Canada, dump the crown and become a republic? (poll)

Should Canada become a republic?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,633
1,865
113
A Crown for the 21st Century
Arguments in Support of Canada's Constitutional Monarchy



FORCE FOR NATIONAL IDENTITY: THE KINDER, GENTLER NATION

“It is my privilege to serve you as Queen of Canada to the best of my ability, to play my part in the Canadian identity, to uphold Canadian traditions and heritage, to recognize Canadian excellence and achievement and to seek to give a sense of continuity in these exciting, ever-changing times in which we are fortunate enough to live."
Her Majesty The Queen, Vancouver, October 7, 2002, during cross-country Golden Jubilee Homecoming

A central reality of Canadian life is the inevitably overwhelming influence of our friendly neighbour, the United States of America. Free Trade. Continental defence and secure borders in a post- 9/11 environment. A porous frontier ranging from television and the Internet to pop music and culture. These and other factors often tend to overwhelm Canada’s national identity. Every nation needs to understand and foster the existence of distinct images and institutions; thus for Canada, the Constitutional Monarchy is of particular import. It makes Canada unique in the Hemisphere. Its focus of loyalty and allegiance to a respected monarch rather than to a politician, an ideology or a symbol underlies the notably tolerant, mature society of which Canadians feel proud.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNIFYING, NOT DIVISIVE: HEAD OF STATE vs HEAD OF GOVERNMENT

" [The Queen} symbolizes for many the merits of a constitutional monarchy in which the head of state...is separate and apart from the ongoing political struggles of the day."
Bill Blaikie, MP, (NDP) speaking in The House of Commons, Jubilee Accession Day, February 6, 2002

In a democracy, day–to-day decisions are made by those whom we have elected. Not surprisingly, this partisan political process reflects the things that divide Canadians. It encourages striving for partisan goals and personal success. This is inevitable.

However, Canada’s Constitution separates politics from service, and transient popularity from institutional stability. So the Prime Minister is our head of government and leader of a political party. As such, his actions are often controversial.

The Sovereign, however, is a force of unity who embodies all Canada and all Canadians as Head of State. The Monarchy protects and exemplifies the things Canadians agree about, and do not wish to see changed regardless of an election: community, tolerance, nationhood, the rule of law. And by presiding at events such as the Montreal Olympics and Canada 125, The Queen emphasizes the non-partisan, unifying nature of great national events.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARLIAMENTARY MONARCHY: GUARANTOR OF FREEDOM

"Our ceremony today brings together Sovereign, Parliament and people - the three parts of Constitutional Monarchy. That is a system in which those who represent the community come together and remain together, rather than dwelling on differences which might further divide them."
Her Majesty The Queen, Ottawa, 1990

Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures are composed of The Queen and the members elected to serve - along with the Senate in the case of the federal government. However, none of the bills they pass , no formal government regulations (“orders-in-council”) and no spending is authorized without the agreement of The Queen or one of her representatives.

In a similar way, Parliament is summoned and dissolved in The Queen’s name. In her name also public officials and our representatives abroad are appointed, treaties concluded, and cabinets named and dismissed. Normally, this is a formality. Canadians entrust the nuts and bolts of governing to those whom we have elected, as is appropriate in a democracy.

However, the Crown’s role (“the Royal Prerogative”) remains part of our Constitution to ensure that ‘the rules of the game’ are always followed, and to provide a non-partisan, non-violent safeguard - “a constitutional fire extinguisher” as columnist Michael Valpy has put it - should normal democratic processes ever be threatened or break down. For example, even a popular government cannot simply dispense with holding an election. Nor can a government spend public money without parliamentary approval.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEUTRAL REFEREE OF FEDERALISM: THE UNITY OF ELEVEN “CROWNS”

"Provinces agree that the system of democratic parliamentary government requires an ultimate authority to ensure its responsible nature and to safeguard against abuses of power. That ultimate power must not be an instrument of the federal Cabinet."
Statement by the 10 Provincial Premiers at 19th Annual Conference, Regina, Aug 9-10, 1978

Canada is a federal state. In brief, this means that our Constitution gives law-making power in certain areas to the national government (such as the Criminal Code and banking). Other powers (such as education and municipal affairs) it assigns to each province. Each level of government exercises this authority on behalf of its citizens in the name of The Queen. So in this way it is possible to see the existence of “11 Crowns” in Canada - the national Crown and the 10 provincial Crowns - each usually referred to in legal terms as “the Crown in right of Canada” or “in right of Manitoba.”

The Premiers, including the separatist Rene Levesque, underlined the importance of the Crown in their 1978 statement, above, since the Monarchy gives each law-making authority its authority, making them of equal legal significance. It also guarantees that the rule of law will be followed in dealing with any of the many disputes that arise between Ottawa and the provinces.

These facts explain the strong support by the provinces for the institution of Monarchy, which reconciles regional authority with national unity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PERSONAL ALLEGIANCE: PROCESS, NOT PARTISANSHIP

"Her Majesty remains at the head of the State, the living symbol of the roots and continuity of the values we hold in common and those that are our permanent ideals...She is the one entrusted with the conscience of the nation..."
Fr Jacques Monet, SJ, author, historian and former Cultural Advisor at Rideau Hall, writing in Canadian Monarchist News, Autumn 2002

Oaths taken by our new fellow Canadians, by members of Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures, by judges, by members of the Canadian Forces and by many other public officials are all oaths to The Queen.

By making this promise to the Sovereign rather than a politician, those who serve and live in the land show their ultimate loyalty is not to the elected figures who lead us day-to-day, but to all Canadians and to the laws which make up the fabric of any civilized society. In this way process - following the rule of law - triumphs over partisanship - acting to promote the well-being of a narrow segment of society.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
INDIVIDUAL ALLEGIANCE: THE EQUALITY OF EVERY CANADIAN

"...our ability to love inclines most naturally to persons, and in the person of The Queen we can invest all those many fractured loves that make up patriotic love: love of country, love of nation, love of culture, love of land, all combined and channeled through one person, one family..."
Southam Press columnist Andrew Coyne, April 10, 2002

The deepest loyalties of men and women are to their fellow human beings. Government carried on in the name of The Queen reflects Canada’s emphasis on the importance of the person, and of the dignity and equality of each individual who is either born here or who becomes part of our national family. In the same way, the moment new citizens take the Oath of Citizenship they become full and equal members of the Canadian family. Each of us gives Allegiance to The Queen, so reciprocating her decades of service to us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

WORLD FIGURE: REPRESENTED BY HER CANADIAN TEAM OF GOVERNORS

"We're able to have the best of both worlds. We have the stability and the tradition of the monarchical system, but we also have a Canadian representative in the Governor General, who represents Canada as it is, as a Canadian, and does an incredible job representing the Monarch, but also all Canadians."
Hon. David Collenette, Minister of Transport, May 18, 2001

Canadians are fortunate to have as our Monarch an instantly-recognizable world figure. The Queen and members of the Royal Family make frequent homecomings to Canada. In their absence, the Governor General (for the national government) and the Lieutenant Governors (one for each provincial government) represent The Queen and perform the constitutional functions of the Sovereign in her name. This arrangements allows our country to share in the prestige of an ancient monarchy stemming out of Canada’s history, while at the same time we enjoy the services of distinguished fellow citizens who serve Crown and country with great distinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFLECTION OF HISTORY: ABORIGINAL, COLONIAL, NATIONAL

"Every country is different, and we grew up in this one with the Royal Family as part of our heritage."
Hockey great Wayne Gretzky, GM Place, Vancouver, October 7, 2002

Today’s Monarchy stems from our history. Many of Canada’s First Nations chose tribal chieftains whose role was much like that of the local kings and queens of ancient Europe, Africa, South America and Asia. European explorers and subsequent settlement by our French and British founding peoples brought to Canada their own experience of monarchy, symbolized by the Fleur de Lys and the Royal Union Flag. Many subsequent immigrants - be they from Russia or Japan, from Italy to Thailand - also knew the monarchical system of government.

In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation unanimously chose constitutional monarchy as Canada’s form of government. In 1982, Canada’s new Constitution reaffirmed and entrenched the Crown so that only unanimous federal-provincial agreement could ever alter it. In 2002, throngs hailed The Queen as she crossed Canada from Iqaluit to Fredericton, from Victoria to Toronto, in celebration of the 50th year of her service to this nation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK TO TODAY’S CANADA: COMMONWEALTH MIRRORS OUR DIVERSITY

"I want the Crown to be seen as a symbol of national sovereignty belonging to all. It is not only a link between Commonwealth nations, but between Canadian citizens of every national origin and ancestry... I want the Crown in Canada to represent everything that is best and most admired in the Canadian ideal. I will continue to make it so during my lifetime. I hope you will all continue to give me your help in this task."
Her Majesty The Queen, Toronto, June, 1973

Not only Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II is also Head of The Commonwealth of Nations. This is a 51-state international body is unique as it is based not on a military alliance nor a trade bloc but on a free association amongst countries of the former British Empire, who now cooperate in a variety of educational, development and social justice initiatives throughout the world. The diversity of these nations’ populations - from New Guinea to Belize, from New Zealand to India - mirrors the rich strains of population which typify Canada today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EVOLUTIONARY SOCIETY: CANADA PROSPERS UNDER THE CROWN

"Fifty years after her accession to the Throne, Elizabeth II remains a symbol of continuity, stability and tradition in a world that is under a barrage of constant change...a Sovereign, faithful and loyal to our people...The Queen and the heritage she gives to us is not just part of our past, but part of our common future...When you're a mature country, you don't need to break your ties with the past."
Hon Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage, launching Federal Golden Jubilee Initiatives and speaking to National Post, Ottawa, February 19-20, 2002

Canadians have lived for over 135 years in a tranquil, prosperous society. Unlike most countries, change has been incremental, and not achieved by violence. Much of the credit for this achievement is due to the men and women who have worked together to create a modern, progressive nation, respected around the world.

However, no country can achieve greatness without stable governance. Constitutional monarchy - the Canadian way - continues to provide that stability. This is confirmed each year in the United Nations’ Social Development Index, which regularly ranks Canada in the top 5 countries in the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

STABILITY IN A CHANGING WORLD

"I have a considerable regard for The Queen and the monarchy although I'm a New Democrat and a socialist. I think that the monarchy has validity at a time when everything else is flying off in all directions... I admire her stubborn refusal to break down and take the easy way, to conform with the constantly changing public image of how our leaders should act."
Author Farley Mowat, September, 2002

Change is inevitable, and much if it good: cell phones, jet travel, computers. But in this dizzying march to progress, constant change leaves many uncertain or confused. In the same way, political leaders come and go - Kim Campbell and John Turner served as Prime Minister for but a few months. Canadians voted in 18 federal elections during The Queen’s reign ! It is a good thing that the Crown provides constancy amidst so much change. The Sovereign has the experience of decades, without the taint of a personal agenda. Such continuity constitutes an important anchor in our society.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNITY, VOLUNTEERISM, HONOURS

“In a world often focused on self-indulgence, on "my" desires and "my" priorities and "my" agenda, The Queen's focus on the "we" and the "us" and on tolerance and getting along with each other, and on the needs and interests of others, has served as antidote, example and inspiration."
HRH Prince Michael of Kent, addressing Golden Jubilee Banquet of the Monarchist League of Canada, Toronto, March 15, 2002

In their constant round of travels, The Queen, members of the Royal Family and her Canadian representatives bring enormous encouragement to the communities and volunteer sectors which constitute so vital a part of our national existence. They inspire many to volunteer service. They create and award non-political honours to our outstanding fellow citizens.

These Royal and vice-regal activities do not often feature on national news programmes. Opening a new library, visiting a Legion Hall, speaking to a school civics class or lunching with a local service club are not on the media’s radar. But they constitute the basis of any civil society, and bring enormous pride and assistance to Canada’s communities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
REPUBLICANISM: DIVERSION, BLOW TO NATIONHOOD & VICTORY FOR THE POLITICAL ELITE

“But for all those who don't want the Queen there are easily as many who don't want a President and even more who certainly would not want one if they knew who it would be. As you can readily see, I have given more thought to this subject than most and I have reached my own conclusion. God save the Queen."
Dalton Camp, political columnist, August 23, 1994

No one has yet proposed an alternative system of government for Canada which would in the same way reflect our nation’s history and be superior to the constitutional monarchy in terms of the day-to-day functioning of the Canadian state.

Canadians remember the wrenching constitutional debates which consumed enormous political energy from the mid-1960's through the early 1990's. Chiefly of interest to politicians, these arguments did nothing to effect solutions to the real concerns of our citizens such as crowded classrooms and emergency rooms, access to health care, personal and national security in an era of terrorism and crime, support for single-parent and low-income families.

A presidential system would make Canada more closely resemble the USA. It could combine the role of head of state with head of government. As our American friends discovered during impeachment processes in the Nixon and Clinton administrations, this proves an unhappy combination. Alternatively, election of a president or governor-general would create simply another politician, offer another level of personal ambition, necessitate another set of elections and make the holder of that office beholden to the interests of the different factions and groups to which his election was owed.




LINE OF SUCCESSION TO THE THRONE OF CANADA
(as of March 5th, 2005)

The Prince of Wales
Prince William of Wales
Prince Henry of Wales

The Duke of York
Princess Beatrice of York
Princess Eugenie of York


The Earl of Wessex
The Lady Louise Windsor


The Princess Royal
Mr Peter Phillips
Miss Zara Phillips


Viscount Linley
The Hon Charles Armstrong-Jones
The Hon Margarita Armstrong-Jones


The Lady Sarah Chatto
Master Samuel Chatto
Master Arthur Chatto


The Duke of Gloucester
Earl of Ulster
The Lady Davina Windsor
The Lady Rose Windsor


The Duke of Kent
The Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor
The Lady Amelia Windsor
The Lady Helen Taylor
Master Columbus Taylor
Master Cassius Taylor
Miss Eloise Taylor
Miss Estella Taylor


The Lord Frederick Windsor
The Lady Gabriella Windsor


Princess Alexandra, The Hon Lady Ogilvy
Mr James Ogilvy
Master Alexander Ogilvy
Miss Flora Ogilvy
Mrs Paul Mowatt
Master Christian Mowatt
Miss Zenouska Mowatt

The Earl of Harewood

monarchist.ca
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
52
Das Kapital
How is it not democratic? People vote for who they want, regardless of how long they have or have not been in office. The democratically elected executive is not the head of government because they are a dictator; they are there because it's the will of the people.

As for your second point, I would be ok with set election dates, but I wouldn't really care for yr long campaign ads and whatnot.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,633
1,865
113
I think not said:
And what did the British citizens do? They reconstructed the laws to give the monrachy a figurhead status instead of following the French example. Wonderful!

The British didn't follow the French example - the French followed the British example when they got rid of their monarch.

The British got rid of their monarch 140 years BEFORE the French did the same in the French Revolution. But remember that when the French got rid of the monarchy, they did so because they had an absolute monarchy. The monarch held all the power. But the English haven't had a proper absolute monarch since King John signed the Magna Carta way back in 1215. The monarch had even less power after we beheaded Charles I in 1649. We were then a Republic for 11 years - a period in which soldiers roamed the streets. We were a military dictatorship. When the Monarchy was restored in 1660, there was rejoicing in the streets. So, if anything, the French followed the British when they got rid of their monarchy in 1789. Except whereas we replaced ours with a Constitutional Monarchy, they stayed as a Republic and now look what they've got - the Western World's most corrupt politicians. Us Brits have, in some cases, the least corrupt politicians on the planet.
 

Nikki

Free Thinker
Jul 6, 2006
326
2
18
calgary,ab
www.avonbynikki.com
Re: RE: Canada, dump the crown and become a republic? (poll)

Said1 said:
How is it not democratic? People vote for who they want, regardless of how long they have or have not been in office. The democratically elected executive is not the head of government because they are a dictator; they are there because it's the will of the people.

As for your second point, I would be ok with set election dates, but I wouldn't really care for yr long campaign ads and whatnot.

Because the PM can make it so that when the election date is called benefits him. He can decide before hand then suddenly fulfill all the promises and oh look he is back in office because people forget. But I guess set elections wouldn't help that either but at least then we might get what we are promised if they know they only have 4 years to do something. That is why we should have set elections. Ok, non democratic was the wrong word.

I agree the year long ads might be a pain in the ass but at least we would know when elections are.
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
52
Das Kapital
Re: RE: Canada, dump the crown and become a republic? (poll)

Nikki said:
[]

Because the PM can make it so that when the election date is called benefits him. He can decide before hand then suddenly fulfill all the promises and oh look he is back in office because people forget. But I guess set elections wouldn't help that either but at least then we might get what we are promised if they know they only have 4 years to do something. That is why we should have set elections. Ok, non democratic was the wrong word.

I agree the year long ads might be a pain in the ass but at least we would know when elections are.

IMHO, it's a minor detail.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Daz

You're being obstuse, you think the UK is the only land with a rule of law? Black voters prevented from voting in Florida? Stolen elections? All this in the US? Are you that stupid to believe a single government can prevent a transparent society like the US from uncovering such a process as elections? HAve you seen whats going on in Mexico lately? I have, not once did it ever occur to me to be so arrogant as to say they can't handle themselves in an election process, but hey! The leftist loser is marching in the streets! And all the knobs from around the globe are agreeing with him!

Then again, feudalism is the name of the game in the UK, innit? And yes you made a bigotted statement, you think its difficult fo rme to comprehend the monarchy because I'm an American? I comprehend just fine, ceremonial roles??!?!? Tradition??!?!? What traditon??!?! The pillaging, rape and murder of countless millions in the name of the Monarchy throughout history? That is what tradition is? You actually want to remember this? And I'm not talking about the UK monarchy alone, but all of feudalism, throughout history.

What has any monarchy anywhere in the world, throughout history ever done for the people? NOTHING! Other than keep them in submission, hang them, burn them, torture them, in the name of "nobility"? You can have it!
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Blackleaf said:
Finder said:
The monarchy has little more then a ceremonial roll in our lives today in Canada and really most Canadians just ignore or just don't care if we are a monarchy or a republic because it effects our lives so little.

Most Canadians DO care, because surveys have shown that most Canadians want to keep the Monarchy.

And saying that "It effects so little of our lives" is just stupid. Surely, whether you are a Constitutional Monarchy or a Republic affects everyone living in Canada.

What servays are these. In the last 20 years none have been even close to showing that Canadians really care as it has never been an electoral issue with any party, and when polls have been taken it's usually around 50-50 and the worst polls show 60-40 either way. 60% for a Republic or to keep the monarchy isn't really enough to make big changes and decide out future either way. Canadians just don't really care or feel effected by the monarchy. We haven't had an anti-republican, anti-american, pro-british PM since diefenbaker. Though Canadians like to think we keep the americans at Arm distance, even under Trudeau, trade with the USA increased and american pop culture became more dominate then that of the UK.
 

Nikki

Free Thinker
Jul 6, 2006
326
2
18
calgary,ab
www.avonbynikki.com
Re: RE: Canada, dump the crown and become a republic? (poll)

Said1 said:
Nikki said:
[]

Because the PM can make it so that when the election date is called benefits him. He can decide before hand then suddenly fulfill all the promises and oh look he is back in office because people forget. But I guess set elections wouldn't help that either but at least then we might get what we are promised if they know they only have 4 years to do something. That is why we should have set elections. Ok, non democratic was the wrong word.

I agree the year long ads might be a pain in the ass but at least we would know when elections are.

IMHO, it's a minor detail.

I guess some of us just have stronger feelings about it then others. I mean for me that is a more important issue then the monarchy. :D
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
43
Montreal
Interesting how this debate heated up since last time I checked. It's interesting to see how a seemingly banal subject such as monarchy in Canada can suddenly evoke everyone's passionate thoughts on democracy around the world.

What this tells me is that this issue IS important and getting rid of monarchy (for better or for worse) would be a pretty big deal.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Blackleaf said:
I think not said:
And what did the British citizens do? They reconstructed the laws to give the monrachy a figurhead status instead of following the French example. Wonderful!

The British didn't follow the French example - the French followed the British example when they got rid of their monarch.

The British got rid of their monarch 140 years BEFORE the French did the same in the French Revolution. But remember that when the French got rid of the monarchy, they did so because they had an absolute monarchy. The monarch held all the power. But the English haven't had a proper absolute monarch since King John signed the Magna Carta way back in 1215. The monarch had even less power after we beheaded Charles I in 1649. We were then a Republic for 11 years - a period in which soldiers roamed the streets. We were a military dictatorship. When the Monarchy was restored in 1660, there was rejoicing in the streets. So, if anything, the French followed the British when they got rid of their monarchy in 1789. Except whereas we replaced ours with a Constitutional Monarchy, they stayed as a Republic and now look what they've got - the Western World's most corrupt politicians. Us Brits have, in some cases, the least corrupt politicians on the planet.


Blackleaf for once I agree with you somewhat. During the French revolution amnd before the french looked over at the UK often at awe with what they saw as a perfect republican system of a con monarchy. A system which at the time appeared to be working with checks and balances. The House of lords, the Parliment and the king, three levels of government which in theory checked the balance of power. Of course historians say the french were looking over at the UK with rose coloured glasses as the UK didn't work as well as the French believed it to.

Remember the UK was a con monarchy with 3 levels of checks and balances. The French monarchy was "absolute" and the estates general were rarely called.
 

Nikki

Free Thinker
Jul 6, 2006
326
2
18
calgary,ab
www.avonbynikki.com
It would be interesting if they asked that question on a sensus. Just to see how many Canadians really would want to keep the monarchy.

I must agree with " I think not" throughout history monarchies have just be a symbol of terror. I don't know why people would want to keep them around. :?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
The British monarchy has NOT been a symbol of terror or tyranny since the restoration of Charles II in 1660. That's 346 years of constitutional monarchy, and a great success it has been.

Mind you, they had a spot of trouble with James II, but they chucked him out, and invited William and Mary to rule.......provided they sign a Bill of Rights (1689) that limited their power and guaranteed individual rights.....including the right to keep and bear arms.

(That's a personal pet peeve of mine......anyone who tells you there IS no right to keep arms in English common law is either a fool or a liar)

But, I digress.

Monarchs have often served as a rallying point, a good example, a anchor rock.............and the English monarch has been prevented from extreme mischeif for over 300 years......I don't see why we would change.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Nikki said:
It would be interesting if they asked that question on a sensus. Just to see how many Canadians really would want to keep the monarchy.

I must agree with " I think not" throughout history monarchies have just be a symbol of terror. I don't know why people would want to keep them around. :?

It would be interesting to see but, I still don't think you'd get anything more then the polls. Most likely a 50/50 and no more then a 60/40 either way. For both monarchists and Republicans, there are only small groups of passionate people about these topics, not even enough for any of the big parties to use for an election. Not even the NDP has a platform on it. Though we all know there are Liberal, NDP and even a few conservative Republicans out there. But they do not often talk about it because whenever an MP has it has made the news papers and the media usually doesn't paint a good picture with republicans as they are usually seen as pro-amaerican.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
You may not be with me on set terms and that is fine. But an elected senate would be good for this country. If it isn't elected there is no point in having a senate. If the PM is just going to control the senate why do we even have it. Rolling Eyes

r A federal election currently costs about a quarter of a billion dollars. Adding the 105 senators to the federal election would increase the cost proportionally. I would prefer to see senators appointed by the provinces rather than add a hundred million to the federal election costs

Set terms will help us keep people from running our country for 15+ years. There is no need to have the same person in power for so long. It is not good for our country. What if someone like Bush gets into office? You want him in there for 15 years? It's not good for our country.

If the man is no good, he won't last 15 years. If he's really good, we would throw him out early.
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
RE: Canada, dump the crow

Why is everyone assuming I'm pro the British system anyway?, ITN, I Realise EVERY Political system in the world can be corrupted.

Obtuse?..yeah I've seen Shawshank Redemption too. But simply put, the King or Queen is just a much a throwback here as it is in Canada, so why keep em?, it's up to them.

but let's be honest about it, and make no bones, it's that monarchy and that pro-british tradition that seperates Canada from being Canada and not another load of States of the US, so why deny what you are?

Some...actually quite a few in canada would agree that it would be in the US's interests for it to become a full republic, but in the end, is each canadian citizen represented in parliment?....yes, do they have the rights that generally the US have?...yes, would they be any worse off under a US-style democracy?....questionable



I certainly think their health systems would be looked upon with wanting eyes from insurance companies
 

Nikki

Free Thinker
Jul 6, 2006
326
2
18
calgary,ab
www.avonbynikki.com
Re: RE: Canada, dump the crown and become a republic? (poll)

Colpy said:
The British monarchy has NOT been a symbol of terror or tyranny since the restoration of Charles II in 1660. That's 346 years of constitutional monarchy, and a great success it has been.

I said Monarchies.
Mind you, they had a spot of trouble with James II, but they chucked him out, and invited William and Mary to rule.......provided they sign a Bill of Rights (1689) that limited their power and guaranteed individual rights.....including the right to keep and bear arms.

Personally I don't care either way about the monarchy thing. However the only reason this was done was so that they could hold onto the thron. Better then having a revolution.
 

Nikki

Free Thinker
Jul 6, 2006
326
2
18
calgary,ab
www.avonbynikki.com
#juan said:
You may not be with me on set terms and that is fine. But an elected senate would be good for this country. If it isn't elected there is no point in having a senate. If the PM is just going to control the senate why do we even have it. Rolling Eyes

r A federal election currently costs about a quarter of a billion dollars. Adding the 105 senators to the federal election would increase the cost proportionally. I would prefer to see senators appointed by the provinces rather than add a hundred million to the federal election costs

Set terms will help us keep people from running our country for 15+ years. There is no need to have the same person in power for so long. It is not good for our country. What if someone like Bush gets into office? You want him in there for 15 years? It's not good for our country.

If the man is no good, he won't last 15 years. If he's really good, we would throw him out early.

That isn't true. If we had a bad Liberal leader ( like we did have) people would still vote liberal simply because they feel Conservatives are evil and the NDP are no good. Ofcourse eventually they had had enough but by then things were so screwed up that it fucked over the new liberal leader. Which brings me to another point about the American system. I would love to have a system like that, where we can vote for our PM insted of voting for MPs and then which ever group gets the most is in power.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Canada, dump the crow

Daz_Hockey said:
Why is everyone assuming I'm pro the British system anyway?, ITN, I Realise EVERY Political system in the world can be corrupted.

Obtuse?..yeah I've seen Shawshank Redemption too. But simply put, the King or Queen is just a much a throwback here as it is in Canada, so why keep em?, it's up to them.

but let's be honest about it, and make no bones, it's that monarchy and that pro-british tradition that seperates Canada from being Canada and not another load of States of the US, so why deny what you are?

Some...actually quite a few in canada would agree that it would be in the US's interests for it to become a full republic, but in the end, is each canadian citizen represented in parliment?....yes, do they have the rights that generally the US have?...yes, would they be any worse off under a US-style democracy?....questionable



I certainly think their health systems would be looked upon with wanting eyes from insurance companies


Changing to a Republic would not effect anything like Heath care or our economic system at all. Nor would switching to a Republic make us apart of the USA or push us closer to them. There are Republics in the British Commonwelath today with closer ties to the UK then the USA. There are republics out there which are anti-American, socialist, capitalist, you name it there's a republic with it. So please don't try to use some cheap anti-american leanings such as private health-care to make it look as if the monarchy gave or is preserving our health-care system because that just isn't true.