Does Canada Really Need The Monarchy?

[Corduroy]

I agree.

Something I find really ridiculous is that in Pakistan, people used to actually inherit political party leadership. Maybe they still do.

Our Liberal party is apparently hereditary.

 

[AnnaG]

Getting rid of it doesnt change our history. It doesnt mean forgetting. Its just moving on. Many countries have scrapped their own monarchies and it hasnt changed their identity or history.

As for traditions I never cared for the idea of doing something simply because it has always been that way. It needs to serve some sort of purpose. This one does not. There never should have been a monarchy in the first place.

I agree.

And I think we should have been a democratic republic instead.

 

[WLDB]

No country ever needed a monarchy any time any where.

Thats pretty much my thought. The whole idea of them is strange. People inheriting power or position based on which family they were born into makes no sense. Some societies figured that out very early.

 

[AnnaG]

Our Liberal party is apparently hereditary.

lol You have a point there.

 

[Corduroy]

No.

Id be ok with the beaver idea.

Replace the portrait of the Queen on the $20 with a beaver and you'll completely rearrange the sex trade's pricing scheme. Is that wise?

 

[AnnaG]

I agree.

And I think we should have been a democratic republic instead.

And not a DR based upon crony capitalism either.

Replace the portrait of the Queen on the $20 with a beaver and you'll completely rearrange the sex trade's pricing scheme. Is that wise?

erm I meant the furry kind of beaver.

Nix that. I meant the rodent type beaver that builds dams and gnaws on trees.

 

[WLDB]

Having a Governor General
the Queens rep gives a sober second thought with a small measure of powers it kept
Harper in line even a little on obstacle away from doing what ever the hell he pleased.

That would be the Supreme Court, not the Governor General. The latter never did anything to restrict him from anything. He always got his way on that front.

 

[Ludlow]

And not a DR based upon crony capitalism either.

erm I meant the furry kind of beaver.

Nix that. I meant the rodent type beaver that builds dams and gnaws on trees.

lol.you read my mind

RB (robber baron) Republic

 

[AnnaG]

hehe

 

[gerryh]

What I am seeing in the various replies and in the links provided is that people really don't know exactly what a constitutional monarchy is or what the monarchy's roll is within that constitution. So I have to ask, how can one argue against something when they really don't know what it does? Case in point, this link that was provided:
19 Foremost Advantages and Disadvantages of Monarchy | Green Garage

This link does not apply to Canada at all.

The next link:

10 Things the Queen of England Still Does for Canada | Mental Floss

This is VERY simplistic and get's it wrong from the very beginning. Our head of state is the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of England. There is a distinct difference, even though the same person fills both rolls. The implication is, that England still has some say in how our government is run and that could not be further from the truth.

In that same write up it states that the Queen appoints the Governor General and the various Lieutenant Generals, while this may technically be true, realistically it is not. The Government of Canada recommends someone to the Queen and that person is then appointed by the Queen. It has been many many years since the "Crown" appointed a GG that was not a "recommendation" by the sitting Government of Canada.

 

[AnnaG]

What I am seeing in the various replies and in the links provided is that people really don't know exactly what a constitutional monarchy is or what the monarchy's roll is within that constitution. So I have to ask, how can one argue against something when they really don't know what it does? Case in point, this link that was provided:
19 Foremost Advantages and Disadvantages of Monarchy | Green Garage

This link does not apply to Canada at all.

The next link:

10 Things the Queen of England Still Does for Canada | Mental Floss

This is VERY simplistic and get's it wrong from the very beginning. Our head of state is the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of England. There is a distinct difference, even though the same person fills both rolls. The implication is, that England still has some say in how our government is run and that could not be further from the truth.

In that same write up it states that the Queen appoints the Governor General and the various Lieutenant Generals, while this may technically be true, realistically it is not. The Government of Canada recommends someone to the Queen and that person is then appointed by the Queen. It has been many many years since the "Crown" appointed a GG that was not a "recommendation" by the sitting Government of Canada.

Well, thank you for finally discussing it.

Regardless. I still think there is little or no practical application of the monarchy in Canada. It is superficial and ornamental at best.

 

[gerryh]

Well, thank you for finally discussing it.

Some of us work, but if you would like, I'll let the office know that any furnace break downs we get will have to wait for me to answer a woman in Ontario that has a problem waiting until I have time to answer completely.

Regardless. I still think there is little or no practical application of the monarchy in Canada. It is superficial and ornamental at best.

If Canada was not already a Constitutional Monarchy, I just might agree with you. However, since it is already in place and has worked well for the last 150 years I see no real reason to change at this time. The cost of changing is high with no real improvement in the way Canada's Government works.

 

[darkbeaver]

This issue has been discussed enough. I've formed an opinion that should satisfy the majority. Yes we should employ a monarchy, they're cheap and efficient. god save the queeen

What I am seeing in the various replies and in the links provided is that people really don't know exactly what a constitutional monarchy is or what the monarchy's roll is within that constitution. So I have to ask, how can one argue against something when they really don't know what it does? Case in point, this link that was provided:
19 Foremost Advantages and Disadvantages of Monarchy | Green Garage

This link does not apply to Canada at all.

The next link:

10 Things the Queen of England Still Does for Canada | Mental Floss

This is VERY simplistic and get's it wrong from the very beginning. Our head of state is the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of England. There is a distinct difference, even though the same person fills both rolls. The implication is, that England still has some say in how our government is run and that could not be further from the truth.

In that same write up it states that the Queen appoints the Governor General and the various Lieutenant Generals, while this may technically be true, realistically it is not. The Government of Canada recommends someone to the Queen and that person is then appointed by the Queen. It has been many many years since the "Crown" appointed a GG that was not a "recommendation" by the sitting Government of Canada.

Overall gerryh I'm in favour of a monarcic sp dynasty for Canada. Why do we have to endure a failed Empires legacy, it's unpopular. Why can't we have an indeginous Canadian Monarchy? I could stand in for a while till the lucky couple was elected.

 

[davesmom]

Getting rid of it doesnt change our history. It doesnt mean forgetting. Its just moving on. Many countries have scrapped their own monarchies and it hasnt changed their identity or history.

As for traditions I never cared for the idea of doing something simply because it has always been that way. It needs to serve some sort of purpose. This one does not. There never should have been a monarchy in the first place.

You're right, it doesn't make sense to do something just because it has always been done.
What I do like about certain traditions is that it can pique curiosity about where that tradition came from and prompt research into history. The need to retain history can be seen in the growing lack of support for our veterans and in the disinterest in the need to protect our freedoms from potential aggressors.
Knowledge of our history is fast falling by the wayside. The younger generations seem to have little knowledge or interest in the past. It is important to know where we have been as a nation and how we evolved as a society.

 

[AnnaG]

Myths about the Monarchy | The Monarchist League of Canada

Canadians living in a diverse and mobile society rarely properly describe people as foreigners. We judge individuals not by the place of their birth, the colour of their skin or their accents, but by their character and their contribution to Canadian society. By this standard our Queen is as Canadian as can be: in her length of service to the country, in her pride in being our Queen and our reciprocal affection for her, in her being the embodiment of citizenship, the source of law and the guardian of the constitution, and in her linking us to the multi-cultural peaceful alliance that is the Commonwealth. When The Queen is not present, a number of our fellow Canadians represent her as Governor General and lieutenant governors.

"Length of service" to Canada consisting of what? Royal visits and tours? "Embodiment of citizenship"? Why should I care about her as much as I care about a real citizen who actually lives here? "the source of law and the guardian of the constitution"? She makes our laws? That is news to me. I thought the source of some of them was the Magna Carta. Some from the BNA Acts. Some from the Charter. And some came from bills passed by politicians. "The guardian of the constitution"? I did not know it was in danger. "Multicultural peaceful alliance that is the Commonwealth"? Like we do not get along with any other countries than those in the Commonwealth.

Canadians do not give any financial support to The Queen in her roles as Head of the Commonwealth, as Queen of the United Kingdom or as Sovereign of her other Realms. Nor does she receive any salary from the federal government. In this respect, her role as chief volunteer of the Commonwealth is unexcelled.

She volunteers to do what? Come visit once in a blue moon? How noble and altruistic can that be?

As shown in the latest triennial study of the cost of the Canadian Crown, each Canadian contributes about $1.63 a year (a total of a little over $50 million) towards our form of governance. However, the great majority of these costs stem from: a) maintaining the historic buildings (Government Houses) occupied by vice-regal representatives; and b) from honouring Canadians who have performed outstanding acts or given a lifetime of service to the country.

OK We can deduct a little bit for the amount we use to honour people who have done cool stuff and gave a lifetime of service to the country. But if we did not have to house the vice-regal reps, we could spend the money on the nat'l debt.

Whether a republic or monarchy, Canadians would maintain these heritage buildings and recognize achievements through an honours system.

They would make great hotels I bet.

A president would likely be more expensive—look at the proportional costs of the White House and Elysée Palace!

Why? What is wrong with 24 Sussex that could not suffice? (I mean after the reno).

There may be arguments for a republic, but cost-saving is not one of them.

Really? I beg to differ.

Canadians pay for The Queen only when, as our head of state, she performs duties in Canada. As was demonstrated in 2010 and during her previous tours, people flock to welcome her, and clearly derive great pleasure from her homecomings. The most recent tour cost Canadians approximately 15 cents per person.

Yeah, what is a measly $5 million anyways. Parking meter change.

Like all countries, Canadians regularly welcome and bear similar or greater expenses for visiting heads of state and government, ranging from the Pope to the Emperor of Japan to the Presidents of the United States and Mexico, none of whom have any constitutional involvement with our land, but whom we welcome as friends, allies or trading partners.

I am sure we would all miss them terribly if they did not come for a visit now and then. :roll:

How much more, then, should we welcome our own head of state, especially when her lifetime of service to Canada has been undertaken without her receiving one penny of salary?

I would be fine with a royal visit once in a blue moon. But I am not in the habit of paying big amounts when someone comes to my home to visit.

The Queen has no religious role in Canada. However, Canada’s Parliament chose to include the phrase Defender of the Faith in the monarch’s title in 1953. Though it stems from history, today it can be taken to signify the Crown’s role in protecting freedom of religion. The Queen usually worships at an Anglican Church (except in Scotland where she is a member of the Church of Scotland) just like anyone else who might seek out a mosque, temple or church of their own faith. However, The Queen’s role with the Church of England is only of consequence in Great Britain. In Canada, she plays no role in promoting any religion. However, she has the same constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion as any other Canadian.

The "role in protecting freedom of religion"? I did not know it was under attack. I feel pretty free in my agnosticism.

The roles of The Queen and the Charter are distinct. The monarchy continues its many-faceted involvement in the life of Canada and the Commonwealth in a non-political way which seeks to unify people.

Can anyone point out these facets?

The Charter, while important, is like other elements of the constitution, a political document about which Canadians can disagree (even members of the Supreme Court often sharply debate its meaning) and can seek to amend. Under the constitution, The Queen constitutes the Canadian state and is the source of executive authority and the Command-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces as well as being a part of Parliament. These are not roles played by the Charter.

Yeah, our constitution has more to do with the goings on in Canada than the royalty even if the constitution cannot command the armed forces. Oh, wait, when was the last time the Commander-in-Chief sent a PFC to the mess hall to peel spuds? Never? Well, then she and the constitution have something in common. Does she even have a Canadian Forces uniform?
Executive authority? Oh, for sure no-one would pay any attention to the PM if it were not for the royalty. :roll:

"Everyone knows the prime minister and premiers have the real power in Canada. So we might as well abolish the monarchy along with the Governor General and lieutenant governors and save a lot of money."
The financial arguments have been dealt with above. As Canadians would expect in a modern democratic state, we elect those who govern us on a day-to-day basis. The Queen and her representatives serve to encourage elements of nationhood which are not so easily accomplished by politicians, to provide a focus on things that unite rather than divide Canadians, to celebrate our ideals, to honour our best efforts and to be the emergency back-up should the system ever break down. This separation of partisan political power from the formal executive authority seems to work well and to appeal to most Canadians, who enjoy freedoms which are the envy of many in the world.

So encouragement is the benefit here? Geez How could we ever get on without royal encouragement?

"The monarchy is offensive to our First Nations people."

lol Who is the turnip that came up with that "myth"?

At Confederation, the Canadian Government assumed the responsibilities of the former British colonial power for implementing treaties. In recent decades, the courts have increasingly become arbiters of land and other claims.

The respect of First Nations people for the Canadian Crown is evident in the special welcome they give The Queen and The Prince of Wales during their Canadian Homecomings. The First Nations feel themselves allies, not subjects of the monarch; and they recognize that their grievances do not stem from the monarchy, British or Canadian, but from the action or inaction of governments down the years. A neutral court system where The Queen’s justices can adjudicate their claims, and an increasingly compassionate, enlightened Canadian society, are the best guarantors for moving forward in a cooperative, respectful relationship between First Nations and those who have come to their land.

YAY! Something of real and tangible benefit finally!

"Canada is a modern, forward-looking country.
We should move with the times and get rid of the monarchy."
One person’s moving forward is of course another’s moving backwards. {non-sequitur one does not necessarily follow from the other} It is hard to see the monarchy in any way impeding Canada’s modern, progressive society—a world leader in everything from peace-keeping to Blackberries, from the Canadarm to environmental research. Nor does being a monarchy seem in any way to hinder societies as diverse as Japan, the Barbados, Spain and the Netherlands. In the end, the statement is one of free expression of opinion. That it is not deeply considered, however, may be ascertained from examining the United Nations’ annual Human Development Index. For 2014, the latest available report, six of the ten highest-ranked countries in the world are constitutional monarchies, four are republics. While this does not prove monarchy or republic superior, it certainly shows that monarchy is no barrier to being modern and forward-looking!

Progress is not a result of monarchies either. Progress happens regardless.

A central weakness of those who propose abolishing Canada’s monarchy is their lack of a credible, demonstrably-superior alternative.

The Swiss style? It is one of if not the most direct form of democracy on the planet. Politicians cannot sneeze unless the Swiss people think it is ok. The country is managed in day-to-day issues by the politicians and bureaucrats but any big decisions are by referendum.

To change for the sake of change would involve massive constitutional upheaval and to some extent ape the form of government of the United States, a curious decision for a country where the chief threat to national identity comes from our friendly neighbour south of the border!

And again, the lame comparison to the US of A as if there are no better forms of democratic republicanism on the planet. Another ludicrous strawman.

How would an elected president improve one aspect of Canadian life? Or reduce crowding in one classroom? Or lower our taxes? Would it make us any more patriotic?

I explained that in my description of the Swiss.

If we maintained an appointed head of state, be that individual called governor general or anything else, how would Canadians benefit in concrete terms from this de-racination of our entire history and of our current experience as a stable, respected nation with traditions and a distinct political and social way of life most of us like very much?

huh? How can one deracinate history? History is history.

 

[darkbeaver]

Wow an atom has beeen split

 

[AnnaG]

Some of us work, but if you would like, I'll let the office know that any furnace break downs we get will have to wait for me to answer a woman in Ontario that has a problem waiting until I have time to answer completely.

Well, that is your fault for not excusing yourself from the table before trotting off to fix a furnace. lol
And I live in BC, not ON.

If Canada was not already a Constitutional Monarchy, I just might agree with you. However, since it is already in place and has worked well for the last 150 years I see no real reason to change at this time. The cost of changing is high with no real improvement in the way Canada's Government works.

Well, it has worked anyways. Whether it has worked well or not is a matter of opinion. The cost would be high, yes. I said that, too. A change bringing "no real improvement in the way Canada's Government works" would be a matter of opinion as well.

Like I said. We are stuck with the deadbeat.

 

[darkbeaver]

Myths about the Monarchy | The Monarchist League of Canada

"Length of service" to Canada consisting of what? Royal visits and tours? "Embodiment of citizenship"? Why should I care about her as much as I care about a real citizen who actually lives here? "the source of law and the guardian of the constitution"? She makes our laws? That is news to me. I thought the source of some of them was the Magna Carta. Some from the BNA Acts. Some from the Charter. And some came from bills passed by politicians. "The guardian of the constitution"? I did not know it was in danger. "Multicultural peaceful alliance that is the Commonwealth"? Like we do not get along with any other countries than those in the Commonwealth.

She volunteers to do what? Come visit once in a blue moon? How noble and altruistic can that be?
OK We can deduct a little bit for the amount we use to honour people who have done cool stuff and gave a lifetime of service to the country. But if we did not have to house the vice-regal reps, we could spend the money on the nat'l debt.

They would make great hotels I bet. Why? What is wrong with 24 Sussex that could not suffice? (I mean after the reno). Really? I beg to differ.

Yeah, what is a measly $5 million anyways. Parking meter change. I am sure we would all miss them terribly if they did not come for a visit now and then. :roll: I would be fine with a royal visit once in a blue moon. But I am not in the habit of paying big amounts when someone comes to my home to visit.

The "role in protecting freedom of religion"? I did not know it was under attack. I feel pretty free in my agnosticism.

Can anyone point out these facets? Yeah, our constitution has more to do with the goings on in Canada than the royalty even if the constitution cannot command the armed forces. Oh, wait, when was the last time the Commander-in-Chief sent a PFC to the mess hall to peel spuds? Never? Well, then she and the constitution have something in common. Does she even have a Canadian Forces uniform?
Executive authority? Oh, for sure no-one would pay any attention to the PM if it were not for the royalty. :roll:

So encouragement is the benefit here? Geez How could we ever get on without royal encouragement?


lol Who is the turnip that came up with that "myth"? YAY! Something of real and tangible benefit finally!

Progress is not a result of monarchies either. Progress happens regardless.

The Swiss style? It is one of if not the most direct form of democracy on the planet. Politicians cannot sneeze unless the Swiss people think it is ok. The country is managed in day-to-day issues by the politicians and bureaucrats but any big decisions are by referendum.And again, the lame comparison to the US of A as if there are no better forms of democratic republicanism on the planet. Another ludicrous strawman. I explained that in my description of the Swiss. huh? How can one deracinate history? History is history.

you/re obsesecesedesss

 

[MHz]

Think how much money we would lose if we ditched the Queen's picture??? (no idea what color ink I should be using for that comment but it probably should be something other than normal)

 

[AnnaG]

you/re obsesecesedesss

wut?