Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

The Federal Republic of Canada

Canada as a federal republic  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Canada become a federal republic?

    • Yes, Canada should become a federal republic
      39
    • No, Canada should remain a constitutional monarchy
      69


Recommended Posts

I'm in favour. Any monarchists on the bench? I'll argue, and happily explain why you're wrong.

I say, let's run our own affairs our own way, and let's be upfront about it. Why the heck is that foreign face on our money anyway?

I think symbols matter, and English Canadians cannot imagine the effect it would have among French Canadians.

So, is Canada a "real" country?

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a WASP monarchists of the typical cord ;)

And Me tends to think that if it's not broke, why fix it...

.....So tell me why we need to fix it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not broke? You mean 1995 referendum not broke? Or just not broke? (BTW, denial is also a river in Egypt.)

And what about principle? What about living a whole life lying, or finally telling the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not broke? You mean 1995 referendum not broke? Or just not broke? (BTW, denial is also a river in Egypt.)

Canada is still here isn't it?

And what about principle? What about living a whole life lying, or finally telling the truth.

And what lie is that? :rolleyes:

Perhaps I should grab my tin-foil hat for this :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike the monarchy

we should be a republic.

Each province and the federal government should elect its governors (drop the lieutennant and general crap) on a piggy-back election with the general election. Party lines should be banned. I would also support term limits in this case. While I am strongly opposed to term limits on positions of power (if we adopt them, I'll move, no one can tell me who I cant vote for) I think that for powerless positions it does not matter. this would help to prevent patronage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What benifits would we reap as being a republic?

EDIT:

And couldn't we still elect our lieutennant-governors, governor general, and well we are at, the members of the senate......well still not becoming a republic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not broke? You mean 1995 referendum not broke? Or just not broke? (BTW, denial is also a river in Egypt.)

Canada is still here isn't it?

And what about principle? What about living a whole life lying, or finally telling the truth.

And what lie is that?

Perhaps I should grab my tin-foil hat for this

Complacently, smugly not broke... Here we go again Stoker.

(sigh) OK, you're right, it's not broke. Canada's still here, as you say, and everything is tickety-boo.

Principle? There's the face of a woman on our money and the woman is completely irrelevant to 95% of Canadians. The lie is that these symbols bear no connection to Canadians.

Look, Prince Charles seems to have a pretty good job. How do you get a job like that? If the British want to organize themselves that way, I got no argument. But I don't see why we should have such nonsense here. And in fact, we don't. So let's get rid of the pretense and be honest.

BTW, I made up the 95% statistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Principle? There's the face of a woman on our money and the woman is completely irrelevant to 95% of Canadians. The lie is that these symbols bear no connection to Canadians.

Well I'm sure that once it becomes a major issue with Canadians, a party will run with that as part of their platform.......

........What current parties would like to see the monarchy done away with? The NDP and the Bloc perhaps? Now once one of those parties can form a government (or together form a coalition), I don't think that this is a topic that spends alot of time on Canadians mind's........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bloc could form a government. it's how skrewy our system is.

if they elected all 75 seats in quebec...

the Liberals, Tories, and NDP tied at 74 seats each, and some other party gets 11 seats, then pouf, you have a Bloc government. go figure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bloc could form a government. it's how skrewy our system is.

if they elected all 75 seats in quebec...

the Liberals, Tories, and NDP tied at 74 seats each, and some other party gets 11 seats, then pouf, you have a Bloc government. go figure

I don't know that I'd call it "skrewy", I prefer the term Democratic ;)

With that said, we could also see a Green Party, Pot Party and Rhino Party government If they got enough votes......it's just a mater of how likely it is to ever happen that has to be asked..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilles Duceppe, Bloc leader said today on CTV QP that the Bloc would never enter a formal coaltion, and he also stated that none of their members would become ministers in any federal government as that would defeat their purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gilles Duceppe, Bloc leader said today on CTV QP that the Bloc would never enter a formal coaltion, and he also stated that none of their members would become ministers in any federal government as that would defeat their purpose.

"Skrewy" is the direction of this thread. What the heck...

But MapleSyrup he HAD to say that because 1) the hardcore BQ voters would expect nothing less and 2) BQ support for the Tories would be the kiss of death in English Canada.

BTW, this is an ongoing, very boring debate in Quebec among separatists about whether they should send deputies to Ottawa, what's the purpose exactly, isn't that contradictory etc. etc.

The key question is whether minority Tories could rule in practice with BQ voting support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duceppe has been in communist parties for most of his life:

Rather, he's a typical Quebec baby-boomer. These people inhabit all the public sector jobs in Quebec and they are less extreme now than when they were "radicals" in the 60s. Nevertheless, they still think it's cool to be outlandish.

Duceppe is a pale imitation of Joschka Fischer. Duceppe's real claim to fame is his dad.

I'm anxious to see Lapierre and Duceppe go at each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I say, let's run our own affairs our own way, and let's be upfront about it.”

I wonder what you mean by this. Just who do you think has been running our affairs? I certainly hope you realise Canada has been a completely independent, totally self-governing country for 22 years now. I don’t think there’s been any secret about that, so how could we be any more upfront about it? Just because many Canadians are ignorant of our 3 point system of government (Parliament, Senate, and Crown), or wrongly believe our Queen reigns over Canada as Queen of the UK, doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy or anything.

“I think symbols matter, and English Canadians cannot imagine the effect it would have among French Canadians”

Why do you speak of our Head of State from a purely symbolic point of view, whether monarch or not? I find it strange that you're talking about the monarchy or a potential presidency as though our Head of State is only about who goes on our money. A president or king is more than simply a symbol. Our current queen, and her representative the Governor General, are hardly just symbols.

The Crown is entrenched deeply in the Canadian Constitution, and is vested with very real reserve powers to be used in times of governmental crisis. Though we see the Queen and GG usually in a ceremonial role, that doesn't make their powers any less real. And because of its entrenchment, it is next to impossible to remove the Crown. It would take no less than the unanymous consent of all 10 provinces, the House of Commons, and the Senate to make it happen.

Even if that herculean task could be achieved, it would be ridiculous to remove the Crown just to pander to the sensitivities of any Canadians, french-speaking or not, who ignorantly believe Elizabeth II somehow still exercises British Imperial power over Canada. To change the system because of ignorance, rather than for real benefit, only lessens the importance, and diminishes the influence a Head of State should posses. Indeed, more people need to realise that the Queen and Governor General actually represent all Canadians, regardless of the language they speak, their religion, or their political belief, hell, even if they’re republicans! That is what a Head of State does, as opposed to a Head of Government who only represents the majority of the electorate. The Crown in Canada is not the British Crown—it is ONLY the Canadian Crown, and our Queen and Governor General are just as concerned with the issues french-speaking Canadians face as any other leader in this country. They are concerned with the issues every Canadian faces, because they don’t need to pick and choose to create a political platform which will attract the majority of votes. And, most importantly, the Queen does not need to lie to be elected.

So, I cannot see how the ‘symbolic’ removal of the Crown would appease french-speaking Canadians. Nor can I see how a ‘symbolic’ new Canadian president would represent french-speaking Canadians in any better manner.

“Not broke? You mean 1995 referendum not broke? Or just not broke?”

Again, it is ignorant to assume that having a Canadian president would somehow hold this country together at a time when a province wishes to leave. First off- a Head of State must remain, for the most part, politically unaffiliated. The Queen can't take sides, and a president could not either. However, hypothetically, do you believe a president (elected on a certain platform, or even appointed by a small group of people -- whichever method you choose) who came from Alberta could somehow have appeased the people of Quebec? Quieted the ranting of the Parti Quebecois? Even come remotely close to stemming the tide of seperatism that flooded Quebec? I highly doubt it. The desires of Quebec to separate were politically and nationalistically driven. A Canadian president from Quebec could not have stopped it. Even a Prime Minister from Quebec could not.

“And what about principle? What about living a whole life lying, or finally telling the truth?”

What about it? What exactly is this lie you keep going on about?

“Principle? There's the face of a woman on our money and the woman is completely irrelevant to 95% of Canadians. The lie is that these symbols bear no connection to Canadians.”

Ah—so that’s the ‘lie’.

You know, the Queen does not have to be on our money. It is purely for the sake of tradition that her face remains on our bills (members of the Royal Family have appeared on Bank of Canada notes since 1935), and coins (typically, most countries put their Head of State, especially monarchs, on the back of coins). But, if the Bank of Canada and Royal Canadian Mint decided to remove her portrait, it wouldn’t make Canada any more of a republic.

But to say that these symbols bear no connection to Canadians shows you don’t know much of Canada’s history, or present constitutional structure. I suspect you’re one of those people who believe Canada didn’t even exist before 1967. This country has been a monarchy for 500 years, whether French, British or Canadian. The Crown, of whom Elizabeth II is currently sovereign, is the body under which all law, police and military act in this country. The Crown also ensures that the provisions of the constitution are always followed, thus protecting the freedoms of all Canadians. It is also distinctly and uniquely Canadian. So, to me, that’s a pretty important symbol. If, as you claim, the Queen is irrelevant to 95% of Canadians, it is again because 95% of Canadians have been made ignorant of history and the system through lack of education. These people, whatever the actual percentage is, believe the media, who always refer to the Queen as the Queen of England, rather than educate themselves on the fact that, for them, the Queen is nobody but the Queen of Canada.

“Look, Prince Charles seems to have a pretty good job. How do you get a job like that? If the British want to organize themselves that way, I got no argument. But I don't see why we should have such nonsense here. And in fact, we don't. So let's get rid of the pretense and be honest.”

Does Prince Charles have a great job? You fill his shoes for a while, and we’ll see just how long you last. Consider it— the responsibilities of becoming the Head of State for 16 different countries, as well as constantly fund raising for charities, and being an international diplomat. And its not even something you can retire from. But, like his mother, and his ancestors for 500 years before him, he will reign over Canada until his death. No retiring to Florida at 65.

And technically, he gets the job because our government says so. He doesn’t become King of Canada just because of birth. In Britain, on numerous occasions and for different reasons, the ‘next-in-line’ was bypassed by an Act of the government, and some cousin or other relative put on the throne. It is the same here. Charles does not have to become King of Canada. It states in our Constitution that the heirs and successors of Elizabeth II will be the future Heads of State for Canada. So, if it was strongly wished, Prince William, as a descendent of Elizabeth II, could become the next King of Canada, while Charles reigned as King of the UK and other countries.

And again, be honest about what? Nobody is lying to you when they say Queen Elizabeth II is the sovereign of the Canadian Crown. Its pretty plain and simple.

All of this isn’t simply about whether we have some ideal bilingual, lumberjack, maple syrup making, ultra-Canadian representative who embodies the characteristics of every citizen of Canada. It’s silly to believe such a person even exists. This is about the Canadian constitution, Canadian history, Canadian identity, and Canada’s present and future. I think you need to consider a lot more than simply whether the ‘symbol’ of a Canadian president would please french-speaking Canadians when claiming Canada should be a republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if that herculean task could be achieved, it would be ridiculous to remove the Crown just to pander to the sensitivities of any Canadians, french-speaking or not, who ignorantly believe Elizabeth II somehow still exercises British Imperial power over Canada.

I can see why the French Canadians have separation on the table. We still want to feel like we belong to something. How about starting with our own country? I'd like to belong to that, not a country so desparate for identity that it has to have a King or Queen so that we know we are the common people.

Sure Prince Charles has a hard job. Cut me some slack!

He would crap in his pants if he ever had to do manual labor for the rest of his life, cook his own food and so on and forth. His job is so so soooooo hard with all that fundraising that Hollywood Stars, wearing sunglasses to hide their drug high, do it, so they have something to do while they are waiting for their poodle to get clipped .

Retire and what? Talk politics? Write nasty letters to the editor? LOL, he doesn't have to, he's the King, Queen, Crown ring piece cleaner whatever! He will never retire, that's why his mum, the grand old bitch herself hangs onto the scepter and will, until every hair has fallen off her toothless head. She likes it. Gets off on it, makes her feel that she is better than you and I. If you tell me that her postition is like taking a daily ten mile walk over burning coals, and that she only does it for love of Canada ..... forget it. LOL, she holds onto power because she is, after all, royalty. It brings back the good old days I suppose, where some were better than others. White men were better than blacks, Chinese, Arabs right? Is that what you think? If it isn't broken, why fix it? No need for human rights, we have a ceremonial slut that provides an example of how there is an order in bloodlines.

Same with her AWOL crony Adrianne. The person that is her representative in Canada. The one who is only supposed to be in one of two places, Canada and Buckingham Palace giving her report. Instead, she likes to do that oh, oh oh sooooooooo hard job of public relations, flying off to foreign countries to spend your money. Not elected, she still has the authority of the Queen. LOL, but the Queen has no authority somebody said?

Turf em' all, make them pay taxes like the rest of the human race. At worst, if you need a security blanket, elect a King or Queen. I'm tired of being the cereimonial nigger for a bloodline that should have ended circa French Revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And technically, he gets the job because our government says so. He doesn’t become King of Canada just because of birth.

WTF?

The whole point of the monarchy is that birth alone decides who wins. And (*cough, snicker*) what a wonderful basis for society it is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure Prince Charles has a hard job. Cut me some slack!

He would crap in his pants if he ever had to do manual labor for the rest of his life, cook his own food and so on and forth. His job is so so soooooo hard with all that fundraising that Hollywood Stars, wearing sunglasses to hide their drug high, do it, so they have something to do while they are waiting for their poodle to get clipped.

Prince Charles graduated from the Royal Marine Commando Basic Training Course, the longest and toughest basic training course in any NATO infantry force. Before you claim "Yeah, like they'd fail him", you'll note that his brother failed the same course.

Your perceptions about how "hard" the royal's lives are seem to be poorly researched and even more poorly expressed. Charles was a Marine Commando Officer and Andrew was a Royal Navy aviator who fought in the Falklands. You ever done the Royal Marine basic course? Think you would even make it past day one? You ever fought a war?

On top of that, they get to have every detail and aspect of their lives examined and re-examined by everybody and their dog.

When their grandmother died, did they get to have a quiet ceremony and just grieve? Nope, they had to share their day of mourning with the entire planet.

I think symbols matter, and English Canadians cannot imagine the effect it would have among French Canadians

And french canadians cannot understand that the Crown is a vital and important symbol for others.

But I don't see why we should have such nonsense here. And in fact, we don't

Correction, you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On top of that, they get to have every detail and aspect of their lives examined and re-examined by everybody and their dog.

Like J-Lo!

And french canadians cannot understand that the Crown is a vital and important symbol for others.

Only French Canadians? How about Ukrainian Canadians? Jamaican Canadians? Or how about simple, ordinary Canadians?

They respect how Foreigners (the British) decide things but don't want decisions in Canada made solely by birth. (It's too symbolic of how to succeed in life.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prince Charles graduated from the Royal Marine Commando Basic Training Course, the longest and toughest basic training course in any NATO infantry force. Before you claim "Yeah, like they'd fail him", you'll note that his brother failed the same course.

Your perceptions about how "hard" the royal's lives are seem to be poorly researched and even more poorly expressed. Charles was a Marine Commando Officer and Andrew was a Royal Navy aviator who fought in the Falklands. You ever done the Royal Marine basic course? Think you would even make it past day one? You ever fought a war?

On top of that, they get to have every detail and aspect of their lives examined and re-examined by everybody and their dog.

When their grandmother died, did they get to have a quiet ceremony and just grieve? Nope, they had to share their day of mourning with the entire planet.

No, I knew all that. My cousin roomed with Andrew at Gordenstern until he managed to beg his way out of it a couple weeks later. The guy was ordering him around like he was a servent to no end. As for Prince Charles and his toughness, sure, I can buy that. However, i said that his life was not one like ours, where we face having to make it on our own without help like they have handed to them. To counter the rest of the assumption that I am not tought, I was a Canadian Pathfinder, not many of us as it is a pretty hard thing to be. Up there with US Rangers and the like so personally, although I have great respect for Marines and all others, know that those courses are quite passable by normal military standards.

Yes, there is a price for being a public figure, it's called being in the public eye. I daresay that a look at the unemployment roles will find a very short list if you look for 'Ex Royalty' and 'Hollywood Super Stars' that are sick of the limelight.

Gret rid of them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see why the French Canadians have separation on the table. We still want to feel like we belong to something. How about starting with our own country?

First off-- don’t be so presumptuous as to think all french-speaking Canadians want to separate from Canada.

Secondly, French-speaking Canadians belong to Canada as much as every other Canadian. Seperatists from anywhere in this country (remember there are many in the west as well) just choose to believe they don’t, or shouldn’t. And, as I said earlier, that belief has nothing to do with whether Canada has a president or a king.

And, as an aside on the topic of the Crown and french-speaking Canadians, perhaps many should remember these words from Jean Chretien: "When you think about it, the American Revolution was promoted by the French. And they, Quebec, refused to join. It was nothing to do with language but a lot to do with religion. And they felt more secure in the main, Catholics in Canada. More security for the religion, what the Monarchy was giving them in those days, compared to the Americans. So they stayed."

But I don’t understand what it is you’re really getting at. When you say “We still want to feel like we belong to something. How about starting with our own country?” are you implying that we still have a monarchy because we feel we still need to “belong” to the British Empire? If that’s the case, then I hate to tell you, but the British Empire is gone. Canada doesn’t even have a link to the British Crown anymore, aside from the fact that we share the same woman as Queen of the UK and Queen of Canada. You need to get this through your head: For you and I, Elizabeth II is only the Queen of Canada. The Queen is ours, she is Canadian, every bit as much as she is Britain’s, Australia’s, New Zealand’s, Belize’s, and so on. Because she is our Queen doesn’t mean we have to belong to anything.

I'd like to belong to that, not a country so desparate [sic] for identity that it has to have a King or Queen so that we know we are the common people.

So, what you’re saying is those who brought about Confederation retained the monarchy because they wanted the Canadian identity to be that of groveling commoners? Is that what Trudeau thought when he entrenched the monarchy in the Constitution Act in ’82? Is that what the Premiers of all ten provinces meant in 1978 when they said about the Crown: "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." That’s certainly an interesting theory you have.

But, the fact is Canada does not have a monarchy because we are desperate for identity. Sure, there’s the argument that it makes us different to the United States. But, though it is true, I think it’s a weak one. We have a monarchy because of the passage of history, and the system of government our ‘founding fathers’ set up 137 years ago. And that system was reaffirmed 22 years ago. Canada grew from colony, to self-governing nation with a constitution that remained in Britain, to a fully independent country that relies on no-one but ourselves to run our affairs. Our governing system evolved to the one we have today, which includes our very own Canadian Crown. Be as it may, there are problems with the system. But removing the Crown will not solve any of them. Having a president will give us absolutely no gain. It will only introduce one more politician, and we know how much Canadians love their politicians.

If you feel you do not belong to Canada, then by all means, you are able to move elsewhere. You have that freedom.

He would crap in his pants if he ever had to do manual labor for the rest of his life, cook his own food and so on and forth. His job is so so soooooo hard with all that fundraising that Hollywood Stars, wearing sunglasses to hide their drug high, do it, so they have something to do while they are waiting for their poodle to get clipped .

Just for the record, Prince Charles works quite often out in the fields of his own organic farm at Highgrove. He is also very interested in the farming that takes place in Canada’s praries.

And if you choose to belittle the efforts of people to raise money for the betterment of others, well, that just goes to show your moral values.

Though, I do wonder at the accuracy of your claims that fundraising Hollywood stars all wear sunglasses to hide their drug highs. Were you getting high with them?

Retire and what? Talk politics? Write nasty letters to the editor? LOL, he doesn't have to, he's the King, Queen, Crown ring piece cleaner whatever! He will never retire, that's why his mum, the grand old bitch herself hangs onto the scepter and will, until every hair has fallen off her toothless head

Yes, that’s exactly what I said. He will never retire. Nor will Her Majesty the Queen (unless you count death as retirement). And she has made it very clear that she will not abdicate just because she is getting old. She took an oath at her coronation to reign to the best of her abilities and serve the people of all her dominions. She’s never faltered from that pledge.

She likes it. Gets off on it, makes her feel that she is better than you and I. If you tell me that her postition [sic] is like taking a daily ten mile walk over burning coals, and that she only does it for love of Canada ..... forget it. LOL, she holds onto power because she is, after all, royalty.

That seems like a bit of an assumption. Do you have any proof of your claim that Her Majesty only reigns because she “gets off on it”? I’d say it’s more because of her strong sense of duty, and a knowledge of how important her role is in the constitutions of many countries.

As she said when opening the Canadian Parliament in 1977: “"I dedicate myself anew to the people and the nation I am proud to serve."

Besides, that claim doesn’t help in your republican argument. I could take your very words and apply them to any president. Every president on the planet ran for the presidency because they “get off on it”, and once in office hold “onto power because [they are], after all, [the president].” As President of the United States, George Bush “likes it”. “Gets off on it, makes [him] feel that [he] is better than you and I.” And so on…..

Elizabeth II holds power only because our constitution says she does. She holds reserve powers to be used at times of governmental crisis. They’re pretty much the same reserve powers most presidents would hold.

All your words have pointed out is nothing more than a personal hatred for members of the Royal Family based on ignorance and jealousy.

It brings back the good old days I suppose, where some were better than others. White men were better than blacks, Chinese, Arabs right? Is that what you think? If it isn't broken, why fix it? No need for human rights, we have a ceremonial slut that provides an example of how there is an order in bloodlines.

I don’t understand your point. Are you implying the Queen should not be our Head of State because she is racist? How did you come to know that?

Or are you condemning the Queen for being queen because she is white (as though ‘white’ is a race)? That could be interpreted as being a little racist in itself. But anyway, she is the Queen because a) our constitution says so, and B) because of who her ancestors were. And those ancestors include people who were Arab, Armenian, Croatian, French, German, Greek, Italian, Persian etc... As such, the Queen is very capable of representing the great majority of Canadians.

Here’s a quote you might find interesting:

"...a king is a king, not because he is rich and powerful, not because he belongs to a particular creed or to a national group. He is King because he is born. And in choosing to leave the selection of their head of state to this most common denominator in the world -- the accident of birth -- Canadians implicitly proclaim their faith in human equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over social and financial interest; for the victory of the human person."

Canadian historian Jacques Monet.

The other benefit to having a sovereign ascend to the throne because of their bloodline is this: They are not elected. Unlike elected officials, they owe no allegiance to any party, to any army, to any union, to any friends, or to anyone who donated to their campaign. They only owe their allegiance to every citizen of the countries of which they are sovereign—regardless of race, colour, language, religion, political belief, or annual income. All those biases can be left to the politicians.

Plus the symbolic fact that the Queen is the descendent of kings and queens who played important roles in the development of this country. Elizabeth II became Queen of Canada because her ancestors (direct and indirect) were the 32 kings and queens who had reigned over the country since Henry VII and Francois I. These monarchs brought about the discovery, exploration, settlement, defence and development of Canada.

And I think if you do your research you’ll find the Queen, and Adrienne Clarkson (a refugee herself), are strong advocators of human rights.

Same with her AWOL crony Adrianne [sic]. The person that is her representative in Canada. The one who is only supposed to be in one of two places, Canada and Buckingham Palace giving her report. Instead, she likes to do that oh, oh oh sooooooooo hard job of public relations, flying off to foreign countries to spend your money.?

Where do you get this stuff? Please show me where it says that Madame Clarkson must “report” to the Queen at Buckingham Palace? The Queen and the Governor General both receive the same information from the Privy Council of Canada.

Indeed, the Governor General is the Queen’s representative in Canada. However, as the Crown represents all people in Canada, and the Queen and the Governor General are both members of the Crown, the Governor General also represents Canadians. This is why she goes on State Visits.

As for the money spent on State Visits, it comes from other ministries and departments. Against what you seem to believe, the Governor General can’t simply fly off with her friends to someplace and send Ottawa the bill. It is constitutional convention that the Queen and Governor General follow the advice of ministries and departments. So, when it comes to a State Visit, the Governor General will be asked by the Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs to take the trip. Who goes and how much will be spent is decided by Foreign Affairs. How they get there is decided by the RCMP. Heritage Canada may also play a role. So, don’t go ignorantly believing that Madame Clarkson lives some kind of Marie Antionette lifestyle all at the taxpayer’s expense.

And, tell me how it is a president of a Canadian republic would be any different, or somehow spend any less.

Not elected, she still has the authority of the Queen. LOL, but the Queen has no authority somebody said

The Governor General does have the same authority of the Queen, but it is only to be used in extreme circumstances. Though they technically do have authority over who the Prime Minister is, in passing laws, and are the Commanders-in-Chief of the armed forces, convention dictates that they stay out of day to day politics for the most part. If they were to exercise their authority without due cause it would be deemed an abuse of their powers, and action would need to be taken.

It’s a balance. The Crown holds authority over elected officials, but the constitution holds power over the Crown. If one over-steps their bounds, the other can take action against it. In essence, the Queen may fire the Prime Minister, but only the people of Canada can fire the Queen.

Turf em' all, make them pay taxes like the rest of the human race. At worst, if you need a security blanket, elect a King or Queen. I'm tired of being the cereimonial [sic] nigger for a bloodline that should have ended circa French Revolution.

The Queen does pay taxes in the UK (though, only residents of the UK pay taxes for her). We pay for the Governor General, and she has a salary, and I agree that she should pay taxes. But just because she pays taxes doesn’t mean she’d stop being Governor General.

To elect a king would make him a president. Are you therefore saying presidents are security blanket? Are you proposing Canada become a republic without a president? I’m interested to hear just how that would work.

Again, if you don’t like the way it is in this country… leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay. You are by no means an indentured “nigger”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW-- ignore that emoticon. The programme interperated my letters as something I didn't want. I think you can figure out what should be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF?

The whole point of the monarchy is that birth alone decides who wins. And (*cough, snicker*) what a wonderful basis for society it is!

Yes, it is true that birth mostly dictates who the monarch is. But, parliament can override the direct line of decent and name some other member of the family to take the throne. It was done when Queen Anne (who was also a Queen of the Canadian colonies) died in 1714. The Act of Settlement, passed in 1701, barred anybody but Protestants from taking the throne. So the next who was technically in line after Anne, who was Catholic, was bypassed. The Crown went to the members of the Protestant House of Hannover, cousins of the late Queen Anne.

That law, as wrong as it is today, is still in effect. So, if Prince William were to convert to Catholicism, or marry a Catholic, he would be barred from taking the throne, and Prince Henry would become the next king.

But before you go on a rampage about the Act of Settlement, just remember that it is an outdated Act of Parliament. An outdated Act of British Parliament. There has been much discussion about repealing this law, and though the Queen has no power to withdraw the law herself, she has expressed no opposition to the idea. Personally I agree that it should be repealed.

So, the Canadian parliament, which is completely independent of the British, could decide, for whatever reason, to skip over Charles, and name somebody else to the Canadian throne. So long as they are related to Elizabeth II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, if you don’t like the way it is in this country… leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay. You are by no means an indentured “nigger."

Uh...is that really necessary? Seriously, you can make your point without resorting tio use of racial slurs, even if it is suppossed to be "ironic". :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×