Right now we're sharing a monarch with Third World countries in Africa and Asia that understand very poorly the concepts of human rights and democracy. Canada must choose on its own what bridges to build with these authoritarian regimes. Why we would let foreigners have a measurre of control on something so important is to me a sign of political immaturity.
Canadians Split on Monarchy, Dump It I Say
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Right now we're sharing a monarch with Third World countries in Africa and Asia that understand very poorly the concepts of human rights and democracy. Canada must choose on its own what bridges to build with these authoritarian regimes. Why we would let foreigners have a measurre of control on something so important is to me a sign of political immaturity.
Actually I hinted at the first and stated the second. But it wouldn't just be letterheads and stuff. There are a lot of rules applicable to relations between head of state and government. Each would have to be reworded to exclude the head of state. We'd have to rearrange half of government to compensate. It's a legal (and therefore very costly) nightmare, IMO.
Personally, I don't care about the sentimental aspects or the anti-American (I mean in the "we are not Americans" sense).
Perhaps dumping an UNELECTED queen might cause a trickle down effect and make our system more democratic. At the top of our system of governance is an unelected official who is untouchable, which makes so much else in our system untouchable and a tool of the PM such as the senate.
It might look once you knock down one domino, another inevitably tumbles afterwards. It might be called progress. Beats making a fire with sticks.
Our bridge is not with authoritarian countries. Our bridge is with mother country, U.K. I see nothing wrong with that.
Indeed, by your logic, we also should not belong to UN, since some fo the most brutal dictatorships in the world are also UN members. And we don't want to build bridges with them, do we?
Good point. And the UN would be easier and cheaper to dump than the monarchy.
Pretty selective logic. We are all subjects of the queen. That seems like a link to me with the other countries which are very authoritarian.
The UN is okay, it keeps its distance. It doesn't interfere much in our internal affairs. But it is a worry because most of the countries in the UN are authoritarian or very undemocratic. But it is the USA that worries most because they want to be everywhere in the world and the UN puts potential limits on their actions. Canada is not like the USA that way.
I struggle to see a use for the monarchy or CW.
I fail entirely to see the justification for its removal (especially cost-wise).
You'd pay to have your appendix removed, even though it is apparently useless to your existence?
This is a good but flawed analogy. Good because it's true that the elaborate process of removing monarchy makes it seem much more logical to just keep things the way they are.
The analogy is also flawed because while our appendix is there for reasons that are absolutely outside of our control (biological evolution), monarchy is there because of a conscious human choice as a nation. The former implies no free will but the latter does.
If a majority of Canadians wish to conserve monarchy because they believe in the system, then so be it. But remember that there are some of us who don't agree with the principles of hereditary monarchy. I personally don't and this has a huge impact on the way I perceive Canada, my country. It's hard for me to feel attached to a country which has at the core of its political system, a concept (hereditary monarchy) I find outdated and totally out of tune with the modern notion of equality among human beings that Canada supposedly stands for. I know a strong majority of Quebecers think the same way. That doesn't mean, we necessarily want to leave, only means our attachment to Canada is tempered down.
If by any chance we were to get rid of monarchy, you can be damn sure this would be greeted with a cheer in Quebec. The symbolic strength of the gesture would have a huge impact on national unity.
My point in all this? For Canada to be united, we need to have respect for our institutions and this is one aspect of our institutions some of us simply don't respect. You can't love something you don't respect.
I love Canada. But I'd like to love it even more.
Last edited:
The cost. Okay, let's see. Right now, the GG does nothing of substance. So the absence of the GG would not affect the machinery of govt at all. The PM has no need of the GG, none at all. Who needs the GG?
What companies often do as a cost cutting measure is not fill a position when it become open and if few seem to notice the change, then they phase it out and save money. If there is squawking and a hole, then it is refilled.
No GG could cost us less, not more as the whole office would not be spending any taxpayer money. But there's little bravery in Canada for such an experiment.
You still miss the bigger point: you would have to re-write the entire way government functions in this country and redefine a lot of government institutions. The cost of the GG, with all the pomp, ceremony and travel, is microscopic compared to the costs that would be incurred in removing that office... and you still haven't said what you would replace it with.
In your rabid dislike of the monarchy and the GG's office, you want to spend $100 to save a penny...
Monarchy doesn't have a lot of use, it is strictly ceremonial. Indeed, if monarchy tried to exert its authority in Canada, that will be the surest way to turn the public sentiment against monarchy. I for one would favor getting rid of monarchy if the monarch tries to interfere with internal affairs of Canada.
First, I have no rabid dislike of the monarchy. I have a history degree, I like old things, but I feel the monarchy has outlived its usefulness for Canadians. It is decrepit in this modern age.
Second, the PM never mentions the monarchy, nor do politicians. The mass of civil servants just drudge on without caring much about it, moving the machinery of govt. The public just wants services at an efficient rate. Why should I care whether there is a crown/monarchy involved when I get a driver's licence or buy beer at a govt liquor store? Or when I vote?
Context is everything. If the PMO was pulling a fast one and being undemocratic on a major issue, stepping outside the bounds of parliamentary tradition and the Queen stepped in to stop, I might not have an issue with it. Its hard to think of an exact context but never say never.
I've said before, I'm not wedded to the idea that a monarchy is a must, but there needs to be real and demonstrable value in spending all that money to replace it... because the cost will be measured in at least 10's of billions by the time all is said and done.
But you're in favour of it sitting around and doing nothing. Which is what the senate does by the way too. Why is so much loafing in govt okay in Canada?
Simple solution then. Change the title from Prime Minister to revered Leader or what ever gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling. I don't care what you call it. And yes we do elect the PM although indirectly. Many people vote for the party, meaning the leader not their local MP.
The GG only represents an archaic public embarrassment and serves no useful purpose except waste tax money.
You know, you're willing to give consent to a person who rarely visits Canada, shows no ongoing knowledge about the country, has no constitutional knowledge of Canada, to suddenly interfere and make a political decsion on an event that rarely happens in Canada? You must play with nitroglyceran in your spare time.
She doesn't have regular Canadian advisors, she has British advisors who know very little about Canada and would probably not make a decision in the best interest of Canada in an emergency.
Ten of billions? No no no, this is a downsizing, it has to be cheaper. First we do without a GG and see what happens. It is very unlikely the sky will fall.
dumpthemonarchy, your posts are completely riddled with falsehoods.
The Office of the Governor General of Canada performs absolutely essential functions for the proper operations of our democracy. It is the Governor General (in the name of Her Majesty the Queen) who appoints the prime minister; certainly, it wouldn’t make sense to trust a prime minister himself to determine who forms the Government in a minority Parliament, would it? Does it make sense for the prime minister to decide whether or not he’s broken our constitutional rules when he’s accused of it? He should decide whether or not he, himself, should be dismissed? These would be much greater blights on democratic governance than the continuance of the monarchy could ever possibly pose. We should remember, as well, that the Governor General’s other functions (i.e., the several awards programs administered by the OSGG) would still need to be performed by someone — we could give those functions to the prime minister, but then he wouldn’t have the time to actually govern. The Governor General is a non-partisan representative of the head of State who rarely makes it to the spotlight, but who must have the executive powers needed to depose an undemocratic Government (for example, if the Liberals had refused to step down after losing the confidence of the House some years ago — and the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson noted in her memoirs that she, as Governor General, had been watching very carefully).
False once more.
Former prime ministers (such as The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien P.C., C.C.) have noted the fact that Her Majesty is very knowledgeable of Canadian politics and our constitutional processes, and can be relied upon for advice as needed.
Remember, of course, that the costs of transitioning to a presidency would be absolutely huge; a president would inherently have more of a democratic mandate to intervene in the face of Canadian politics, completely changing the political landscape (i.e., Parliament would lose much of its power to an executive with the elected mandate to interfere in issues that should be exclusively legislative). Also, think of the huge amount of staff that an elected head of State would have, as opposed to the representative we have now in the Governor General. The costs, both initial and ongoing, would be massively larger than those of the OSGG.
The Office of the Governor General of Canada performs absolutely essential functions for the proper operations of our democracy. It is the Governor General (in the name of Her Majesty the Queen) who appoints the prime minister; certainly, it wouldn’t make sense to trust a prime minister himself to determine who forms the Government in a minority Parliament, would it? Does it make sense for the prime minister to decide whether or not he’s broken our constitutional rules when he’s accused of it? He should decide whether or not he, himself, should be dismissed? These would be much greater blights on democratic governance than the continuance of the monarchy could ever possibly pose. We should remember, as well, that the Governor General’s other functions (i.e., the several awards programs administered by the OSGG) would still need to be performed by someone — we could give those functions to the prime minister, but then he wouldn’t have the time to actually govern. The Governor General is a non-partisan representative of the head of State who rarely makes it to the spotlight, but who must have the executive powers needed to depose an undemocratic Government (for example, if the Liberals had refused to step down after losing the confidence of the House some years ago — and the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson noted in her memoirs that she, as Governor General, had been watching very carefully).
False once more.
Former prime ministers (such as The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien P.C., C.C.) have noted the fact that Her Majesty is very knowledgeable of Canadian politics and our constitutional processes, and can be relied upon for advice as needed.
Remember, of course, that the costs of transitioning to a presidency would be absolutely huge; a president would inherently have more of a democratic mandate to intervene in the face of Canadian politics, completely changing the political landscape (i.e., Parliament would lose much of its power to an executive with the elected mandate to interfere in issues that should be exclusively legislative). Also, think of the huge amount of staff that an elected head of State would have, as opposed to the representative we have now in the Governor General. The costs, both initial and ongoing, would be massively larger than those of the OSGG.
You've got an absolutely static view of history and politics. This is wrong in a changing world.
The public and media decide when the PM or other members of the overstep their boundaries. You treat Canadians like children, saying that only a useless GG, a queen, or some majesty idea from across an ocean can make any decisions about our consititution. Wrong.
Does the GG actually decide which parties will form a coalition or minority govt? Give me a break, it is obvious what has to be done, there are only about two choices on what to do anyway. You give so much weight to what is trivial.
I don't want a presidential system and I never said I did. Another example of your fixation on American politics. You're typical of many people to focus on two countries that bedevil Canadian politics. Americans always worry about a coup from the military or some other rogue group, I don't worry about that here. I think a PM would be quite responsible no matter what happens after an election. I don't think a PM wants to wreck the country and I trust other politicians would give him the boot if he did. PMs know they have limited power.
Or you're British with delusions of decaying empire.
dumpthemonarchy, obviously the Governor General of Canada does not exercise personal discretion on a day-to-day basis; that would go against centuries of constitutional conventions. The Governor General only exercises personal discretion under very clear circumstances (such as when a prime minister is acting outside of our constitutional bounds, or when there is a general election that returns no clear majority to the House). You say that there are only two options, which suggests that your understanding of our constitutional arrangements is either misguided or incomplete. Any number of possibilities exist after an inconclusive general election, and though there are constitutional conventions that help to guide the decision-making, there must be a final arbiter—and that person cannot be the head of Government who has everything to lose.
It makes no sense—and is in fact quite a dangerous train of thought—to suggest that a prime minister should be able to determine, on his or her own, when he or she has a legitimate mandate to govern. And once more, the Governor General performs a myriad of functions that would continue to have to be performed; and to download these responsibilities onto the Office of the Prime Minister would drain the prime minister’s time and resources inappropriately. Such honorary and ceremonial matters of State should be left to our representative of the head of State, with decision-making and the steering of Government reserved to a distinct head of Government.
And the position of Governor General cannot simply not be filled; the Government of Canada would not function without the routine use of Orders-in-Council. Of course, these could be performed temporarily by the Queen’s Administrator of the Government of Canada (whoever is presently the Chief Justice of Canada), but we could not maintain such a drain on the resources of the Supreme Court of Canada for more than a few months without very seriously damaging the efficiency of the highest tier of our judicial system.
The position cannot simply go vacant, because this would be a material change to the Office of the Governor General, and would therefore require the consent of the Honourable the Senate of Canada, the House of Commons, and the legislative assemblies of all ten provinces pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1982.
It makes no sense—and is in fact quite a dangerous train of thought—to suggest that a prime minister should be able to determine, on his or her own, when he or she has a legitimate mandate to govern. And once more, the Governor General performs a myriad of functions that would continue to have to be performed; and to download these responsibilities onto the Office of the Prime Minister would drain the prime minister’s time and resources inappropriately. Such honorary and ceremonial matters of State should be left to our representative of the head of State, with decision-making and the steering of Government reserved to a distinct head of Government.
And the position of Governor General cannot simply not be filled; the Government of Canada would not function without the routine use of Orders-in-Council. Of course, these could be performed temporarily by the Queen’s Administrator of the Government of Canada (whoever is presently the Chief Justice of Canada), but we could not maintain such a drain on the resources of the Supreme Court of Canada for more than a few months without very seriously damaging the efficiency of the highest tier of our judicial system.
The position cannot simply go vacant, because this would be a material change to the Office of the Governor General, and would therefore require the consent of the Honourable the Senate of Canada, the House of Commons, and the legislative assemblies of all ten provinces pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1982.
steady as she goes, do not change direction. nothing is perfect, what we have is efficient
and fair, and assures that the people's votes are valued, and government is working because of them.
the monarchy is very valuable and traditional and puts a touch of class into our government, who are
usually sitting around calling each other names and squabbling like children.
and fair, and assures that the people's votes are valued, and government is working because of them.
the monarchy is very valuable and traditional and puts a touch of class into our government, who are
usually sitting around calling each other names and squabbling like children.