# Radical group may disrupt Prince William's visit



## toyotatundra (30 Jun 2011)

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06/29/patrick-bourgeois-reseau-de-resistance_n_887326.html




> THE CANADIAN PRESS -- MONTREAL - A controversial Quebec pro-independence group is ratcheting up its protest plans for the visit of Prince William and Kate and is now promising a "militant" demonstration in Montreal.
> 
> The Reseau de Resistance du Quebecois described its plans in an email to The Canadian Press.
> 
> ...



Some people are enthusiastic about the royal family. Others are not. However, regardless of one's stand on the monarchy, Prince William and Kate have done nothing to merit "militant actions" aimed at disrupting their trip.


----------



## john10 (30 Jun 2011)

Sure they have. By assuming their role in the monarchy, they have chosen to perpetuate this silly, wasteful institution.

People who are against the monarchy have every right to protest their trip.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Jun 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> Sure they have. By assuming their role in the monarchy, they have chosen to perpetuate this silly, wasteful institution.
> 
> People who are against the monarchy have every right to protest their trip.



That all depends on what activities one considers as acceptable methods to protest. Radical groups often demonstrate a difficulty in managing their people to do so in a manner that shows respect for law and authority.

Besides, how many of those who would object to the role of the monarchy have actually considered that it currently provides the constitutional layer of authority above the Prime Minister. Or do they want Stephen Harper to be a virtual dictator with nothing holding him back between elections?   >


----------



## lethalLemon (30 Jun 2011)

The Constitutional Monarchy has a big piece in Canadian history... as if it weren't for them, we might have turned out like our neighbours to the south, or worse... speaking German and forced to eat sauerkraut (although I quite enjoy sauerkraut). The Monarchs no longer hold any kind of real significant power over the elected governments.

It seems that the only people who have a huge problem with our Royal historical figureheads are the Quebecois and their typical anti-everything-not-French-or-Quebecois (excluding the good ones out there, I refuse to lump them all into the same pile) and of course those silly Anarchists who probably never learned the significance of the Monarchy in school.


----------



## john10 (30 Jun 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That all depends on what activities one considers as acceptable methods to protest. Radical groups often demonstrate a difficulty in managing their people to do so in a manner that shows respect for law and authority.


 Oh of course. Anything illegal or violent is out of bounds in my book. A loud and vigorous denunciation of their trip is perfectly fine.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Besides, how many of those who would object to the role of the monarchy have actually considered that it currently provides the constitutional layer of authority above the Prime Minister. Or do they want Stephen Harper to be a virtual dictator with nothing holding him back between elections?   >


 As lethalLemon notes, the monarchy does not exercise any real power in Canadian politics. A majority PM can effectively pass any bill he likes if he has the support of his party.


----------



## 57Chevy (30 Jun 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> Sure they have.



They have no right to disrupt the Royal couples' visit.



			
				john10 said:
			
		

> By assuming their role in the monarchy



Assuming ?  I would understand it to be a birthright.



			
				john10 said:
			
		

> they have chosen to perpetuate this silly, wasteful institution..



You mean the perpetuation of their heritage.
Unlike most of those arrogant "anti-anything" types who search through endless
pages of imaginary coats of arms in hope of finding some sort of recognition to
their useless borrowed surname.



			
				john10 said:
			
		

> People who are against the monarchy have every right to protest their trip.



No they don't.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Jun 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> As lethalLemon notes, the monarchy does not exercise any real power in Canadian politics. A majority PM can effectively pass any bill he likes if he has the support of his party.



http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287423584953/1298042473127



> The representative of the Crown also has the power to dismiss or force the resignation of the Prime Minister or Premier. This is one of the most sensitive decisions that any Governor General or Lieutenant Governor can be called upon to make. It is made only under the most serious circumstances. For example, if a Prime Minister or Premier were to lose the support of a majority in the legislative body on a vote of non-confidence and then refuse to resign, there could be justification for dismissal. In a broader application, a Prime Minister or the government could be dismissed if the Governor General believes an exceptional situation has created a crisis of confidence in government. This power has been exercised on five occasions in Canadian provinces: Québec in 1878 and 1891 and British Columbia in 1898, 1900 and 1903. This power has not been used in Canada for the federal government, but it was exercised in another Realm of the Commonwealth: by the Governor General of Australia, in 1975.



Just because it seldom occurs, and hasn't in living memory in Canada, doesn't mean the authority doesn't exist as a measure of control over the Government if needed.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jun 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> No they don't.



They certainly do have the right to protest the visit.


----------



## lethalLemon (30 Jun 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287423584953/1298042473127
> 
> Just because it seldom occurs, and hasn't in living memory in Canada, doesn't mean the authority doesn't exist as a measure of control over the Government if needed.



Well, what I meant by no real significant power over the elected governments is that the Monarch can't sit down on his/her throne and dissolve parliament and start ruling a nation within their power (Commonwealth) or every nation for that matter - just because he or she wants to. They still have to exercise the democracy part of a Constitutional Monarchy parliament system.

*EDIT:* I am well aware of the Queen's and her representatives power. But their power is not what it used to be.


----------



## john10 (30 Jun 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> They have no right to disrupt the Royal couples' visit.


 Hi Chevy57. Depends what we mean by "disrupt". Anything violent, illegal or physical, I disagree with. Exercising their constitutionally-protected right to express their disagreement with the institution and the trip? Absolutely.



			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> Assuming ?  I would understand it to be a birthright.


 Of course, but it's completely legitimate to disagree with the idea that this right should exist. The idea of power transmitted through hereditary birthright is utterly ridiculous to me.



			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> You mean the perpetuation of their heritage.
> Unlike most of those arrogant "anti-anything" types who search through endless
> pages of imaginary coats of arms in hope of finding some sort of recognition to
> their useless borrowed surname.


 They can perpetuate their heritage without taking taxpayer money.




			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> No they don't.


 Yes, they do. Descriptively, as in, the laws allow them to. And normatively, as in, they should have that right.

I've gotta say, I sure am glad to live in a society where our political leaders, like Stephen Harper, believe in freedom of expression and conscience, and not in one led by intolerant authoritarians like you.


----------



## john10 (30 Jun 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287423584953/1298042473127
> 
> Just because it seldom occurs, and hasn't in living memory in Canada, doesn't mean the authority doesn't exist as a measure of control over the Government if needed.


 You're right that it exists formally, but in reality, they don't exercise that power. If the Queen or the Governor-General don't like some aspects of the omnibus crime bill, they won't veto it. As you noted in your original post, the PM of a majority government can effectively act as a dictator in legislative matters, if he can maintain his party's following, and as long as the laws he chooses to pass are constitutional according to the courts.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Jun 2011)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> *EDIT:* I am well aware of the Queen's and her representatives power. But their power is not what it used to be.



Perhaps not, but there is a vestige which remains which is in the best interests of the people of Canada. Without that, there is one less level of control (no matter how seldom exercised) over the elected politicians running the country. 

The point remains, if anyone wants to sweep away all aspects of the monarchy, how will they replace that small "safety valve", or prove to the satisfaction of all Canadians that it is unnecessary


----------



## lethalLemon (30 Jun 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Perhaps not, but there is a vestige which remains which is in the best interests of the people of Canada. Without that, there is one less level of control (no matter how seldom exercised) over the elected politicians running the country.
> 
> The point remains, if anyone wants to sweep away all aspects of the monarchy, how will they replace that small "safety valve", or prove to the satisfaction of all Canadians that it is unnecessary



And I agree.


----------



## john10 (30 Jun 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Perhaps not, but there is a vestige which remains which is in the best interests of the people of Canada. Without that, there is one less level of control (no matter how seldom exercised) over the elected politicians running the country.
> 
> The point remains, if anyone wants to sweep away all aspects of the monarchy, how will they replace that small "safety valve", or prove to the satisfaction of all Canadians that it is unnecessary


You can still have a Governor General, but instead of being a representative of the Queen, he could be elected by some combination of the House of Commons, the Senate or even in a popular election. The idea that a check on Canadian legislative power *has* to be a monarch descended from Princess Sophia of Hanover, and who inherited his/her position by birthright, is silly (and I'm not saying that's your opinion, I'm just saying it's not an either/or proposition).


----------



## 57Chevy (30 Jun 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> Hi Chevy57. Depends what we mean by "disrupt". Anything violent, illegal or physical, I disagree with. Exercising their constitutionally-protected right to express their disagreement with the institution and the trip? Absolutely.



There is nothing of political importance involved with their trip. But, please correct me if I'm wrong.



			
				john10 said:
			
		

> Of course, but it's completely legitimate to disagree with the idea that this right should exist. The idea of power transmitted through hereditary birthright is utterly ridiculous to me.



You and others can disagree all you want.
 I, like my fathers' father carries our surname and my son carries it further on.
....ansi comme suit.
I believe there is a very large list of the next possible heirs to the throne and that is the way it should be.
List of heirs to the British throne:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heirs_to_the_British_throne 



			
				john10 said:
			
		

> They can perpetuate their heritage without taking taxpayer money.



When I see the costs related to exercising some peoples' perverted idea of "rights", I don't mind a tittle how
many pieces of copper it costs me to upkeep the Monarchy.



			
				john10 said:
			
		

> Yes, they do. Descriptively, as in, the laws allow them to. And normatively, as in, they should have that right..



Unfortunately. Yes they do have that right. And those sore people should find something better to do with their
time, or just stay home.



			
				john10 said:
			
		

> I've gotta say, I sure am glad to live in a society where our political leaders, like Stephen Harper, believe in freedom of expression and conscience



And I also believe in freedom of expression and rights and so on. 
But rights and freedoms should not be demented or unrightous causing
strife only for the sake of causing strife, or causing harm to innocent bystanders 
who are in effect exercising their own lawfull rights of giving praise where praise warrants.



			
				john10 said:
			
		

> and not in one led by intolerant authoritarians like you.



I am quite the tolerant type, but I am the king of my castle.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jun 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Unfortunately. Yes they do have that right.



Fortunately, they do have that right.

You know, the whole democracy thing. You might have heard of it. I hear allot of Canadians fought and died to keep it that way.

Violence, rioting and shyte like that, yeah, it's not on.

Protesting, thats G2G.


----------



## john10 (30 Jun 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> There is nothing of political importance involved with their trip. But, please correct me if I'm wrong.


Their trip is an expression of a silly and wasteful institution. It is a completely legitimate target for expressions of disagreement. In any case, the right to freedom of expression and conscience is not dependent on the political importance of the target of that expression.



			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> You and others can disagree all you want.
> I, like my fathers' father carries our surname and my son carries it further on.
> ....ansi comme suit.
> I believe there is a very large list of the next possible heirs to the throne and that is the way it should be.
> List of heirs to the British throne:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heirs_to_the_British_throne


 What does that have to do with power by birthright?



			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> When I see the costs related to exercising some peoples' perverted idea of "rights", I don't mind a tittle how
> many pieces of copper it costs me to upkeep the Monarchy.


 And Canadians are entitled to disagree and to voice this disagreement to William and Kate.



			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> Unfortunately. Yes they do have that right. And those sore people should find something better to do with their
> time, or just stay home.
> 
> And I also believe in freedom of expression and rights and so on.
> ...


 People who are protesting are doing so because they believe the monarchy is a silly and outdated institution. That is their constitutionally-protected right. It's people like you who need to grow up and stop trying to prevent others from expressing their point of view if it doesn't conform to yours.


----------



## 57Chevy (30 Jun 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Fortunately, they do have that right.
> 
> You know, the whole democracy thing. You might have heard of it. I hear allot of Canadians fought and died to keep it that way.



Yes, I know. 
I was actually referring to those violently peacefull protesters whose manhandling costs 
become astronomical. Like so many other protests where protesters have 
exercised their idea of fundamental rights.

Even after winning or losing hockey games.

It is unfortunate that some people become violent when trying to express themselves.


----------



## 57Chevy (30 Jun 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> It's people like you who need to grow up and stop trying to prevent others from expressing their point of view if it doesn't conform to yours.



But you try to prevent me from expressing my point of view ?

Am I supposed to comform to your point of view ?


----------



## john10 (30 Jun 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> But you try to prevent me from expressing my point of view ?
> 
> Am I supposed to comform to your point of view ?


 Don't confuse my disagreement with your silly assertion that Canadians do not have the right to protest the monarchy, with trying to prevent you from expressing your point of view. Living in a liberal democracy means having to put up with disagreeable points of view. I am in favour of your right to express what you believe, and the protestors' right to express what they believe. 

Unfortunately, you want to deny the rights of those with whom you disagree.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jun 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> But you try to prevent me from expressing my point of view ?



No, he's pointing out the flaw in your point of view. There's a difference there.


----------



## Neill McKay (30 Jun 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> You're right that it exists formally, but in reality, they don't exercise that power. If the Queen or the Governor-General don't like some aspects of the omnibus crime bill, they won't veto it. As you noted in your original post, the PM of a majority government can effectively act as a dictator in legislative matters, if he can maintain his party's following, and as long as the laws he chooses to pass are constitutional according to the courts.



The key role of the monarch is to ensure that there is a legitimate government in office, and that it continues to act legitimately.  Were the PM to use his majority to  colour outside of the constitutional lines, the monarch would have the responsibility to step in and take appropriate, constitutional, steps.

It happens very rarely in Canada.  But it also happens rarely that we have to abandon a warship, so we still have lifeboats and sea survival training.



			
				john10 said:
			
		

> You can still have a Governor General, but instead of being a representative of the Queen, he could be elected by some combination of the House of Commons, the Senate or even in a popular election.



The problem with any kind of election is that you end up with the incumbent beholden to those who voted for him or her, or provided other support in the election.  As an example, we have what is perhaps one of the cleanest democracies in the world here but try to find a premier or prime minister who has never appointed anyone from his or her party organization to public office after winning an election.

An unelected monarch is free of the pressures of politics, owes no favours, and isn't looking to the next election to keep his or her job.


----------



## john10 (30 Jun 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> The key role of the monarch is to ensure that there is a legitimate government in office, and that it continues to act legitimately.  Were the PM to use his majority to  colour outside of the constitutional lines, the monarch would have the responsibility to step in and take appropriate, constitutional, steps.
> 
> It happens very rarely in Canada.  But it also happens rarely that we have to abandon a warship, so we still have lifeboats and sea survival training.
> 
> ...



Hi N. McKay. You raise a point which is fair, but to me, ultimately inconsequential. The current system is that the PM nominates whomever he chooses, and that this person represent the will of the Queen. The qualification for being Queen/King is, of course, that you be descended from Princess Sophia of Hanover and that you not be Catholic. Could there be a more arbitrary set of qualifications for being the one who holds a legislative check against the PM? Is it really impossible to design a system that makes more sense for 21st century Canada?


----------



## 57Chevy (30 Jun 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No, he's pointing out the flaw in your point of view. There's a difference there.



No flaw there

I agree with the gathering of persons protesting a specific cause in a peacefull manner within the law.

I disagree with any form of violence that always seems to be associated with it.


----------



## john10 (30 Jun 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> No flaw there
> 
> I agree with the gathering of persons protesting a specific cause in a peacefull manner within the law.
> 
> I disagree with any form of violence that always seems to be associated with it.


 No disagreement from me on that.


----------



## Neill McKay (30 Jun 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> Is it really impossible to design a system that makes more sense for 21st century Canada?



No, but it's unnecessary.  We have a system that works well, and has been doing so for several hundred years.  As institutions go, it's got a pretty enviable track record.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Jun 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> Is it really impossible to design a system that makes more sense for 21st century Canada?



So where are the proposed alternatives? The ones that will dissatisfy fewer (or at least not more) Canadians that the status quo and which can be guaranteed that they will not be open to political manipulation. The arguments against the Monarchy seldom reach the point of laying out the possible alternatives in detail. It's had to accept the dissolution of one option when no credible alternative has been tabled for consideration and debate.


----------



## Nemo888 (30 Jun 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> Their trip is an expression of a silly and wasteful institution.


Actually the Royals are a HUGE money maker for the UK. 160 million pounds annually not including the billions in tourist dollars.

http://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey#p/u/3/bhyYgnhhKFw


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Jun 2011)

A good point, it would be interesting to see numbers on benefits to local economies in the visit cities during those periods.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/06/28/visit-creates-royally-huge-rewards



> Calgary’s tourism boss laughs at the scattered criticism heard across Canada, from curmudgeons who argue the money spent on royal tours is money wasted.
> 
> Similar royal visits to Canada have cost in the $3-million range: An 11-day tour by Prince Charles and Camilla in 2009 added up to $2.57 million for Canadian taxpayers.
> 
> ...


----------



## john10 (30 Jun 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> No, but it's unnecessary.  We have a system that works well, and has been doing so for several hundred years.  As institutions go, it's got a pretty enviable track record.


 No doubt there's no pressing need to change the system, but that shouldn't stop people from discussing what an ideal would look like, one in which our head of state doesn't have to descend from Princess Sophia of Hanover.


----------



## Ridge Runner (30 Jun 2011)

Hi,

The Royal visit to your country is big news here in the US. 

Fox news, ET and even the ABC news tonight had it covered, but noting about this radical group.

They did say security is going to be intense, and your Mounties have that covered, even interviewed one on a horse.

I wonder who pays for this security? The Queen, the English government, our does Canada get stuck with the bill??


----------



## john10 (30 Jun 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So where are the proposed alternatives? The ones that will dissatisfy fewer (or at least not more) Canadians that the status quo and which can be guaranteed that they will not be open to political manipulation. The arguments against the Monarchy seldom reach the point of laying out the possible alternatives in detail. It's had to accept the dissolution of one option when no credible alternative has been tabled for consideration and debate.


 I don't think the concern that an alternative to a Queen-representing GG be completely insulated from others politicians is that important. All our GGs of recent times have been appointed by ruling PMs. If we want a GG who steps in a puts the brake on the potential abuse of a majority PM like Harper or Chrétien, then shouldn't that GG in part reflect the will of the people, whether that is through the House of Commons or a popular election?


----------



## HavokFour (1 Jul 2011)

I honestly don't get what the big deal is. Having a Queen/Monarchy is what makes us _Canada_, our country earned Sovereignty through loyal service to said family. We could have gone the US route, but we didn't. Why? We're _Canada_. 

Not to mention we also pay when heads of state visit, the cost of this Royal visit is nothing compared to those, so why don't they go protest that?

I'll take a Monarchy over Hollywood any day.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Jul 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I'll take a *Monarchy* over *Hollywood *any day.



With Will and Kate, you are close to having both.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Jul 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I'll take a Monarchy over Hollywood any day.




I quite agree old boy!! Some of the "stuff" coming out of Hollywood makes me gag......except Mila Jojovic


----------



## Nauticus (1 Jul 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> And I also believe in freedom of expression and rights and so on.
> But rights and freedoms should not be demented or unrightous causing
> strife only for the sake of causing strife, or causing harm to innocent bystanders
> who are in effect exercising their own lawfull rights of giving praise where praise warrants.



Come on now. This visit to Canada is just a PR move by the future monarchs of Britain, so yes, it's political. And yes, people do have the right to protest that, and rightfully so.

I understand your point, but I completely disagree with it. Who is going to decide what protests are "demented"? Because clearly you and I disagree on this being demented or not.

It appears to me that you're more interested in rights and freedoms that benefit you, as opposed to _actual_ rights and freedoms.


----------



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> Sure they have. By assuming their role in the monarchy, they have chosen to perpetuate this silly, wasteful institution.
> 
> People who are against the monarchy have every right to *protest* their trip.



The article is not about a radical group protesting events. The article is about a radical group with a history of *disrupting* events.


----------



## Nauticus (1 Jul 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Come on now. This visit to Canada is just a PR move by the future monarchs of Britain, so yes, it's political. And yes, people do have the right to protest that, and rightfully so.
> 
> I understand your point, but I completely disagree with it. Who is going to decide what protests are "demented"? Because clearly you and I disagree on this being demented or not.
> 
> It appears to me that you're more interested in rights and freedoms that benefit you, as opposed to _actual_ rights and freedoms.


Disregard this. I see that this discussion was actually clarified, and I can't go back to edit my post.


----------



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That all depends on what activities one considers as acceptable methods to protest. Radical groups often demonstrate a difficulty in managing their people to do so in a manner that shows respect for law and authority.



One of my biggest dislikes about political radicals is their tendency to be hypocrites.

The far Left demands the right to march through downtown cores, disrupting traffic. They expect the right to close down businesses with strikes, and occupy university administration offices during sit-ins. Yet these same radicals feel entitled to censor and intimidate everyone else. To prevent royalty from moving freely. To shut down international meetings of elected politicians. And to censor and ban events like the Plains of Abraham re-enactment.


----------



## GeorgeD (1 Jul 2011)

In Canada everyone has the right to protest peacefully, the question is not weather or not they can protest, the question is wether or not a small group can disrupt an event and ruin the experience of the majority. Some people seem to believe and I do not think it is limited to left wing or right wing political beliefs, that their opinion trumps everyone else even if they are minority trying to force their beliefs on to the majority. 

If this group wants to protest its fine by me, but from the article posted above, they seem to protest anything that reminds them that Quebec is PART of Canada and NOT an independent nation. And those protests are not meant to voice their opinion but cause disruptions to the events in question and in turn force their opinion on everyone who is there, most of the people obviously in support of the event.


----------



## john10 (2 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> The article is not about a radical group protesting events. The article is about a radical group with a history of *disrupting* events.


 Fair point.


----------



## john10 (2 Jul 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I honestly don't get what the big deal is.


 There's no big deal, just Canadians exercising their democratic rights as millions do everyday.


----------



## 57Chevy (2 Jul 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> There's no big deal, just Canadians exercising their democratic rights as millions do everyday.



And that is why there are soooooo many good citizens from all walks of life going out there to see them.


An estimated 300,000 people, many of them bedecked in the red and white colours of the Canadian flag on the nation's 144th birthday, crammed onto Parliament Hill and chanted "Will and Kate" as the potential future king and queen arrived.

William and Kate get rock-star welcome in Canada
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/02/uk-royals-idUKTRE75T5A820110702
Louise Egan OTTAWA  Sat Jul 2

read more......


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jul 2011)

Ridge Runner said:
			
		

> I wonder who pays for this security? The Queen, the English government, our does Canada get stuck with the bill??


Canada picks up that tab for at least the security.  If I'm not mistaken, Canada picks up the tab for the entire trip.


----------



## 57Chevy (2 Jul 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Canada picks up that tab for at least the security.  If I'm not mistaken, Canada picks up the tab for the entire trip.




Who pays for Royal Tours to Canada?

There are two types of Royal Tours: official tours and working or private visits.

The Government of Canada covers costs when it extends an official invitation. The provinces cover the costs of their own activities. As hosts, the provinces also share a portion of the travel and accommodation costs with the Government of Canada, based on pre-determined "cost-sharing agreements."

Invitations for working or private visits may be extended by groups such as regiments, sports organizations, etc. In these instances, the Government of Canada has no financial involvement

2011 Royal Tour www.royaltour.gc.ca

Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.royaltour.gc.ca/faq-eng.cfm#h10
                           _________________________________________________
---
Using Access to Information data on previous royal visits, along with anticipated expenses by the provinces, CCR estimates that the 8-day royal visit will cost an estimated $500,000 to $700,000 per day or roughly $4-6 million in total.
---
Another royal visit to cost taxpayers millions
http://canadianrepublic.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/another-royal-visit-to-cost-taxpayers-millions/


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jul 2011)

As long as we have our current Senate, we might as well have our current monarchy.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Jul 2011)

Y'know, I don't recall once, ever, getting out of bed and my first thought being, "Jeez, I wonder how much more wonderful my life would be, if only the Queen's picture wasn't on my money".


----------



## toyotatundra (2 Jul 2011)

Ridge Runner said:
			
		

> I wonder who pays for this security? The Queen, the English government, our does Canada get stuck with the bill??



Generally, the government is left with the security bill. However, in fairness, I understand the same standard applies for large public gatherings of civilians.

If you organize a public march or rally to express your political views, the government will provide security without charge.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Jul 2011)

Just like the US taxpayer eats the bill every time a world leader drops by the White house for coffee and a danish.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jul 2011)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Just like the US taxpayer eats the bill every time a world leader drops by the White house for coffee and a danish.



I'm sure it's really good coffee  ;D


----------



## toyotatundra (2 Jul 2011)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Just like the US taxpayer eats the bill every time a world leader drops by the White house for coffee and a danish.



The Italian asked the American for a Danish.


----------



## Ridge Runner (2 Jul 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Canada picks up that tab for at least the security.  If I'm not mistaken, Canada picks up the tab for the entire trip.



Thank-you for the information.

You would think that the English government would at least contribute somewhat, considering they're coming for a official visit, but nothing at all to me demonstrates a bit of arrogance maybe?


----------



## Ridge Runner (2 Jul 2011)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Just like the US taxpayer eats the bill every time a world leader drops by the White house for coffee and a danish.



I suppose it does, Obama shafting us again....... Seems lately we've been paying for all sorts of things when we don't have the money.

Thanks to all for enlightening me on the who pays topic.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jul 2011)

Ridge Runner said:
			
		

> Seems lately we've been paying for all sorts of things when we don't have the money.



Such as ?


----------



## Ridge Runner (2 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> The Italian asked the American for a Danish.



Considering Obama is either on the golf course pretty much most weekends recently, as our country sinks more into debt, I am surprised the Italian was not charged for his danish treat (smiles).


----------



## Ridge Runner (2 Jul 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Such as ?



Hi, here's one for you to laugh at...  http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/How-Much-Shrimp-Treadmill-Study-Cost-Taxpayers.htm

Actually it's nothing to laugh about, just more of our precious tax dollars being used what many (including myself) consider sheer stupidity.

Anyways being new, just found I can modify my post. Sorry for the hijack.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jul 2011)

Ridge Runner said:
			
		

> Hi, here's one for you to laugh at...  http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/How-Much-Shrimp-Treadmill-Study-Cost-Taxpayers.htm



Thanks   ;D


----------



## Ridge Runner (2 Jul 2011)

No probs  ;D ;D


----------



## Nauticus (2 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> One of my biggest dislikes about political radicals is their tendency to be hypocrites.
> 
> The far Left demands the right to march through downtown cores, disrupting traffic. They expect the right to close down businesses with strikes, and occupy university administration offices during sit-ins. Yet these same radicals feel entitled to censor and intimidate everyone else. To prevent royalty from moving freely. To shut down international meetings of elected politicians. And to censor and ban events like the Plains of Abraham re-enactment.


I'm not sure that's true. Hypocrites do that, not "the left".


----------



## Nauticus (2 Jul 2011)

Ridge Runner said:
			
		

> Thank-you for the information.
> 
> You would think that the English government would at least contribute somewhat, considering they're coming for a official visit, but nothing at all to me demonstrates a bit of arrogance maybe?


On the other hand, I read an article that argued that, although the government is paying for the trip in part or in full, it will be a stimulus to the economy.


----------



## Ridge Runner (2 Jul 2011)

I am sure many people will travel miles upon miles to get a glimpse of this new couple , so I can see how that will generate money for gas, food, and lodging along the way.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Jul 2011)

My Dad (a monarchist who served 24 years in the British Army)  always said that the UK could wipe out it's debt tomorrow if it sold the Royal Family to the US, you guys are Royal mad.  Fought a revolution, and regretted it ever since... ;D


----------



## toyotatundra (2 Jul 2011)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-william/8613442/Royal-tour-Prince-William-and-Kate-Middleton-face-anti-royal-protests.html



> The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have faced their first taste of anti-royal protests in Canada.
> 
> A crowd of about 100 protesters gathered with placards... But the protesters' boos were drowned out by the cheers of about 800 well-wishers who chanted: "Will and Kate, Will and Kate."



The 100 spoil sports were also outdone by the many thousands who came to greet the couple in other venues nation wide.


----------



## john10 (2 Jul 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> And that is why there are soooooo many good citizens from all walks of life going out there to see them.
> 
> 
> An estimated 300,000 people, many of them bedecked in the red and white colours of the Canadian flag on the nation's 144th birthday, crammed onto Parliament Hill and chanted "Will and Kate" as the potential future king and queen arrived.
> ...


 That's great. I don't see how it should preclude Canadians who aren't enchanted with them from expressing their opinions though.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Jul 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> That's great. I don't see how it should preclude Canadians who aren't enchanted with them from expressing their opinions though.



It doesn't, as long as they're not using the protest opportunity as an excuse to burn cars and loot stores. If they do, then those who partake in such activities should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for those actions.


----------



## john10 (2 Jul 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> It doesn't, as long as they're not using the protest opportunity as an excuse to burn cars and loot stores. If they do, then those who partake in such activities should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for those actions.


 No doubt about that. Fortunately, it seems today's visits in Montréal went off without a hitch.


----------



## Nauticus (2 Jul 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> It doesn't, as long as they're not using the protest opportunity as an excuse to burn cars and loot stores. If they do, then those who partake in such activities should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for those actions.


Agreed.

And as much as I disagree with the protestors in Montreal today, at least all they did was protest.


----------



## mariomike (8 Jul 2011)

July 8, 2011
Excerpts from Canada's formal farewell to the visiting Duke and Duchess of Cambridge:
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Special_Coverage/William_and_Kate/1998799487/ID=2047550640


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2011)

The Prime Minister ends the visit with a fitting gift:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/07/07/a-gift-fit-for-a-king/



> *A gift fit for a king*
> 
> How a present from the Harpers—a historic copy of Maclean’s—links this tour with the one in 1939
> by Brian Bethune on Thursday, July 7, 2011 11:30am - 4 Comments
> ...


----------

