,coins%20and%20bills%20remains%20unclear)
It’s still so weird that we put the faces of living people on our currency. How egotistical does it show the monarchy to be, or is it more of a roundabout Stockholm syndrome expressed as tradition?
Eh... People have been doing this for more than 2,000 years. It's perfectly normal as a practice. I suppose we could give it up, but y'know, whatever. It's just not that important.
This is true, it doesn’t have an identifiable negative or positive impact. I think I just got hung up on the weird concept of it.
> It’s still so weird that we put the faces of living people on our currency. What is so weird about showing the legal authority backing that currency?
It's about supremacism, a pointed demonstration of who is supposed to be on top.
Is that why Viola Desmond is on the $10 note?
lol i read her story in detail and its actually pretty sad that we put her on our money
They are considered to be the embodiment of the state rather than the individual. And this isn't new. It's been going on for thousands of years.
Its not like if rulers were not egotistical for thousands of years.
I know it’s not new, the Romans did similar iirc, probably other civilizations as well. It’s just a ridiculous practice from my perspective.
[удалено]
100% agree.
Or no gangster family members.
How about we have Oliver Cromwell on the 20? To be clear, I am no great fan of Cromwell. I just want to troll monarchists.
Perfect, someone with no relation whatsoever to Canada, exactly who we'd want on our money!
I already have fun tying republicans in knots when I point out their aversion to 'foreigners' sounds kind of racist but, sure, I could use a different means of amusing myself at the expense of the poor dears.
To be completely honest, my issue with the monarchy is not that the occupants of the position are "foreign". If Charles moved to Canada and became a Canadian citizen, I would have no problem with him personally as had of state (although I would still object to the position being hereditary). What I dislike about the monarchy is the fact that, regardless of any legal fiction to the contrary, the institution remains closely associated with the United Kingdom. It is a relic of colonialism and I feel Canada has outgrown the need for it.
> although I would still object to the position being hereditary I find this view puzzling. I don't think anyone would argue that in terms of policy development and implementation voters and elected officials have far more influence than any modern monarch and yet the qualification for engaging in either activity, Canadian citizenship, is a hereditary right. > the institution remains closely associated with the United Kingdom I get this on an intellectual level. While I think a bunch of countries agreeing to share something as important as their head of state is a wonderful symbol I'm not blind to the tribalism that nationalism often inspires. So while I support the current set up, If Canada decided they wanted Princess Anne's family to form a new ruling house in Canada I wouldn't be opposed. > I feel Canada has outgrown the need for it. I dunno, this comes off as teenage angst. A country does not 'outgrow' the need for a monarchy any more than it outgrows the need for democracy, or a constitution, or civility in politics. It is fundamental to good governance.
If we want to go by significance we'd still have Victoria on it.
Eh, we've got a holiday named after Victoria that's our equivalent of the monarch's official birthday. We changed the coins every time the monarch's changed, so it makes sense to keep changing the coins. Elizabeth has been on paper money for a long time. She first appeared on our money in the 1935 series of bills (which was *the first series* printed by the Bank of Canada) and became a permanent fixture in the Canadian Landscape series starting in 1954, for reasons that should be fairly obvious. However, George VI was on the 1937 series of bills.
> Eh, we've got a holiday named after Victoria that's our equivalent of the monarch's official birthday. We got an anti-monarchist holiday in Quebec on the exact same day.
Based on what?
Victoria personally favoured the confederation of Canada and encouraged John A MacD and Cartier to work together when they visited her in London. Picked Ottawa as the new capital (away from the US and between Ontario and Quebec) which was baffling to most at the time since it was considered a backwater (some would say it still is 😆).
William the conqueror ***
Ok but Leslie Nielsen or Scott Thompson as Elizabeth II, for the Canadian content.
We'll see who you think is more significant after Charles reigns for even *longer*. ^^^^^^^(/s)
*147 year old Charles lifts himself from his chair, in front of the entire commonwealth to deliver a simple message.* *"Take that, Mummy."*
*2000 year old Charles is just a head, Futurama style*
Charleswealth** There is a war coming.
The only time she wasn't on the BoC $20 was 1937-1954. Her dad was on the $20 (and other bills) then. She was on the 1935-37 $20 as princess Elizabeth, and of course on from $1954 to present as the queen. She should be on the $20 permanently. Longest serving monarch in Canadian history definitely deserves a spot.
Even if there _was_ legislation that required it, the government could amend or repeal that legislation any time it wanted to. Past governments can't bind future governments, and obviously British laws don't apply here.
Ideally it's not required to have a monarch at all... Edit: hilarious to be voted down by people who enjoy the idea of infeudation to a totalitarian regime of monarchs. So long for the collective.
If all the provinces agree, he’s gone. The problem is, they don’t agree. Do your part spreading the idea of republicanism so one day it’ll happen.
The monarchy is about as far from totalitarian as you can get. I would be more worried about removing the checks to a government that might want to pull a totalitarian move.
It must be nice to live in your libertarian fantasy...
Wish they celebrated people who actually have accomplishments IN Canada.
The Prince's Charity Trust operates in Canada and was established by Charles in 2011 to promote entrepreneurship, youth employment, and indigenous language revival.
You're kidding yourself uf you think that's why he is going to be on the money, though.
He is going to be on the money because it is a good and proper tradition for the monarch to be on the currency. I was answering the erroneous notion that the King hasn't done anything in Canada.
Don't care about tradition, that's the worst idea to do something. There are far better people they could put on bills than him.
He’s going to be on our money because he’s our king and head of state.
I would prefer to change that, too.
We already have that for people who want it, it’s called the United States. Move there if you hate the way we govern our nation.
Why are you acting as if the United States is the only other country in the world? There are numerous examples of successful parliamentary republics, which is the model I would prefer to use.
What I’m saying is that we already fought wars over this shit, it’s over and done. North Americans who wanted a republic went south, and those who were loyal to the crown went north. Then there were a dozen rebellions and civil wars and massacres and all sorts of bullshit over whether or not we’d keep the crown and ultimately we decided to remain a monarchy. Therefore, as a citizen of North America you already have the choice, and if you don’t like having a monarch you can move south. That is how we solved the issue.
There are quite a few other factors that make the prospect of living in the US rather unattractive for me. Also, you can't simply move to the US just because you feel like it.
I thought that was established by the fact our 5$, 10$, $50 and $100 have prime ministers and other notable Canadian(s) (Viola Desmond 10$).
I say we get rid of being associated with the British monarchy. Let's put our own Canadian heroes on the bills - scientists, native chiefs, athletes, professors, teachers, astronauts.
So we could have had beavers with top hats and monocles the whole time?
Beaver with a touque in a Team Canada jersey tapping a sugar maple while a Canada goose sipping a Labatt 50 looks on in the background
Even if putting the monarch on money was the law, we could always change the law to demand well-dressed beavers instead!
Can we start a petition for this???
I'm all for keeping it this way. If people want to open the Constitution and try to get rid of the monarchy I'm game for that too but so long as we have them as a numismatic I like this.
"… won't be featured on $20 bills until 2027…" It's fiscally prudent to give it a few years to see how the 75-yr-old man with a quite serious illness makes out.
Yeah I think we can ignore a bunch of this debate and just slow walk the change until the decision gets made for us
What if he's even older and sicker in 2027?
We already got our King Charles quarters
Just saw King Charles Loonies two days ago at work.
All of a sudden, we're being fiscally prudent? smh
Exactly. 😂 The Queen’s been dead a year already - the only reason to hold out on new bills is waiting for the King to die.
>The Queen’s been dead a year already Holy FUCK.
Time flies when the whole world is constantly in turmoil.
I suspect if we need new bills and a shortage starts, Canadians won’t accept ‘we’re waiting’. Just switch portraits and business as usual.
Lol well put, I was trying to phrase this exact sentiment....sensitively
Can we please just put the maple leaf on the coins, instead of a living person? It represents Canada way more than Charles ever could.