I agree with you there, what Harpers' doing has been done to lesser degrees by Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretein and others. I just worry about some power hungry politician(not unlike our current PM) who would use the case for reform to leave us with even less control than we have now.
Bring Back the Queen
- Thread starter Cobalt_Kid
- Start date
I agree with you there, what Harpers' doing has been done to lesser degrees by Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretein and others. I just worry about some power hungry politician(not unlike our current PM) who would use the case for reform to leave us with even less control than we have now.
We all long for democracy, but an hereditary monarch is not the answer! Good golly, Miss Molly!
The monarchy has always gotten money from the taxpayer. They are so rich when they visit Canada, Canadians have to pay.
You’re ignoring facts in a passage that you yourself quoted of Blackleaf, dumpthemonarchy.
Her Majesty the Queen of Canada’s functions in Canada, as Queen, are of course paid for by Canadians—just as we pay for the State functions of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada, or like any foreign country would pay for the State functions of their president. Any republican form of governance would be much more expensive than constitutional monarchy—the cost argument against the most stable system of government in the world simply doesn’t hold water.
Our constitutional monarchy, including the costs of the Governor General’s program, has a modest price tag of less than $1.25 per Canadian resident—and this number includes the support given to the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General (such as security, travel, official residences, and et cetera).
Her Majesty the Queen of Canada’s functions in Canada, as Queen, are of course paid for by Canadians—just as we pay for the State functions of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada, or like any foreign country would pay for the State functions of their president. Any republican form of governance would be much more expensive than constitutional monarchy—the cost argument against the most stable system of government in the world simply doesn’t hold water.
Our constitutional monarchy, including the costs of the Governor General’s program, has a modest price tag of less than $1.25 per Canadian resident—and this number includes the support given to the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General (such as security, travel, official residences, and et cetera).
I'm not ignoring anything, in the 19th century the monarchy in England just demanded more and more money from the treasury and they got it. So much now they are filthy rich, with the emphasis on filthy. They are lazy layabouts and their billionaire counterparts love the image they project: Wealth without work.
Isn't that the ultimate goal: being rich and not having to do anything and still staying rich and having tons of fun. Nice "work" if you can get it.
Isn't that the ultimate goal: being rich and not having to do anything and still staying rich and having tons of fun. Nice "work" if you can get it.
I think it’s interesting that you would think The Queen is a “lazy layabout”.
Perhaps you’ve never visited the Web site of The Royal Family of Canada or checked up on the facts here, but The Queen has a very busy royal program to perform each and every day. Also, you’re confusing the money that goes into the Queen’s performance of State functions with the Queen’s personal income—those are two very different things. The Queen is constantly in the international spotlight, carrying out engagements on behalf of all sixteen Realms of the Commonwealth; the modest income that the Queen receives is well worth the services that are rendered. The Queen is likely one of the hardest-working people in the Commonwealth!
It would be nice if we could bring some integrity into this conversation from the republican side.
Perhaps you’ve never visited the Web site of The Royal Family of Canada or checked up on the facts here, but The Queen has a very busy royal program to perform each and every day. Also, you’re confusing the money that goes into the Queen’s performance of State functions with the Queen’s personal income—those are two very different things. The Queen is constantly in the international spotlight, carrying out engagements on behalf of all sixteen Realms of the Commonwealth; the modest income that the Queen receives is well worth the services that are rendered. The Queen is likely one of the hardest-working people in the Commonwealth!
It would be nice if we could bring some integrity into this conversation from the republican side.
The royal family live in a bubble. They did not earn or create the wealth to live in their palaces across Britain.
Integrity, make me laugh. Generally, the older a political system is, the less democratic it is. Ever heard of Britain's rotten boroughs in its parliamentary system of previous centuries? And in Canada in the 19th century, getting voters drunk bought their votes.
Dumping the monarchy is another step towards improving democracy. Dumping vestiges of old corrupt systems that have no place in today's world. This is integrity.
Dumping the pinnacle of the class system we so despise in Canada, that's integrity. We despise it because when we open our mouth we are not pigeonholed right away by people who believe they are "better".
Integrity, make me laugh. Generally, the older a political system is, the less democratic it is. Ever heard of Britain's rotten boroughs in its parliamentary system of previous centuries? And in Canada in the 19th century, getting voters drunk bought their votes.
Dumping the monarchy is another step towards improving democracy. Dumping vestiges of old corrupt systems that have no place in today's world. This is integrity.
Dumping the pinnacle of the class system we so despise in Canada, that's integrity. We despise it because when we open our mouth we are not pigeonholed right away by people who believe they are "better".
I think you’re the one who’s trapped in a different time period, dumpthemonarchy—a discussion of the merits of constitutional monarchy should be based on our current constitutional arrangements and the most stable and cost-effective system of government available to us. (And that would be, if you haven’t been paying attention, constitutional monarchy.) Please explain to me how the current system of the Governor General performing the Queen’s functions on the advice of the prime minister is “corrupt”.
Exactly, hence my comparing our current PM with a queen... oops I mean the Queen.:lol:
I said the monarchy is an old corrupt system. Why we keep vestiges of that system beats me. Our system has corruption in that rural seats are worth more than urban seats. This is because eastern Canada is less democratic than western Canada. PEI wants to hold on political power it no longer deserves and make rules to keep a higher place in Canadian politics that it ought to legitimately have, hence, corruption.
It is a historic fact that older political systems are less democratic, England had rotten boroughs, not BC. Also, see PEI above. PEI ought to be part of New Brunswick, it is smaller than the city of Burnaby. PEI is an expensive joke, hence, corruption.
Corruption means improper representation and wasted money. The monarchy strongly on both counts.
Neither of your points (i.e., Eastern Canada being more democratic than Western Canada—which I dispute nonetheless, or the size of Prince Edward Island compared to its influence) has anything to do with our constitutional monarchy. Care to try again?
How does is our current arrangement of the Governor General performing the Queen’s functions on the advice of the prime minister corrupt?
How does is our current arrangement of the Governor General performing the Queen’s functions on the advice of the prime minister corrupt?
It is a truism of politics that the older the party or country is, the less democratic it tends to be. This is because it has practices and traditions that are often pre-democratic and pre-modern.
England had the rotten boroughs, not Canada. In Canada we have less corruption here in gerrymadering ridings, but the old rotten British boroughs might have only a dozen voters, and they had to vote publicly for the MP. Not very democratic in the 18th century. But it was a start, the king had to rule through Parliament.
It was in Ontario in the 1870s that the practice was widespread, not British Columbia where votes were bought with liquor. But the ridings had thousands of voters. And women could not vote until recently, which they could not do in Canada or England in the 18th or 19th centuries. But then neither could most men. The trend is clear.
And any of that is relevant to the constitutional monarchy today how?
Once more:
How is our current arrangement of the Governor General performing the Queen’s functions on the advice of the prime minister corrupt?
Once more:
How is our current arrangement of the Governor General performing the Queen’s functions on the advice of the prime minister corrupt?
The monarchy is simply redundant, the queen is redundant, the GG is redundant. The GG "performs" nothing in practice, royal assent of laws is simply a nod. They have no control over the machinery of govt. Dump'em. Shed the deadwood.
Nothing deters diehard theoreticians, time just passes them by.
How are the monarchy, The Queen, and the Governor General redundant?
(You know, other than you just repeating, over and over again, that they are... that’s the redundancy.)
(You know, other than you just repeating, over and over again, that they are... that’s the redundancy.)
Well, I'm not necessarily against the monarchy at all...I still know the words to "God Save The Queen!"
But, dumpthemonarchy is bringing up a point. I think he's saying we don't need the Queen and the GG to run the country.
Here's another way to look at it...what would change if there was no monarchy in place? No Governor-General. What would happen? What could happen?
If we could look at that scenario for a minute, the practical importance of the monarchy to the existence of Canada might become more clear. Or not, depending on the results of that look-see...
why can't the monarchy be cherished because of the tradition and the beginning of our country,
this country is just a baby, we hardly have a history,
and what we do have comes from our beginning, which was
totally dependent on england and the monarchy, why should
we just throw that away because a few people can't seem to
appreciate the connection.
this country is just a baby, we hardly have a history,
and what we do have comes from our beginning, which was
totally dependent on england and the monarchy, why should
we just throw that away because a few people can't seem to
appreciate the connection.
The danger comes with what could happen without the monarchy.
It is the Governor General solely and exclusively (through Her Excellency’s authority as the Queen’s vice-regal representative) who has the right to dismiss a prime minister out of office—now that is a power that has never been used (though a prime minister’s advice has before been refused). However, the fact is that there could be a circumstance someday where that power could be warranted and indeed required (were a prime minister to blatently and deliberately run roughshod over the constitution, or legislate a ban on opposition parties, or something else radical and unacceptable), or if a prime minister refused to call an election after losing the confidence of the House, or if a prime minister lost a general election and refused to give up control of the Government.
“Those things have never happened before, Chris, and they probably won’t ever happen!”
True enough, but the fact remains that these things could happen—the possibility is there. One day, in the future, we may depend on the fact that the Queen’s duty to Canadians is to ensure that we always have a prime minister who has the support of our elected representatives, and that there are indeed mechanisms in place to exercise that authority. And even more than this—even more than the constitutional functions of the monarchy—I, for one, believe that the pomp and circumstance that our constitutional monarchy provides for us is something charming and very much to be looked forward to. The ceremonies for the opening of Parliament are not only entertaining, but also deeply symbolic of our history, and the fact that we have come so incredibly far in our democracy.
For example:
When the Parliament buildings were constructed, the throne was built into the Senate chamber—this was not by chance, but it was very deliberately done to respect our traditions and conventions when it comes to constitutional monarchy. The Queen or Her Majesty’s Governor General must read the session-opening throne speech from the throne in the Senate chamber, because neither the Queen, nor Governor General, nor any deputies thereof, may enter the House of Commons. This has been the case ever since a former British monarch intruded the House of Commons to demand several members’ arrests, and the Speaker of the House refused the monarch’s command.
This may seem trivial, but it is deeply symbolic (and it is a reminder of just how modern our monarchy has become). Even when the Usher of the Black Rod is dispatched to summon the House of Commons at the Governor General’s command, the House of Commons keeps the doors closed and forces the usher to knock on the door with the rod that he carries; this symbolises the fact that the House of Commons is free to debate without the Queen’s representative’s presence. The House of Commons, when it returns from the throne speech, also introduces a pro forma bill (which is never actually debated) to demonstrate that the House of Commons has the right to conduct its own affairs without necessarily dealing with the throne speech first.
So, to sum this one up, although there are several members here who are stating that our constitutional monarchy is severely out-of-date, the contrary is in fact true. Neither the Queen nor Her Majesty’s representatives enter the House of Commons because it is the House’s right to debate its own affairs without the intervention of the Crown. The constitutional monarchy’s duty is to ensure that Canadians enjoy the government of a prime minister who has the confidence of the House of Commons, and to that end, it should remain in tact—of course it would be inappropriate to leave it up to the sitting prime minister to determine whether he, himself, still has the moral authority to govern.
It is the Governor General solely and exclusively (through Her Excellency’s authority as the Queen’s vice-regal representative) who has the right to dismiss a prime minister out of office—now that is a power that has never been used (though a prime minister’s advice has before been refused). However, the fact is that there could be a circumstance someday where that power could be warranted and indeed required (were a prime minister to blatently and deliberately run roughshod over the constitution, or legislate a ban on opposition parties, or something else radical and unacceptable), or if a prime minister refused to call an election after losing the confidence of the House, or if a prime minister lost a general election and refused to give up control of the Government.
“Those things have never happened before, Chris, and they probably won’t ever happen!”
True enough, but the fact remains that these things could happen—the possibility is there. One day, in the future, we may depend on the fact that the Queen’s duty to Canadians is to ensure that we always have a prime minister who has the support of our elected representatives, and that there are indeed mechanisms in place to exercise that authority. And even more than this—even more than the constitutional functions of the monarchy—I, for one, believe that the pomp and circumstance that our constitutional monarchy provides for us is something charming and very much to be looked forward to. The ceremonies for the opening of Parliament are not only entertaining, but also deeply symbolic of our history, and the fact that we have come so incredibly far in our democracy.
For example:
When the Parliament buildings were constructed, the throne was built into the Senate chamber—this was not by chance, but it was very deliberately done to respect our traditions and conventions when it comes to constitutional monarchy. The Queen or Her Majesty’s Governor General must read the session-opening throne speech from the throne in the Senate chamber, because neither the Queen, nor Governor General, nor any deputies thereof, may enter the House of Commons. This has been the case ever since a former British monarch intruded the House of Commons to demand several members’ arrests, and the Speaker of the House refused the monarch’s command.
This may seem trivial, but it is deeply symbolic (and it is a reminder of just how modern our monarchy has become). Even when the Usher of the Black Rod is dispatched to summon the House of Commons at the Governor General’s command, the House of Commons keeps the doors closed and forces the usher to knock on the door with the rod that he carries; this symbolises the fact that the House of Commons is free to debate without the Queen’s representative’s presence. The House of Commons, when it returns from the throne speech, also introduces a pro forma bill (which is never actually debated) to demonstrate that the House of Commons has the right to conduct its own affairs without necessarily dealing with the throne speech first.
So, to sum this one up, although there are several members here who are stating that our constitutional monarchy is severely out-of-date, the contrary is in fact true. Neither the Queen nor Her Majesty’s representatives enter the House of Commons because it is the House’s right to debate its own affairs without the intervention of the Crown. The constitutional monarchy’s duty is to ensure that Canadians enjoy the government of a prime minister who has the confidence of the House of Commons, and to that end, it should remain in tact—of course it would be inappropriate to leave it up to the sitting prime minister to determine whether he, himself, still has the moral authority to govern.