[jimj_wpg]

In 1982 Canada got a new Canadianized Constitution.

However we still seem to have links to the Royal family of England.

Since some have said that the Royal family have been the cause of some of the Wars, Plagues of the past or current.

Isn't it time that we just ditch the Royal connection already and become a Republic (in Canada) instead?

[SpikePhanta]

I can't take most of your posts seriously, so i'll ignore everything except the question.

I say Keep it, because really its fine and give Canada a unique flavour, otherwise we'll be miniUSA even more.

Plus it doesnt really damage Canada. So why waste money on things like a referendum.

[Boris2k7]

Your mom - keep or ditch?

You've already moved out, got married, and had kids. You're the master of your house. Your mom has no effective control over your life. She sometimes comes over for tea though, wants to do your dishes, and you end up paying for her occasional visit.

Some say that your mom nags a lot and that she can sometimes be embarrassing in public.

Isn't it time you ditch your mom already and become a happy family... without your mom?

[ToxiK]

Your mom - keep or ditch?

You've already moved out, got married, and had kids. You're the master of your house. Your mom has no effective control over your life. She sometimes comes over for tea though, wants to do your dishes, and you end up paying for her occasional visit.

Some say that your mom nags a lot and that she can sometimes be embarrassing in public.

Isn't it time you ditch your mom already and become a happy family... without your mom?

Well, if your mom was as old as the Monarchy, maybe it would be time to bury her. Keeping a corpse in your house for old time sake isn't healthy...

[Bdog]

In 1982 Canada got a new Canadianized Constitution.

However we still seem to have links to the Royal family of England.

Since some have said that the Royal family have been the cause of some of the Wars, Plagues of the past or current.

Isn't it time that we just ditch the Royal connection already and become a Republic (in Canada) instead?

So, where is the poll?

[PoscStudent]

I can't take most of your posts seriously, so i'll ignore everything except the question.

I say Keep it, because really its fine and give Canada a unique flavour, otherwise we'll be miniUSA even more.

Plus it doesnt really damage Canada. So why waste money on things like a referendum.

It costs us $50 million a year for the monarchy, we pay more per person then Britain, I think the costs of having a referendum and an eleected Head of State would be much cheaper.

[goodthings]

So, where is the poll?

I thought so too.

[graupner]

Your mom - keep or ditch?

You've already moved out, got married, and had kids. You're the master of your house. Your mom has no effective control over your life. She sometimes comes over for tea though, wants to do your dishes, and you end up paying for her occasional visit.

Some say that your mom nags a lot and that she can sometimes be embarrassing in public.

Isn't it time you ditch your mom already and become a happy family... without your mom?

As I was reading your post, I told myself ' this guy is probably from NS'

Then I looked at your profile.

Your mom actually loves you.
Your mom doesn't require you to spend millions on useless things like Governor and such.
Your mom is not a relic of medieval times.
Your mom doesn't run a declining and pretentious country.
Your mom probably knows about internet and facebook; the queen doesn't.

Your mom is your mom. The monarchy is not your mom ??!

Speaking of the US, they ditched their ' mom' 300 years ago, and now they are 10 times more populous and powerful than us. Maybe ditching our ''' mom ''' would be a good idea ?!

What a weird and almost deficient comparison...

[Boris2k7]

As I was reading your post, I told myself ' this guy is probably from NS'

Then I looked at your profile.

I'm from Alberta, but thanks for playing the game.

Your mom actually loves you.
Your mom doesn't require you to spend millions on useless things like Governor and such.
Your mom is not a relic of medieval times.
Your mom doesn't run a declining and pretentious country.
Your mom probably knows about internet and facebook; the queen doesn't.

- irrelevant
- you'd be spending millions on a secretary of state instead
- "history is bad, mmkay?"
- the queen doesn't "run" anything
- irrelevant

Your mom is your mom. The monarchy is not your mom ??!

If you have a dictionary on hand, look up this word: analogy

Speaking of the US, they ditched their ' mom' 300 years ago, and now they are 10 times more populous and powerful than us. Maybe ditching our ''' mom ''' would be a good idea ?!

Because getting rid of the monarchy would make us more powerful and populous! :rolleyes:

What a weird and almost deficient comparison...

What weird and deficient logic...

[Policy Wonk]

Keep.

If only because I would rather sodomize myself with a soldering iron than hear another word of constitutional debate as long as I live.

[SJTOKO]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5GZIDnMzZQ



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1yhp-_x7A&feature=related

[vid]

It costs us $50 million a year for the monarchy, we pay more per person then Britain, I think the costs of having a referendum and an eleected Head of State would be much cheaper.

The UK doesn't have 11 vice-regals.

If we had a president and 10 provincial governors we'd probably be spending $100M a year on that part of the executive branch. It costs $300M to hold a national election. You want to do this twice? (Three times if we have an elected senate.) And then again for each of the provinces? And for what gain?

What republicans like you often forget is that if we abandon the monarchy, we still have to have someone in the role as head of state, and they'll still cost money.

I personally don't see any real benefits to counter the cost of a massive government restructuring project to replace the monarchy with a republic system. Other than "they live far away" and "we don't get to vote for them", what are the real problems with the monarchy?

Your mom actually loves you.

Are you saying the Queen and the Governor General don't love Québec?

Your mom doesn't require you to spend millions on useless things like Governor and such.

If you didn't have a monarch and vice-regals, you'd be paying at least the same amount of money, but probably more, on an elected head of state.

Your mom is not a relic of medieval times.

Lots of things are relics of medieval times. Of those that still exist, the monarchy is one of the more beneficial ones.

Your mom doesn't run a declining and pretentious country.

The Queen doesn't "run" any countries, she is simply a symbol of authority and stability in 16 nations equally and since she has only one body, she lives in the country her ancestors have lived in for 1,000 years.

Your mom probably knows about internet and facebook; the queen doesn't.

I'm quite sure the Queen is aware of the internet and Facebook, considering she had to give her permission to allow a personal Facebook page to be created. I don't think she uses it personally though.

Speaking of the US, they ditched their ' mom' 300 years ago, and now they are 10 times more populous and powerful than us. Maybe ditching our ''' mom ''' would be a good idea ?!

The US is more populous because they started aggressive immigration campaigns long before we did. At this point, however, I would hardly point to the US government structure as an "efficient" system. If you think the monarchy is expensive, you should check out the bill for the executive branch of the US, and of each of its states. Not to mention how well it does (or rather, doesn't) work most of the time.

[jmt18325]

It costs us $50 million a year for the monarchy, we pay more per person then Britain, I think the costs of having a referendum and an eleected Head of State would be much cheaper.

You do realize why it costs us more, right (note that we pay for the governor general and lieutenant governors, and not the royalty, unless they're here)? It's because we have 11 monarchies....and we'd have to have 11 elected heads of state. Oh, and the cost to bring that about would be in the billions.

[Gerrard]

Ditch. But I fear for this thread.


And I wish the media would stop trying to make Pippa Middleton *happen*.

[PoscStudent]

You do realize why it costs us more, right (note that we pay for the governor general and lieutenant governors, and not the royalty, unless they're here)? It's because we have 11 monarchies....and we'd have to have 11 elected heads of state. Oh, and the cost to bring that about would be in the billions.

I think we could easily manage to have 11 heads of state for less the $50 million a year. Elections could be held during general elections so the cost would be virtually nothing extra and there is no reason for them to live the lifestyles they do now. We'd need to spend roughly $5 million a year for each head of state to equal the cost of what we pay for the monarchy. They also don't need to be elected.

Personally I don't care if we keep the monarchy or not but we could find cost savings in doing so.

[MrOilers]

Ditch.

Because I don't want to look at Charles' stupid face on our money after the queen dies.

[Doug]

$50M a year is a small price to pay to avoid a constitutional debate

[freeweed]

Since some have said that the Royal family have been the cause of some of the Wars, Plagues of the past or current.

Ah yes, the medieval genetic engineering program of the 12th century sure reaped rewards for the royal family once they managed to wipe out one quarter of their serfs with their newly created plague bacteria.

[Bigtime]

Poll thread has no poll. Hurp durp.

[vid]

I think we could easily manage to have 11 heads of state for less the $50 million a year. Elections could be held during general elections so the cost would be virtually nothing extra and there is no reason for them to live the lifestyles they do now. We'd need to spend roughly $5 million a year for each head of state to equal the cost of what we pay for the monarchy. They also don't need to be elected.

Personally I don't care if we keep the monarchy or not but we could find cost savings in doing so.

Most of the costs for the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors is in their offices, which have a staff of dozens of people and perform a variety of functions. Even if we elected governors during general elections, we'd still have that staff, and so the cost wouldn't be much different. If we didn't elect them, then who would appoint them? At least the Monarch has some legitimacy when she appoints someone.

Viceregals currently don't live lifestyles that are any more lavish than American heads of state. The governor of Texas works about 5 days a year and lives in a mansion. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario's official residence is practically a yurt by comparison to it.

We can't find cost savings in abolishing the monarchy. Procedures would have to be changed, laws would have to be updated, a system for appointing or electing heads of state would have to be developed, money would have to be redesigned, coats of arms might have to be changed, a lot of things with "royal" in their name might have to be re-branded, the constitution would have to be amended unilaterally meaning over 1,000 people in 11 legislatures would all have to vote the same way. The sheer number of alterations suggests that the cost would easily reach into the billions if we were to abolish the monarchy and become a republic, and it would likely take years to accomplish.

Canada simply can't afford republicanism right now. There are far more important things to debate and spend our money on.

[Vaillant]

ditch that crap!

[samne]

Ditch, but gradually.

For starters, Queen Elizabeth should be the last monarch on our money.

The GG. Kinda dont mind the way it works, but perhaps can be modified for more of an all Canadian direction.

I said it last time this thread came up. I dont mind some symbolic gestures to keep with history and tradition. We dont need to dis the royal family like we're revolutionary France.

[Bdog]

Ah yes, the medieval genetic engineering program of the 12th century sure reaped rewards for the royal family once they managed to wipe out one quarter of their serfs with their newly created plague bacteria.

They attempted the same thing merely a few years ago (unbeknownst to most, of course) - Queen Elizabeth tours Canada for her Golden Jubilee late 2002; SARS hits Canada early 2003. Hmmmmmm...

[flar]

Ditch 'em.

[Doug]

Ah yes, the medieval genetic engineering program of the 12th century sure reaped rewards for the royal family once they managed to wipe out one quarter of their serfs with their newly created plague bacteria.

Too bad the royal family has genetically de-engineered itself through inbreeding.

[Wooster]

I say ditch the British monarchy..

I will volunteer to be Canada's new monarch.

[kw5150]

Ditch, but I say that because my significant other has returned from a 6 month work term in England in a social work position. That country is going down hill fast, half the people cant stand the monarchy and right in the middle of a huge UK recession, the royals throw a 100 million dollar wedding extravaganza. So out of touch........Whats it like to live in a fairy tale every day?

[Acajack]

Ditch... if we can concretely spell out a good alternative. Not saying there are not good alternatives, but they have to be well thought out and explored when you consider that our entire set-up is predicated upon having a monarch at the top.

[jigglysquishy]

If we lose the British monarch we should create a Canadian monarch. If we ditch the monarch completely then I'm moving. My loyalty is to the crowd first, country second.

[Vaillant]

I say ditch the British monarchy..

I will volunteer to be Canada's new monarch.

my great great great grand mother was the cousin of Queen Victoria so i think i have more chances than you!! :haha::cheers:

[vid]

If we lose the British monarch we should create a Canadian monarch. If we ditch the monarch completely then I'm moving. My loyalty is to the crowd first, country second.

Technically, the crown and the country are the same thing...

[Overground]

The Queen/Sovereign/head of state is already Canadian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------




So I'll ask what I always do in these silly monarchy discussions over the years and never get a reply back.............



How is Canada's constitutional monarchy system fundamentally failing Canada?

[jmt18325]

I think we could easily manage to have 11 heads of state for less the $50 million a year. Elections could be held during general elections so the cost would be virtually nothing extra and there is no reason for them to live the lifestyles they do now. We'd need to spend roughly $5 million a year for each head of state to equal the cost of what we pay for the monarchy. They also don't need to be elected.


Do you have any idea why they cost so much (and keep in mind, that most of the cost is for the governor general)? I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with how the gg lives.

[The_Architect]

Keep.

Just because I want years of Kate coming here.. ;)

(Just kidding, I actually have my reasons)

[habfanman]

Ditch.

I have a great deal of respect for Liz but after her, let's seize the day and rid ourselves of this outdated mode of government.

I was in Berlin during the Royal Wedding. There was a great deal of interest in the event (mainly young, female interest- fairy tale wedding interest) and they deployed the video screen for the only time during the 2 months that I stayed there (at a hostel- CityStay Mitte woop woop!). I refused to watch the debacle and when a German buddy of mine questioned me as to why, I explained that the British Queen was still our head of state and that I wasn't happy with that. He replied "That's funny, I thought that Canada had grown up".

How do you respond to that?

[artvandelay]

Ditch 'em - but after Liz passes.

It's an embarrassment that our head of state is a foreigner.

[ToxiK]

Most of the costs for the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors is in their offices, which have a staff of dozens of people and perform a variety of functions.

Maybe we should let the provinces who choose to get rid of their lieutenant-Governor. That will be that much money saved.

[someone123]

I don't understand why we need to import foreign heads of state when we have our own highly charismatic home-grown candidates.

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080908210607/uncyclopedia/images/e/ea/Stephen-harper-kitten.jpg
Source (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Stephen-harper-kitten.jpg)

[Architype]

So, what does Harper think of this question?

[manny_santos]

So I'll ask what I always do in these silly monarchy discussions over the years and never get a reply back.............

How is Canada's constitutional monarchy system fundamentally failing Canada?

That is a very good question. Anyone care to comment?

[habfanman]

The Queen/Sovereign/head of state is already Canadian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------




So I'll ask what I always do in these silly monarchy discussions over the years and never get a reply back.............



How is Canada's constitutional monarchy system fundamentally failing Canada?

The easy answer is that they are not failing us. No more than our dependance on our resource based economy is failing us. No more than our complete domination by the U.S. is failing us.

We own lots of really big TV's, we own dinky little houses in the middle of nowhere, we have lots of cars.. everything is groovy! Right?

Maybe though, some of us wish that we actually made things rather than pawning off our resources to other countries that do actually make things. Maybe some of us wish that we had some sort of identifiable culture, other than that of the U.S. And maybe, some of us wish that our head of state wasn't some foreign parasite (and if one more fucking monarchist insults my intelligence by telling me that the Queen is Canadian! You're not Canadian just because you decree yourself to be).

Blow me paparazzi Royals. Stick to eTalk where they appreciate you for what you really are: fashion statements du jour and 'A-lister' photo ops.

And future embarrassments.

[Nouvellecosse]

The Queen/Sovereign/head of state is already Canadian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------




So I'll ask what I always do in these silly monarchy discussions over the years and never get a reply back.............



How is Canada's constitutional monarchy system fundamentally failing Canada?
First of all, I don't consider someone who was neither born in nor lived in Canada to be Canadian. You can legally declare a sofa to be a dishwasher, and even write it into a constitution, but that doesn't make it true.

As for the fundamental failing, I would think that is obvious. The British monarchy is a cultural, tourism and publicity boon, but for London and the UK. Very few people outside of Canada associate the monarchy with Canada, instead viewing it as a British institution (which of course it is). Over the years we have pumped millions of dollars into the British economy instead of our own in the form of free publicity (portraits in public buildings, faces on Money, etc) and we only benefit by getting the odd visit once or twice a decade - which we pay for.

Now you may be thinking, "If its major failings are in terms of image, that doesn't sound very serious" but considering that its whole role is merely ceremonial, to have such a complete failure in that department is pretty damming.

Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting that we necessarily need to get rid of the Constitutional Monarchy system, just that we get a heard of state that is actually in Canada and which Canada does not share with other nations.

[habfanman]

That is a very good question. Anyone care to comment?

They aren't failing us because they don't do anything. Anything that they ever may be called upon to do could be handled by an actual Canadian.

I guarantee that within the next 10 years, Australia will abandon the monarchy. New Zealand will follow suit. That will leave Canada as the head of this illustrious list of realms:

Canada
Antigua and Barbuda
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Grenada
Jamaica
Papua New Guinea
Solomon Islands
St. Christopher and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Tuvalu

I'll be so proud!!

[Pimpmasterdac]

Keep the Monarchy!

The current form of government has suited Canada well for 144 years, why the need to change what is not broken!? As well any debate on changing the monarchy would open the constitutional can of worms, that no reasonable politician would want to touch. Sure it would score points with collapsing Quebec sovereignty movement and the puny Canadian-republican, but most Canadians don't give a shit either way and opening debate on it would be seen as a waste for regular Canadians.

As well what alternative do people suggest to succeed as head of state? If it was for the Governor-General to formally take over as the head of state, why even bother opening the constitutional debate. If were were to turn into an elected presidential republic, than no thanks! US is showing the world how piss poorly that form has lead their nation.

[DizzyEdge]

Oh man, this is one of my fave topics (no really).



In 1982 Canada got a new Canadianized Constitution.

However we still seem to have links to the Royal family of England.

Since some have said that the Royal family have been the cause of some of the Wars, Plagues of the past or current.

Isn't it time that we just ditch the Royal connection already and become a Republic (in Canada) instead?

I don't think that is all that relevant...

Keep.

If only because I would rather sodomize myself with a soldering iron than hear another word of constitutional debate as long as I live.

There is a thought that once the Queen dies parliament could simply not go through whatever motions are required to recognize the new monarch.
I agree, if constitutional modification is required it becomes much less palatable. Then again, this might be one thing that would pass easily.

Ditch.

Because I don't want to look at Charles' stupid face on our money after the queen dies.

Me neither

Poll thread has no poll. Hurp durp.

Any true internet geek knows the proper spelling is hurp derp.



Most of the costs for the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors is in their offices, which have a staff of dozens of people and perform a variety of functions. Even if we elected governors during general elections, we'd still have that staff, and so the cost wouldn't be much different. If we didn't elect them, then who would appoint them? At least the Monarch has some legitimacy when she appoints someone.



I don't find the legitimacy argument all that convincing.



I say ditch the British monarchy..

I will volunteer to be Canada's new monarch.

Wooster for Queen of Canada!



How is Canada's constitutional monarchy system fundamentally failing Canada?

If our head of state was a giant inflatable weiner, one could also ask "how is it failing us?", as though one would need a convincing proof of failure to justify ditching it.


Ditch 'em - but after Liz passes.

It's an embarrassment that our head of state is a foreigner.

Agree.

Ditch, but gradually.

For starters, Queen Elizabeth should be the last monarch on our money.

The GG. Kinda dont mind the way it works, but perhaps can be modified for more of an all Canadian direction.

I said it last time this thread came up. I dont mind some symbolic gestures to keep with history and tradition. We dont need to dis the royal family like we're revolutionary France.

This is pretty much the way I look at it.

- I do relate to the sentiment that having a foreign (yes foreign) head of state is a symbol of not having fully 'grown up' as a nation.
- I do not want new sovereigns faces on our money
- I do respect Elizabeth and have no issue with retaining the monarchy until her death
- I support simply keeping all of the current processes in place, the Governor General will remain as it always has, doing the same job they always have, they will simply just be the Canadian head of state, rather than representing the Queen.
- The argument that the monarchy is all that separates us from the States is an incredibly sad commentary, and one that I don't believe to be true. In a sense that's using the monarchy as a crutch to prove Canadian 'differentness'. If the loss of the monarchy makes some think we're now just the same as the Americans, perhaps the push to actually differentiate ourselves vs relying on the monarchy is a good thing.
- This might be overstated, but I think ditching might help the French/English tensions in the country, although I think due to those tensions being pretty low at the moment it may not have any effect. It might though have an effect in the future should tensions flare up.

As for the argument about ditching the Queen being like ditching your mother, I feel it's more like deciding, once you've already moved out, that you are now the head of your household, and not her.

[MolsonExport]

Habsfanman: you guarantee it? how can you guarantee it? What sort of warranty are you proposing?

[LeftCoaster]

How do you respond to that?

Well you could just bring up WWII...

[caltrane74]

I say keep it, all the British Overseas Lands are Rich! Rich! Rich!

I like Bermuda and Cayman Islands Best!

And of course, the Anglo-Saxon trading tradition is the best, it's money in the bank. - The heritage of Free Enterprise!

[floobie]

I don't really care one way or the other. If the Monarchy is costing us more than any reasonably foreseeable alternative is, then I think it's worth getting rid of. If not... whatever.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Where do you guys keep getting some of these ideas from?!

First, becoming a republic is not going to make us Mini-America. The Canadian identity and fear of being "swallowed up" by our southern neighbour will probably stir some kind of forced culture creation in Canada anyway.

Second, if we were to get rid of the monarchy, all we'd have to do is replace the Office of Governor-General with President, Secretary-General, Grand Poohbah, whatever. They'd still have the same powers the Governor-General/Queen currently have and could live in Rideau Hall. Where do these magical "it'll be more expensive as a Republic" costs come from? How much money does it really cost to wake up one day and say: "We're ditching the monarchy. Mr. Johnson, you're now the President of Canada and elections will be held in 2015 for your replacement"?



As for my personal beliefs, the monarchy in England actually creates substantial tourism dollars. I will accept a monarchy in Canada on the following conditions:

- Some members of the British Royal Family move to Canada and live in Rideau Hall.
- Their children are born in Canada and raised as Canadians.
- This "Canadian Monarchy" actually bases themselves in Canada and serves as the nation's regency. Essentially, they make their homes here and come to represent the country.

Unless these rather reasonable conditions are met, I will support Canada becoming a republic. I can't bring myself to support a Head of State that was born in another country, raised there, rarely visits, and keeps residences here. It's ridiculous.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

If we lose the British monarch we should create a Canadian monarch. If we ditch the monarch completely then I'm moving. My loyalty is to the crowd first, country second.

If anything, my loyalty belongs to my fellow citizens who make up this country. Land is just land; it's the people who make the country.

The Queen/Sovereign/head of state is already Canadian.

About as Canadian as those 45,000+ Lebanese a few years back who needed to be rescued from Lebanon where they had been living most of their lives but possessed a Canadian passport.

So I'll ask what I always do in these silly monarchy discussions over the years and never get a reply back.............

How is Canada's constitutional monarchy system fundamentally failing Canada?

Wait for it...

(By the way, it's no much failing us as being the final obstacle to true nationhood.)

That is a very good question. Anyone care to comment?

Wait for it...

The easy answer is that they are not failing us. No more than our dependance on our resource based economy is failing us. No more than our complete domination by the U.S. is failing us.

We own lots of really big TV's, we own dinky little houses in the middle of nowhere, we have lots of cars.. everything is groovy! Right?

Maybe though, some of us wish that we actually made things rather than pawning off our resources to other countries that do actually make things. Maybe some of us wish that we had some sort of identifiable culture, other than that of the U.S. And maybe, some of us wish that our head of state wasn't some foreign parasite (and if one more fucking monarchist insults my intelligence by telling me that the Queen is Canadian! You're not Canadian just because you decree yourself to be).

Blow me paparazzi Royals. Stick to eTalk where they appreciate you for what you really are: fashion statements du jour and 'A-lister' photo ops.

And future embarrassments.

First of all, I don't consider someone who was neither born in nor lived in Canada to be Canadian. You can legally declare a sofa to be a dishwasher, and even write it into a constitution, but that doesn't make it true.

As for the fundamental failing, I would think that is obvious. The British monarchy is a cultural, tourism and publicity boon, but for London and the UK. Very few people outside of Canada associate the monarchy with Canada, instead viewing it as a British institution (which of course it is). Over the years we have pumped millions of dollars into the British economy instead of our own in the form of free publicity (portraits in public buildings, faces on Money, etc) and we only benefit by getting the odd visit once or twice a decade - which we pay for.

Now you may be thinking, "If its major failings are in terms of image, that doesn't sound very serious" but considering that its whole role is merely ceremonial, to have such a complete failure in that department is pretty damming.

Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting that we necessarily need to get rid of the Constitutional Monarchy system, just that we get a heard of state that is actually in Canada and which Canada does not share with other nations.

... And there you go. You've got your answers which say it better than I could have.

Keep the Monarchy!

The current form of government has suited Canada well for 144 years, why the need to change what is not broken!?

Did we stop after the first trains, planes and automobiles were created? No. They weren't broken, but we saw ways to improve upon them and advance them. Currently, because of the monarchy, we have stagnated. It's not progress, it's not regression; it's stagnation.

[someone123]

The argument that the monarchy is all that separates us from the States is an incredibly sad commentary

It is a nonsensical argument with a questionable premise. Even if Canada were identical to the US, why would it be necessary to invent a distinction like the monarchy? How would that make Canada more legitimate? Why should we even care about this supposedly self-evident horror?

[Acajack]

Once the dust settled, ditching the monarchy for something truly Canadian (or perceived as such by everyone - I know the Queen is "Canadian" but not everyone sees her as such) and meaningful that would be a true uniting force could be a real plus for the country.

In this sense, keeping the current system is something of a missed opportunity on this front.

[DizzyEdge]

Second, if we were to get rid of the monarchy, all we'd have to do is replace the Office of Governor-General with President, Secretary-General, Grand Poohbah, whatever. They'd still have the same powers the Governor-General/Queen currently have and could live in Rideau Hall. Where do these magical "it'll be more expensive as a Republic" costs come from? How much money does it really cost to wake up one day and say: "We're ditching the monarchy. Mr. Johnson, you're now the President of Canada and elections will be held in 2015 for your replacement"?


Even that much effort is unnecessary. All that needs to be done is "Mr Johnson, you know how you technically represent the Queen in Canada? Now you don't and are simply the head of state of Canada. No need to call him president, no need even for elections right away, can still be appointed (although possibly should be elected at some point).

[DizzyEdge]

timely:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/energy-resources/Harry+King+Canada+says+Monarchist+League/5015133/story.html

Harry as King of Canada? No way, says Monarchist League
By Shannon Proudfoot, Postmedia News June 28, 2011


A news story from the Telegraph in Britain suggested on Monday that Canada's leading monarchist organization wants to relocate Prince Harry to Ottawa and install him as "king of Canada" -a notion the chairman of the Monarchist League calls "absurd."

[DizzyEdge]

also, to elaborate on my point about "although possibly should be elected at some point", I said that because the most critical role he or she would play would be interpretation of constitutional law, so I look at the position more like that of a judge, than a politician, and wonder if a public election is the best route. What about a council of former GG's who vote in a new GG?

[Antigonish]

timely:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/energy-resources/Harry+King+Canada+says+Monarchist+League/5015133/story.html

Harry as King of Canada? No way, says Monarchist League
By Shannon Proudfoot, Postmedia News June 28, 2011
I'm content with that. Harry spent a good bit of time in Alberta when he was training with the Army. He's stated many times that he loves Canada, and some of his best friends are Canadians he met while he stayed here.

[someone123]

And we know he can pull off wearing an armband!

[kwoldtimer]

So, what does Harper think of this question?

Well, he might like to be Queen, but John Baird has called dibs. :notacrook:

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Once the dust settled, ditching the monarchy for something truly Canadian (or perceived as such by everyone - I know the Queen is "Canadian" but not everyone sees her as such) and meaningful that would be a true uniting force could be a real plus for the country.

In this sense, keeping the current system is something of a missed opportunity on this front.

Indeed. This is how I've often felt about such a scenario. Furthermore, if they were to live in La Citadelle in Quebec City and learn French, it could help to potentially bridge the divide between French and English Canada.

Even that much effort is unnecessary. All that needs to be done is "Mr Johnson, you know how you technically represent the Queen in Canada? Now you don't and are simply the head of state of Canada. No need to call him president, no need even for elections right away, can still be appointed (although possibly should be elected at some point).

True, but we should TRY to make the Westminster style of Parliament a touch more democratic, don't you think? :P

timely:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/energy-resources/Harry+King+Canada+says+Monarchist+League/5015133/story.html

Harry as King of Canada? No way, says Monarchist League
By Shannon Proudfoot, Postmedia News June 28, 2011

I wouldn't mind. He'd be a slightly controversial and hilariously rowdy King who could help shake Canada's undeserved reputation as being a "boring" country.

I'm content with that. Harry spent a good bit of time in Alberta when he was training with the Army. He's stated many times that he loves Canada, and some of his best friends are Canadians he met while he stayed here.

I actually had no idea about that. Learn something new every day I suppose. He or any of the actually Canadian members of the Royal Family would get my support for Regent provided they meet the three criteria I listed earlier.

[Urban_Genius]

Ditch it. But it's not a priority like senate reform for example.

[manny_santos]

I think it would be a lot more costly than some of us would like to believe. There is the issue of amending the Constitution. Re-opening the Constitution would be political suicide, and it would be a waste of time when there are more pressing issues in this country.

As far as I'm concerned, the Monarchy system we have isn't necessarily ideal, but there are far bigger issues for Canada to be worried about.

We also can benefit by being part of the Commonwealth, not just from the UK, but from other member countries.

[vid]

Maybe we should let the provinces who choose to get rid of their lieutenant-Governor. That will be that much money saved.

The Lieutenant Governor is the head of the executive. You can't "get rid" of that. You can only delegate it to the premier, a position that I think already has too much power vested in it. It could turn a majority premier into a dictator. Those functions will still have to be performed by someone and there will still have to be staff to see to them.

It won't save any money. It will just allocate it to another section of government. It will probably costs even more; I don't know how the government manages to do it, but when they eliminate positions by merging departments they always end up spending more.

I refused to watch the debacle and when a German buddy of mine questioned me as to why, I explained that the British Queen was still our head of state and that I wasn't happy with that. He replied "That's funny, I thought that Canada had grown up".

How do you respond to that?

Explain what happened since 1867 and then say that you're a republican? You're from Québec too so you've got to reasons to dislike the monarchy, don't you?

(and if one more fucking monarchist insults my intelligence by telling me that the Queen is Canadian! You're not Canadian just because you decree yourself to be)

She didn't decree herself to be Canadian. We did. No offense to your intelligence but that should be cleared up! She still regularly refers to herself as British, I think even when speaking with us.

Legally speaking though, she is Canadian, and Prince Charles will automatically become Canadian when she dies if he isn't one already. That's just how the constitution is laid out.

There is a thought that once the Queen dies parliament could simply not go through whatever motions are required to recognize the new monarch.

I agree, if constitutional modification is required it becomes much less palatable. Then again, this might be one thing that would pass easily.

"La Riene est mort. Vive le roi." The position transfers automatically upon death. Prince Charles will become our king before we find out Queen Elizabeth is dead; even before he finds out. That's just how it works.

I am pretty sure a law could be passed to change that, though, and there is a procedure parliament goes through to recognize the new monarch, as well as the coronation later (Elizabeth was Queen almost a year before her coronation).

I think a few countries have ended their relationship with the monarchy upon the death of the reigning monarch so it isn't impossible, but if it does require constitutional amendments, it will be very difficult to change.

I wouldn't oppose such a law, though I don't think it is very necessary and worry about the abhorrent cost of such a relatively pointless procedure. The fiscal conservative in me says "if it isn't broken, leave it alone", and while Novelleecosse's argument is a good one, I don't think that changing that is worth the cost of actually changing it. We might not get any money from visits to Buckingham Palace, but we aren't going to get much revenue from visits to 24 Sussex, either.

I don't find the legitimacy argument all that convincing.

Well the Prime Minister can't appoint himself. That is what the Governor General does right after the election, even if it is a majority. He chooses which party forms government and then appoints the leader of that party as the Prime Minister. Who will fulfill that role if we abolish the monarchy? The "previous" Prime Minister can't do it.

This is just an example of one of the many things about our government system that will have to change with a republic system. Considering how long it would take to change these things, I doubt we'll finish it before Queen Elizabeth dies, and that is even taking into account her family's longevity.

If our head of state was a giant inflatable weiner, one could also ask "how is it failing us?", as though one would need a convincing proof of failure to justify ditching it.

The giant inflatable wiener has legitimacy. ;)

I think you could have chosen a better example than an inflatable wiener. But, honestly, if that Wiener did what the monarchy does for the same price, it might still be a less expensive deal than a republic, and we won't have to figure out who will appoint the government.

- I do relate to the sentiment that having a foreign (yes foreign) head of state is a symbol of not having fully 'grown up' as a nation.
- I do not want new sovereigns faces on our money
- I do respect Elizabeth and have no issue with retaining the monarchy until her death

I generally agree on these points. I have a copy of A Vision of Britain from the Library and I'm not too fond of seeing its cover on the back of the 20. Even when he was younger Charles was hard on the eyes. :yuck:

- I support simply keeping all of the current processes in place, the Governor General will remain as it always has, doing the same job they always have, they will simply just be the Canadian head of state, rather than representing the Queen.

But now we have a dilemma one step up from that which I explained about the Prime Minister.

Without a Queen, who appoints the Governor General? Does the Prime Minister retain this power? Do party politics come into play like in a republic or does the role remain non-partisan? (I'd prefer the latter and I think most Canadians would as well.)

Appointment of the Governor General however is easier to solve than appointment of the government and prime minister. Parliament could appoint the Governor General, by committee with a list of well researched candidates and then secret ballot to choose an individual, for example.

- The argument that the monarchy is all that separates us from the States is an incredibly sad commentary, and one that I don't believe to be true. In a sense that's using the monarchy as a crutch to prove Canadian 'differentness'. If the loss of the monarchy makes some think we're now just the same as the Americans, perhaps the push to actually differentiate ourselves vs relying on the monarchy is a good thing.

The structure of our government and the nature of our political system is one of our biggest differences but I agree, defending the monarchy out of fear of "becoming American" is bullshit. If the only different is the Queen, we might as well join the US.

- This might be overstated, but I think ditching might help the French/English tensions in the country, although I think due to those tensions being pretty low at the moment it may not have any effect. It might though have an effect in the future should tensions flare up.

I don't think it will help too much. If we end up with an anglophone Governor General (or whatever we call the head of state) two times in a row, it will probably cause tension. I suppose we could have two heads of state, one Anglophone and one Francophone, but then you'll probably get Aboriginals upset saying they're not represented and who knows how many heads of state we'll have then. Switzerland, a country with several large ethnic groups (French, German, Italian and Romansch) has seven heads of state.

The EU presidency rotates from nation to nation. We could do something like that. Eliminate the Governor General and give the provincial Lieutenant Governors the top role for one tenth of the year on a rotating basis.

Second, if we were to get rid of the monarchy, all we'd have to do is replace the Office of Governor-General with President, Secretary-General, Grand Poohbah, whatever. They'd still have the same powers the Governor-General/Queen currently have and could live in Rideau Hall. Where do these magical "it'll be more expensive as a Republic" costs come from? How much money does it really cost to wake up one day and say: "We're ditching the monarchy. Mr. Johnson, you're now the President of Canada and elections will be held in 2015 for your replacement"?

The cost would be in restructuring. Even if we create a law that says "all references too ... are replaced with ...", we're going to have to educate people on the republican equivalents of monarchic positions down the line, when the monarchy becomes a memory.

The process of becoming a republic will be long and drawn out as well, and that could cause economic instability. We saw that kind of instability with all the elections and political uncertainty over the past seven years; republicanizing could lead to greater uncertainty, especially if the debate drags on for along time or becomes heated.

The court currently draws its authority from the crown; land is owned by the crown; government companies are crown corporations; we're going to have to replace the concept of crown. With what? More laws to change.

As for my personal beliefs, the monarchy in England actually creates substantial tourism dollars. I will accept a monarchy in Canada on the following conditions:

- Some members of the British Royal Family move to Canada and live in Rideau Hall.
- Their children are born in Canada and raised as Canadians.
- This "Canadian Monarchy" actually bases themselves in Canada and serves as the nation's regency. Essentially, they make their homes here and come to represent the country.

I agree with these, and agree that it would be much easier to do than becoming a republic. I'm a way it is kind of surprising it hasn't already been done. You would think a realm as established by ours would have its own branch of the monarchy, especially when the monarch back at home already delegates the bulk of their responsibilities to a representative.

Did we stop after the first trains, planes and automobiles were created? No. They weren't broken, but we saw ways to improve upon them and advance them. Currently, because of the monarchy, we have stagnated. It's not progress, it's not regression; it's stagnation.

You could argue that the stability of monarchy is better than a republic though. The Scandinavian and Low countries are also monarchies and they're not doing too bad in the long run. Canada, a monarchy where the monarch doesn't even reside in the country, has weathered the recession pretty well. Not very stagnant. Socially, we're very progressive, just like the other northwest European monarchies. (Spain is a bit different.)

I don't really see how we have stagnated because of the monarchy. What kinds of progress would we have as a republic that we don't have now?

also, to elaborate on my point about "although possibly should be elected at some point", I said that because the most critical role he or she would play would be interpretation of constitutional law, so I look at the position more like that of a judge, than a politician, and wonder if a public election is the best route. What about a council of former GG's who vote in a new GG?

As I explained above, have Parliament do it. Currently, the Prime Minister suggests someone to the Queen and the Queen appoints the Governor General. Have the Prime Minister, or a committee of all parties in the house, to make suggestions and vote on the best choice, or you could have the Prime Minister mention people and just vote on who would be preferred until someone gets a majority of the vote.

I think Germany does this to appoint their Chancellor.

Well, he might like to be Queen, but John Baird has called dibs. :notacrook:

Is that a gay joke? :P

Indeed. This is how I've often felt about such a scenario. Furthermore, if they were to live in La Citadelle in Quebec City and learn French, it could help to potentially bridge the divide between French and English Canada.

...

I actually had no idea about that. Learn something new every day I suppose. He or any of the actually Canadian members of the Royal Family would get my support for Regent provided they meet the three criteria I listed earlier.

The Queen speaks French (very well, too) and has a strong interest in Canada's aboriginal cultures. She's always considered Canada her "favourite". Another plus for her, but she won't live forever. Charles is much more focused on the UK than the other realms, as William also appears to be. Not being in the direct line of succession is probably why Harry had more time to spend "exploring", and decide that he likes Canada. Elizabeth is from the era when the British Empire was winding down (to put it lightly) so she was well travelled by the time she became Queen. (She was in Africa when it happened.)

[vid]

Elected monarchies exist. The Pope is one. We could put the crown on the head of a Governor General appointed by Parliament.

There! I fixed it! :haha:

[kwoldtimer]

Elected monarchies exist. The Pope is one. We could put the crown on the head of a Governor General appointed by Parliament.

There! I fixed it! :haha:

Well, except for the constitutional amendment maybe. Good luck with that!

Seriously, in a list of the 10 most serious problems needing attention in the Canadian system of government, the fact that we are a constitutional monarchy would have to be number 11. Focus, people!

[vid]

Well, except for the constitutional amendment maybe. Good luck with that!

I'm sure I could make a convincing argument to get about 1,000 people in 11 legislatures to vote in favour of it within three years. :yes:

[manny_santos]

I'm sure I could make a convincing argument to get about 1,000 people in 11 legislatures to vote in favour of it within three years. :yes:

Good luck. I'd like to see you attempt it!

(Seriously, it would be interesting to see a person spearhead such a movement.)

[jigglysquishy]

I would hate to lose the crown. Its a unique and cool part of our country. If we lose the British monarchy we could start a Canadian one.

[DizzyEdge]

"La Riene est mort. Vive le roi." The position transfers automatically upon death. Prince Charles will become our king before we find out Queen Elizabeth is dead; even before he finds out. That's just how it works.

I am pretty sure a law could be passed to change that, though, and there is a procedure parliament goes through to recognize the new monarch, as well as the coronation later (Elizabeth was Queen almost a year before her coronation).


So I wonder what would be the status if that procedure simply never got put on the list of parliamentary business?





The giant inflatable wiener has legitimacy. ;)

I think you could have chosen a better example than an inflatable wiener. But, honestly, if that Wiener did what the monarchy does for the same price, it might still be a less expensive deal than a republic, and we won't have to figure out who will appoint the government.


I disagree, I think a wiener was the best example ever :P


But now we have a dilemma one step up from that which I explained about the Prime Minister.

Without a Queen, who appoints the Governor General? Does the Prime Minister retain this power? Do party politics come into play like in a republic or does the role remain non-partisan? (I'd prefer the latter and I think most Canadians would as well.)


Well initially the current process is in all reality the PM is the one who chooses the person, the Queen just agrees, so I wouldn't be opposed to that remaining the process. But yes a committee would be be better. I still would probably oppose a general election ballot, as it should be a position beyond politicking (such as the Speaker of the House).




I don't think it will help too much. If we end up with an anglophone Governor General (or whatever we call the head of state) two times in a row, it will probably cause tension. I suppose we could have two heads of state, one Anglophone and one Francophone, but then you'll probably get Aboriginals upset saying they're not represented and who knows how many heads of state we'll have then. Switzerland, a country with several large ethnic groups (French, German, Italian and Romansch) has seven heads of state.


Please no! haha, and really, in a sense having multiple HoS's would just be a new symbolic divide for the country.

Of course if Wiener was our GG we'd probably fight over ketchup/mustard rather than languages.


Although my preference would be for changes upon the death of QEII, it's probably no that likely until polling indicates that 60-75% of Canadians would support it.

[DizzyEdge]

Some interesting recent polling:

http://royalwedding.globalnews.ca/News/Majority_of_Canadians_want_to_keep_Monarchy/

[ToxiK]

The Lieutenant Governor is the head of the executive. You can't "get rid" of that. You can only delegate it to the premier, a position that I think already has too much power vested in it. It could turn a majority premier into a dictator. Those functions will still have to be performed by someone and there will still have to be staff to see to them.

It won't save any money. It will just allocate it to another section of government. It will probably costs even more; I don't know how the government manages to do it, but when they eliminate positions by merging departments they always end up spending more.


Then modernize the function with automatization. Replace the Lieutenant-Governor by an automatic rubber stamp to sign the laws. It will be as useful and more efficient (and will cost a lot less) then the present system.

[Architype]

Be careful what you wish for.

http://www.pbase.com/image/135988756.jpg
Source (http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/04/18/HarperMajority/)

[Acajack]

Indeed. This is how I've often felt about such a scenario. Furthermore, if they were to live in La Citadelle in Quebec City and learn French, .

Language hasn't been much of an issue with GGs. At least not lately. The last GG that did not speak French was Ray Hnatyshyn and his term ended in 1995. All of the others since then have been bilingual, including "anglos" like Clarkson and Johnston.


it could help to potentially bridge the divide between French and English Canada.
.

Divide? What divide? There is a divide? Has anyone seen a divide? ;)

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

The cost would be in restructuring. Even if we create a law that says "all references too ... are replaced with ...", we're going to have to educate people on the republican equivalents of monarchic positions down the line, when the monarchy becomes a memory.

While I can see your point here, the same would've applied when Canadian became a self-governing Dominion yet we didn't fear that necessary step and the costs involved. Why so fearful of a change to a republic?

The process of becoming a republic will be long and drawn out as well, and that could cause economic instability. We saw that kind of instability with all the elections and political uncertainty over the past seven years; republicanizing could lead to greater uncertainty, especially if the debate drags on for along time or becomes heated.

We don't know for certain that attempting to transition to a republic will be long and drawn out. And how does government debate cause economic instability? If that were the case, we'd be unstable all the time judging from the conduct of MP's on the Hill. Our system allows for such political uncertainty, so it's unfair to say anything would be worse under a republic. Theoretically, we could keep the parliamentary system. It's not that hard to do.

The court currently draws its authority from the crown; land is owned by the crown; government companies are crown corporations; we're going to have to replace the concept of crown. With what? More laws to change.

More like words; replace Crown with State.

I agree with these, and agree that it would be much easier to do than becoming a republic. I'm a way it is kind of surprising it hasn't already been done. You would think a realm as established by ours would have its own branch of the monarchy, especially when the monarch back at home already delegates the bulk of their responsibilities to a representative.

It would be easier to do than becoming a republic and would likely have the support of most Canadians. As for why it hasn't happened yet, no idea. It was still funny to read about the Monarchist Association of Canada's response to Harry being a possible contender "absurd".

You could argue that the stability of monarchy is better than a republic though. The Scandinavian and Low countries are also monarchies and they're not doing too bad in the long run. Canada, a monarchy where the monarch doesn't even reside in the country, has weathered the recession pretty well. Not very stagnant. Socially, we're very progressive, just like the other northwest European monarchies. (Spain is a bit different.)

True, but France and Germany (both Republics) have also done well for themselves; especially Germany. Germany got out of recession faster than we did and their growth is now higher than ours. Even America, for all its faults, is arguably one of the most successful republics in existence.

I don't really see how we have stagnated because of the monarchy. What kinds of progress would we have as a republic that we don't have now?

True nationhood. I mean come on, look at our history; went from a bunch of separate colonies to a self-governing Dominion in 1867. Acquired further domestic powers via the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Created our own flag in 1965. Repatriation of the Constitution in 1982. The last step to true nationhood is to sever the last legal threads tying us with Britain with either our own separate monarchy or by becoming a republic.

The Queen speaks French (very well, too) and has a strong interest in Canada's aboriginal cultures. She's always considered Canada her "favourite".

And this is one of my biggest problems with the monarchy; as you've just clearly illustrated, she's like an outsider looking in. Those things should be a part of her "culture" as our Head of State (who should be born and raised here) instead of what it currently is; some interest in a former colony.

Another plus for her, but she won't live forever. Charles is much more focused on the UK than the other realms, as William also appears to be. Not being in the direct line of succession is probably why Harry had more time to spend "exploring", and decide that he likes Canada. Elizabeth is from the era when the British Empire was winding down (to put it lightly) so she was well travelled by the time she became Queen. (She was in Africa when it happened.)

Well if British monarchs become more and more insular, they risk losing more realms to republicanism.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Language hasn't been much of an issue with GGs. At least not lately. The last GG that did not speak French was Ray Hnatyshyn and his term ended in 1995. All of the others since then have been bilingual, including "anglos" like Clarkson and Johnston.

I was talking about the Royal Family, should some move to Canada and try to establish a properly Canadian regency. :P




Divide? What divide? There is a divide? Has anyone seen a divide? ;)

I believe it's called the provincial border of Quebec. ;)

[Acajack]

I was talking about the Royal Family, should some move to Canada and try to establish a properly Canadian regency. :P


OK, I get it now! Although I wonder if this might really improve things? The institution would be even less overtly "Canadian" than it is today. At least at the moment our GG, who really does all the work and "representation" (as opposed to the Queen) is a Canadian after all.

[vid]

So I wonder what would be the status if that procedure simply never got put on the list of parliamentary business?

I am sure there is something that requires it to happen for parliamentary business to happen.

Well initially the current process is in all reality the PM is the one who chooses the person, the Queen just agrees, so I wouldn't be opposed to that remaining the process. But yes a committee would be be better. I still would probably oppose a general election ballot, as it should be a position beyond politicking (such as the Speaker of the House).

The Queen does still have the right to disagree, just in case a prime minister abuses the power. It probably won't happen, but you never know.

Then modernize the function with automatization. Replace the Lieutenant-Governor by an automatic rubber stamp to sign the laws. It will be as useful and more efficient (and will cost a lot less) then the present system.

There is more to the Lieutenant-Governor than royal assent.

While I can see your point here, the same would've applied when Canadian became a self-governing Dominion yet we didn't fear that necessary step and the costs involved. Why so fearful of a change to a republic?

The government wasn't as big and complex then, and self-governance is a lot different than reforming the way the government works. Giving a parliament more responsibilities is different from changing how responsibilities
are divided and how the people carrying them out are appointed, especially when a government is as big and complex as ours has become.

In July 1867, the entire government fit within the three Parliament buildings. Now, it employs more people than there are residents of Saskatoon.

We don't know for certain that attempting to transition to a republic will be long and drawn out.

But when you look to the past it's the logical assumption.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Keep the monarchy

Change the rule of succesion, so that the crown goes to the first born of the monarch, not necessarily the first male born.

Otherwise, I'm totally fine with it.

If we changed our own succession laws and other countries didn't, maybe we would end up with our own King/Queen that would be different from the British one, as often happened between various kingdoms in the "olden" days?

[ToxiK]

There is more to the Lieutenant-Governor than royal assent.



Yeah! Symbolic stuff that can be done by public servants for much less. And more important, by people nominated by the provinces, not by another level of government, base on a system from another country (actually from a system OF another country. Are we still a colony?).

[DizzyEdge]

Yeah! Symbolic stuff that can be done by public servants for much less. And more important, by people nominated by the provinces, not by another level of government, base on a system from another country (actually from a system OF another country. Are we still a colony?).

I think vid was probably referring to the LG's role in cases of provincial govt crisis and other constitutional roles.

Although that brings up a point, could those roles simply be taken up by the Courts?

[ToxiK]

I think vid was probably referring to the LG's role in cases of provincial govt crisis and other constitutional roles.

Although that brings up a point, could those roles simply be taken up by the Courts?

Or by anything else that isn't related to the British Crown. It could be a high civil servant trained for that job (in theory, it would be better because a civil servant works for the public while a Lieutenant-Governor works for the Crown).

[BretttheRiderFan]

I know popularity of the Queen is a whole lot higher than the popularity of the Prime Minister, so I'd rather have Lizzy as our head of state than Harps any day of the week. I wouldn't mind David Johnston being head of state, however.

[Dado]

I think we could easily manage to have 11 heads of state for less the $50 million a year. Elections could be held during general elections so the cost would be virtually nothing extra and there is no reason for them to live the lifestyles they do now. We'd need to spend roughly $5 million a year for each head of state to equal the cost of what we pay for the monarchy. They also don't need to be elected.

Personally I don't care if we keep the monarchy or not but we could find cost savings in doing so.

I doubt that very much. If you go through the Monarchist League's accounting of the costs of monarchy, you quickly discover that pretty much all the same costs would exist with republican equivalents, if not more so depending on their nature (i.e. elected officials will tend to cost more than unelected ones).

http://monarchist.ca/en/cost-of-the-crown

Cost is frankly a red herring.

[Dado]

It would be easier to do than becoming a republic and would likely have the support of most Canadians. As for why it hasn't happened yet, no idea. It was still funny to read about the Monarchist Association of Canada's response to Harry being a possible contender "absurd".

I think the Monarchist League have really shot themselves in the foot with that one. They've just disposed of a really useful middle option in the future. The Crowns are already distinct legal constructs (effectively the Crowns are held in a personal union, though this was not always the case) so it's only a small step to make their bearers separate people. The easy way to do that is to transfer the succession of the 'Maple Crown' to another of Queen Elizabeth's descendants (my preference is Peter Phillips, either in his own right or as regent for his Canadian daughter Savannah).


True nationhood. I mean come on, look at our history; went from a bunch of separate colonies to a self-governing Dominion in 1867. Acquired further domestic powers via the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Created our own flag in 1965. Repatriation of the Constitution in 1982. The last step to true nationhood is to sever the last legal threads tying us with Britain with either our own separate monarchy or by becoming a republic.

And this is one of my biggest problems with the monarchy; as you've just clearly illustrated, she's like an outsider looking in. Those things should be a part of her "culture" as our Head of State (who should be born and raised here) instead of what it currently is; some interest in a former colony.

A useful thing about the idea of separating the monarchy is that it breaks one of the main republican arguments as used in Canada: that the monarchy is "foreign". Strictly speaking it's not true, but that's the perception and it requires a heavy degree of pedantism to argue otherwise. With the option of a separate monarchy on the table, republicans would have to engage in a "clean" monarchy-vs-republic argument, rather than being able to win points on the basis of its current "foreigness".

[GDS]

I doubt that very much. If you go through the Monarchist League's accounting of the costs of monarchy, you quickly discover that pretty much all the same costs would exist with republican equivalents, if not more so depending on their nature (i.e. elected officials will tend to cost more than unelected ones).

http://monarchist.ca/en/cost-of-the-crown

Cost is frankly a red herring.

No its not - there is no reason to assume that an equivalent is required.

A lean version of a GG that does not travel abroad would greatly reduce personnel, rcmp and dnd costs. Moreover, the link you provided lists 16 million in Program expenditures without giving any indication as to what that is and how it is broken down. Pretty half assed when that represents 85% of the GG budget - I have a hard time believing there is no waste in that.

Without having any effect on services for Canadians, the GG could easily absorb a 20% reduction in operating budget. Moreover, things like the Citadelle should be transfered into a different budget group like Heritage Canada as it clouds the true cost of the GG.

[Dado]

No its not - there is no reason to assume that an equivalent is required.

Then just what person is going to exercise what are currently the reserve powers of the Crown? Placing these in the hands of the first minister is a massive conflict of interest while placing them in the hands of some other person, whether elected or not, is effectively a republican equivalent. You don't have a lot of choices here. You might be able to get away without having equivalents to the LGs by making the GG or its replacement do all the duties of the LGs, but that would seem to come with increased travel costs and less time for ceremonial activities like the awarding of various honours.


A lean version of a GG that does not travel abroad would greatly reduce personnel, rcmp and dnd costs.

Well it would, yes, but I would tend to think that as a republic we'd have more foreign travel for our head of state, not less. The GG, as the Queen's representative in Canada, is not really expected to travel abroad, but our would-be head of state in a republic might well be expected to do more of that.


Moreover, the link you provided lists 16 million in Program expenditures without giving any indication as to what that is and how it is broken down. Pretty half assed when that represents 85% of the GG budget - I have a hard time believing there is no waste in that.

Check it again. You'll find that they broke it all down in the first list, then presented it in a second way ("Another way of Breaking down the budgetary allowance of the Governor General is as follows:"). That's why the totals are the same in both. Besides, the accompanying text provides even more information on what those funds are used for:

"Governor General’s Office was granted $19,149,541 as an operating budget. These funds provide “for the payment of the Governor General’s salary, for the costs of the Governor General’s annual program including visits within Canada and abroad, for citizen access and visitors’ services program at Rideau Hall and the operation of the office and residences.” The federal government also allocates monies to the Office of the Governor General for the Honours Program. This provides for “the administration of programs in the National Honours system,” which includes the Order of Canada, the Order of Military Merit, the Meritorious Service Decorations, Bravery Decorations, the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, and certain other recognitions to citizens, such as the Caring Canadians Award."

If you do a little calculating, you'll find that something like $11.4M of the $16.5M in program expenditures is actually personnel costs. That's probably somewhere in the range of 100-150 personnel.


Without having any effect on services for Canadians, the GG could easily absorb a 20% reduction in operating budget.

Maybe, but I would suspect that the honours would be hit.


Moreover, things like the Citadelle should be transfered into a different budget group like Heritage Canada as it clouds the true cost of the GG.

I think you need to read the report a little more carefully:

"The expenses incurred in maintaining and running La Citadelle are covered by the budget of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. For 2006-2007 the overall cost was $1,096,430.21"

It's the Monarchist League itself that has pulled in the cost of the Citadelle as a cost of monarchy since it is an official residence. They could choose to not include it I suppose but then they might be accused of not fully accounting for the cost of monarchy. At any rate, whether we are a monarchy or a republic, we would be bearing the cost of the Citadelle unless we sold it off.

[vid]

Keep the monarchy

Change the rule of succesion, so that the crown goes to the first born of the monarch, not necessarily the first male born.

The UK has been trying to get the other realms to do that, but obviously not very hard. I think they want all the realms to recognize it that way when they recognize Prince Charles as King.

Although that brings up a point, could those roles simply be taken up by the Courts?

They're too slow to act. You need someone who understands precedent, because unlike the US, many aspects of our constitution aren't codified, they're simply tradition and precedent that must be learned and understood by people in positions of authority.

Although given some choices of Governor General and Lieutenant Governor in the past 25 years, I'm not sure if that is entirely important. Part of the cost of those positions is in having staff to research what to do in certain scenarios if they come up, but you'd still need someone to make and execute a decision. Every government has an executive branch and chief executive.

Or by anything else that isn't related to the British Crown. It could be a high civil servant trained for that job (in theory, it would be better because a civil servant works for the public while a Lieutenant-Governor works for the Crown).

But these days, it is considered that the Crown also works for the public. When you consider that Prince William basically can't be anything but king, in a way it is the ultimate civil service.

No its not - there is no reason to assume that an equivalent is required.

When a law is passed, you need someone in a position of authority to execute that law. That is what a president or governor does.

Minnesota is not led by "Head Civil Servant Jane Smith". It is lead by "The Governor of Minnesota".

A lean version of a GG that does not travel abroad would greatly reduce personnel, rcmp and dnd costs.

Yes, and Barack Obama would be cheaper if he didn't travel, too. :rolleyes:

Moreover, the link you provided lists 16 million in Program expenditures without giving any indication as to what that is and how it is broken down. Pretty half assed when that represents 85% of the GG budget - I have a hard time believing there is no waste in that.

Governors have programmes too. Mike Huckabee had his "let's all get healthy" project when he was Alabama governor. That came out of his Governor budget. Abolishing the monarchy and its viceroys won't change those kinds of things. Actually, since I can't think of any equivalents in Canada, these pet projects would likely make the executive branch more expensive.

You might be able to get away without having equivalents to the LGs by making the GG or its replacement do all the duties of the LGs, but that would seem to come with increased travel costs and less time for ceremonial activities like the awarding of various honours.

It would cause problems with throne speeches as well. All the provinces have them, too, and since they're all switching to fixed election dates in the fall, their throne speeches will be falling on similar dates. October/November will be a very busy, cross country expedition for an overarching Governor General.

Also, the Crown is considered to apply to the provinces separate of the Federal Government. Technically, the Queen is also Queen of Ontario, Queen of Alberta, etc. The same viceroy can't represent 11 monarchs.

Also, the viceroy must be up-to-date on the government activity. But then, the Queen stays up to date on the activities of 16 realms while Canada only has 11 equivalents.

[jmt18325]

It would cause problems with throne speeches as well. All the provinces have them, too,

All but one - Quebec. The lg, so far as I can tell, never actually enters the National Assembly Chamber.

[vid]

Well Quebec is différent.

[ToxiK]

But these days, it is considered that the Crown also works for the public. When you consider that Prince William basically can't be anything but king, in a way it is the ultimate civil service.


The Prince could abdicate and retire. I think he can afford it

All I am saying is that we could abolish the Lieutenant-Governor and hire a top public servant at half the salary and a third of the operation budget to do the same job and no one would see the difference (except that we would look less like a British colony, and in Québec that would mean a lot).

[vid]

All I am saying is that we could abolish the Lieutenant-Governor and hire a top public servant at half the salary and a third of the operation budget to do the same job and no one would see the difference.

When has the government ever successfully abolished a position and replaced it with a less skilled individual with a third of the budget? :haha: If anything, we'll end up with 14 civil servants doing the same thing for six times as much, and they'll all get bonuses. :no:

[blacktrojan3921]

Keep it, if we ditch the monarchy and end up being a U.S. clone, I'm moving to Cuba >:

[ToxiK]

When has the government ever successfully abolished a position and replaced it with a less skilled individual with a third of the budget? :haha: If anything, we'll end up with 14 civil servants doing the same thing for six times as much, and they'll all get bonuses. :no:

The Lieutenant-Governor isn't nominated for skills, but for political reasons. It is symbolic and we spend to much money on that symbol, especially since it is a symbol from another country. Change the title of the job for a public servant one and cut the budget and the job will still be done.

[vid]

The Lieutenant-Governor isn't nominated for skills, but for political reasons. It is symbolic and we spend to much money on that symbol, especially since it is a symbol from another country. Change the title of the job for a public servant one and cut the budget and the job will still be done.

Here are the responsibilities of Lieutenant Governor. These are the roles that you want to be undertaken by a high ranking bureaucrat with a greatly reduced budget:

• Guarantee continuous and stable government
• Act as a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power
• Be the core of authority within the province
• Appoint the premier and cabinet
• Announce proclamations and orders-in-council (our equivalent of an executive order)
• Appoint judges
• Summon the legislature
• Read the speech from the throne (our equivalent of a state of the union address)
• Prorogue or dissolve parliament
• Signs bills into law
• Host foreign heads of state
• Meet with the people of the province (Obama was in Rock Island, IL the other day, so travelling just to give speeches isn't exclusive to monarchies)
• Present medals and bestow honours (pretty much every country does this)

I have trouble seeing a bureaucrat, even a top bureaucrat, undertake these responsibilities.

All of these points would require constitutional changes of not the monarchy, but the nature of the executive branch. At this point we aren't even debating whether Canada should be a constitutional monarchy or not. We're now debating whether or not the government should have a proper executive branch, and how that branch should work if it will exist. You're talking about reform of a branch of government here, not simply the nature of our head of state.

I would be open to changing the head of state to a republican system, but I am not open to abolishing the position entirely or replacing it with a bureaucrat.

[DizzyEdge]

I'll be honest, the throngs of people ecstatic over Will and Kate and proclaiming how much they love them, on Canada Day, makes me ill.

[habfanman]

So I guess all of you pro monarchists are OK with this:

The head of state of Canada must also be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, therefore: Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, non Church of England Protestants, Agnostics, Atheists etc. etc. need not apply. And females can forget about if they have an older male sibling.

CANADIANS NEED NOT APPLY! Canadians themselves can never aspire to be the head of state of their own nation. Our head of state can only ever be an Anglican Protestant Brit, preferably male.

Is this something that we should supporting in 21st century Canada?

I'd really like to see a monarchist defend the hereditary selection process.

[habfanman]

Here are the responsibilities of Lieutenant Governor. These are the roles that you want to be undertaken by a high ranking bureaucrat with a greatly reduced budget:

• Guarantee continuous and stable government
• Act as a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power
• Be the core of authority within the province
• Appoint the premier and cabinet
• Announce proclamations and orders-in-council (our equivalent of an executive order)
• Appoint judges
• Summon the legislature
• Read the speech from the throne (our equivalent of a state of the union address)
• Prorogue or dissolve parliament
• Signs bills into law
• Host foreign heads of state
• Meet with the people of the province (Obama was in Rock Island, IL the other day, so travelling just to give speeches isn't exclusive to monarchies)
• Present medals and bestow honours (pretty much every country does this)

I have trouble seeing a bureaucrat, even a top bureaucrat, undertake these responsibilities.

All of these points would require constitutional changes of not the monarchy, but the nature of the executive branch. At this point we aren't even debating whether Canada should be a constitutional monarchy or not. We're now debating whether or not the government should have a proper executive branch, and how that branch should work if it will exist. You're talking about reform of a branch of government here, not simply the nature of our head of state.

I would be open to changing the head of state to a republican system, but I am not open to abolishing the position entirely or replacing it with a bureaucrat.

Oh please, any trained monkey can fulfill the responsibilities of lieutenant governor, it's the most ridiculous of rubber stamp positions. Hardly anybody knows or cares about who their provincial lieutenant governor is. They do the rubber chicken circuit, with everybody saying "Who the fuck was that?"

[habfanman]

Keep it, if we ditch the monarchy and end up being a U.S. clone, I'm moving to Cuba >:

Yeah, like we're not already a U.S. clone and the U.S. is the only republic on the face of the earth. We wouldn't wan't to be too much like impoverished, backwards-ass Germany, for example.

[habfanman]

I'll be honest, the throngs of people ecstatic over Will and Kate and proclaiming how much they love them, on Canada Day, makes me ill.

I found it extremely embarrassing. It took a couple of British pop stars for us to have a record number of people to show up for Canada Day. Pathetic.

[ToxiK]

Here are the responsibilities of Lieutenant Governor. These are the roles that you want to be undertaken by a high ranking bureaucrat with a greatly reduced budget:

• Guarantee continuous and stable government
• Act as a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power
• Be the core of authority within the province
• Appoint the premier and cabinet
• Announce proclamations and orders-in-council (our equivalent of an executive order)
• Appoint judges
• Summon the legislature
• Read the speech from the throne (our equivalent of a state of the union address)
• Prorogue or dissolve parliament
• Signs bills into law
• Host foreign heads of state
• Meet with the people of the province (Obama was in Rock Island, IL the other day, so travelling just to give speeches isn't exclusive to monarchies)
• Present medals and bestow honours (pretty much every country does this)

I have trouble seeing a bureaucrat, even a top bureaucrat, undertake these responsibilities.

All of these points would require constitutional changes of not the monarchy, but the nature of the executive branch. At this point we aren't even debating whether Canada should be a constitutional monarchy or not. We're now debating whether or not the government should have a proper executive branch, and how that branch should work if it will exist. You're talking about reform of a branch of government here, not simply the nature of our head of state.

I would be open to changing the head of state to a republican system, but I am not open to abolishing the position entirely or replacing it with a bureaucrat.

Habfanman answered before me; many of these tasks can be done by anyone. Some of them could be done by a computer. Apointing people is just officializing a decision made by someone else (someone with real power). Replace the rubber stamp by a printer and voilà.

Your best argument is that it would be very difficult to ditch the monarchy. Constititional changes for a symbol... If we want to make changes in the Constitution, I am sure there are a lot of other things that are more important and that would be more worthy of the time and energy spent.

But if we chose to make some changes, I still say get rid of the monarchy.
(And would getting rid of the Lieutenant-Governors by the provinces who want it really needs a constitutional change? I mean, it is not the General-Governor).