Retain the Monarchy in Canada?
- Thread starter Pieman
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Back in the mid to late 90s we actually had a referendum on keeping the Queen or not. The majority felt that the queen should stay.
There just was too much back biting, and back stabbing within the republican movement, so until they get their shyte together, the British monarchy will be here for a while yet.
I beleive that sooner than later Australia will be a republic, its pretty much enevitable, but I hope they never change the Australian National Flag.
As for Canada, well who knows, but I am sure there is plenty of you who would like to see your kids be able to be Head of State of their own country one day, rather then some foreigner.
My 2 bob.
Wes
There just was too much back biting, and back stabbing within the republican movement, so until they get their shyte together, the British monarchy will be here for a while yet.
I beleive that sooner than later Australia will be a republic, its pretty much enevitable, but I hope they never change the Australian National Flag.
As for Canada, well who knows, but I am sure there is plenty of you who would like to see your kids be able to be Head of State of their own country one day, rather then some foreigner.
My 2 bob.
Wes
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Just a couple of points:-
The reserve powers of the Crown are quite important and powerful. I don't have all the details at hand, but there are instances in our history where the Governor General and one or two Lieutenant Governors exercised them. Viscount Byng for one, and I think the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba. And there was a Constitutional crisis resently in Australia.
It is quite conceivable that the present Governor General may have to decide whether to disolve Parliament and call an election, or call upon the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to form a government, without having an election.
The idea of a royal taking up the position of GG is not new. In my younger days (back in the 60s, when some of you were not even a gleam in your father's eye
) it was suggested that Charles was leading a bored and unchallenged life, and perhaps a tour of duty in Canada as GG would spice it up.
Certainly we have had lesser royals as GG.
With a regard to only the Heir to the Throne having an income based on his position in the line of succession, I recall reading that when Prince Andrew went through his divorce, his wife's lawyers were surprised to find that the only real incomes he had was as a Commander in the Royal Navy. All the rest were bestowed at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Senator Forsey once wrote an article on the cost of Monarchy in this country, and if I recall correctly, it was very small in relation to other expenditures government made, and that was many, many years ago. With the explosion in government spending nowadays, I would suspect, that notwithstanding the apparent extravagant budget of the GG, the same results from a similar study.
On another note, and I hope it will not generate a long debate off topic, I note in reply # 36, back on 27 September, that pbi used the term WASP. I recall being at a government sponsored meeting in British Columbia a little over ten years ago when the speaker used that term most negatively, and often.
My challenge to her was "What does that term mean?" She stuttered and I replied that simply put "White, Anglo Saxon Protestant."
I pointed out that there were no Black, Red, or Yellow Anglo Saxons. And degrading Protestants could be interpreted as a hate crime. I say all this with tongue in cheek
, but I really don't think people realize what they are saying when they use the term, other than believing they are relating it to being some sort of bad "British" (only the Protestant "British", not the Roman Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish "British").
The reserve powers of the Crown are quite important and powerful. I don't have all the details at hand, but there are instances in our history where the Governor General and one or two Lieutenant Governors exercised them. Viscount Byng for one, and I think the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba. And there was a Constitutional crisis resently in Australia.
It is quite conceivable that the present Governor General may have to decide whether to disolve Parliament and call an election, or call upon the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to form a government, without having an election.
The idea of a royal taking up the position of GG is not new. In my younger days (back in the 60s, when some of you were not even a gleam in your father's eye
) it was suggested that Charles was leading a bored and unchallenged life, and perhaps a tour of duty in Canada as GG would spice it up.Certainly we have had lesser royals as GG.
With a regard to only the Heir to the Throne having an income based on his position in the line of succession, I recall reading that when Prince Andrew went through his divorce, his wife's lawyers were surprised to find that the only real incomes he had was as a Commander in the Royal Navy. All the rest were bestowed at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Senator Forsey once wrote an article on the cost of Monarchy in this country, and if I recall correctly, it was very small in relation to other expenditures government made, and that was many, many years ago. With the explosion in government spending nowadays, I would suspect, that notwithstanding the apparent extravagant budget of the GG, the same results from a similar study.
On another note, and I hope it will not generate a long debate off topic, I note in reply # 36, back on 27 September, that pbi used the term WASP. I recall being at a government sponsored meeting in British Columbia a little over ten years ago when the speaker used that term most negatively, and often.
My challenge to her was "What does that term mean?" She stuttered and I replied that simply put "White, Anglo Saxon Protestant."
I pointed out that there were no Black, Red, or Yellow Anglo Saxons. And degrading Protestants could be interpreted as a hate crime. I say all this with tongue in cheek
, but I really don't think people realize what they are saying when they use the term, other than believing they are relating it to being some sort of bad "British" (only the Protestant "British", not the Roman Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish "British"). 
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Bill Smy:
Being a WASP myself (well, Anglican, which is not really Protestant per se, but...) I think that it is really a term that does not bear dissection, like "hot fire" or other such redundancies in popular use. It is really best taken as a whole, and refers most accurately to the people who once made up the majority of our population, but today are probably at best a plurality if even that. I certainly never intended as a racial slight and I have never actually heard it used as such. At one time in this country it represented the credentials of social and political power, but not so much today. Cheers.
Being a WASP myself (well, Anglican, which is not really Protestant per se, but...) I think that it is really a term that does not bear dissection, like "hot fire" or other such redundancies in popular use. It is really best taken as a whole, and refers most accurately to the people who once made up the majority of our population, but today are probably at best a plurality if even that. I certainly never intended as a racial slight and I have never actually heard it used as such. At one time in this country it represented the credentials of social and political power, but not so much today. Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I could never picture a formal public speaker using the term WASP, I think the closest thing I've heard is "Someone who exhiibits anglican reserve." But outright saying WASP...I think I'd leave.
Not because it's terribly offensive to me...I'm only half after all, but c'mon...who uses WASP in a speech really.
Not because it's terribly offensive to me...I'm only half after all, but c'mon...who uses WASP in a speech really.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I really don't understand all of the fuss about the cost of the gg or of a monarchy...considering what the government spent on gun registry alone, nevermind sponsorship scandal and what not....and look what those two initiatives have done for us...
Also, the queen isn't some foriegn figurehead (Why should the Queen of England have any say in Canada?), however they can be likened to two separate offices, as Queen Elizabeth II Queen of Canada, is the Queen of Canada and not specifically the Queen of England. Many people I have spoken with have based their argument essentially on "There is no Queen of Canada". I really don't see why we would have to have a constitional change as the GG is a delegate of the Queen as obviosly the Queen doesnt live here. Thus, having the Queen send Prince Harry as Prince Harry Prince of Canada or however, shouldn't be that great of a legal problem in theory would it? Perhaps someone with a definative understanding of law would be able to help out?
Also, the queen isn't some foriegn figurehead (Why should the Queen of England have any say in Canada?), however they can be likened to two separate offices, as Queen Elizabeth II Queen of Canada, is the Queen of Canada and not specifically the Queen of England. Many people I have spoken with have based their argument essentially on "There is no Queen of Canada". I really don't see why we would have to have a constitional change as the GG is a delegate of the Queen as obviosly the Queen doesnt live here. Thus, having the Queen send Prince Harry as Prince Harry Prince of Canada or however, shouldn't be that great of a legal problem in theory would it? Perhaps someone with a definative understanding of law would be able to help out?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Canada has been a monarchy ever since Europeans first came to these shores. I cannot imagine it any other way. For me it's the idea of the Crown and our history as Canadians more than who happens to be on the throne. If Canada ever decided to get rid of the monarchy - a constitutional near-impossibility, incidentally - we would be diminished IMHO. Also, I think the G-G's "spending" is a non-issue, it's Foreign Affairs that spends the money for those trips.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Pencil Tech said:
I work for foreign affairs. Her trips come out of her GG stipend from the feds, not us. We do send people with her (at our expense) but they don't generally get the same treatment on our budget as when GG springs for the bill. Mainly, because they get audited as soon as they get home, and if we don't like the expense report, we don't pay out.
IT's funny how we're tighter on someone's 32 dollar dinner allowance than what the GG coughs up for coffee, but c'est la vie. You want to see some fun numbers, the following link provides the expense reports for the upper echelons of FAC... Pretty scary what some "invitational dinners" cost...http://www.fac-aec.gc.ca/department/disclosure/menu-en.asp
T
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Torlyn, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I am referring to is the big "Northern Junket" to Russia and Scandinavia, etc which caused all this controversy in the first place was a Foreign Affairs initiative. It wasn't like the G-G decided she wanted to go on a gucci holiday and soaked the taxpayers for it - the govt sent her- yet that's how the story got spun. Likewise, people complain about her flying on govt aircraft but the RCMP will not let her fly on commercial flights. Yes, I'm sure here entertaining bills might be a bit hefty, but we're talking about our de facto head of state here. Some people I'm sure think she should meet foreign dignitaries at Tim Horton's. How Canadian.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Do any of you understand the purpose of hospitality (entertainment) budgets, and do you look at the break-downs or just the total cost? Do you know and understand the rules under which those funds are expended?
Are there abuses? Probably. There certainly were abuses in the past (though rules have tightened considerably). Don't go thinking that the life of an Ambassador/High Commissioner is all champaign and canapés. OK, it is to a certain extent, but consider that:
1. They don't get paid overtime, and lunches/dinners/receptions are actually work, and often not in the usual office hours.
2. Spouses are expected to entertain as well, and are not paid for their work (some sr officers/WOs can probably relate to this).
Some of you may understand how the world outside of Canada works - contacts. The Canadian (and US) concept of professional relationships is the exception in the world, not the rule. The majority of the world works on personal relationships, and sometimes that means picking up the tab for lunch.
Acorn
Are there abuses? Probably. There certainly were abuses in the past (though rules have tightened considerably). Don't go thinking that the life of an Ambassador/High Commissioner is all champaign and canapés. OK, it is to a certain extent, but consider that:
1. They don't get paid overtime, and lunches/dinners/receptions are actually work, and often not in the usual office hours.
2. Spouses are expected to entertain as well, and are not paid for their work (some sr officers/WOs can probably relate to this).
Some of you may understand how the world outside of Canada works - contacts. The Canadian (and US) concept of professional relationships is the exception in the world, not the rule. The majority of the world works on personal relationships, and sometimes that means picking up the tab for lunch.
Acorn
B
Boydfish
Guest
A couple of thoughts on the topic at hand:
#1 - The GG's trips outside of the confederation. The cost of the trips is a bit excessive, but my problem lies with the fact that such a trip is directly incompatible with the job of GG. The GG is supposed to be the Crown's personal representative in the Canadian confederation. If the GG can do thier job from outside the confederation, then we don't need one, because the Crown, resident in Buckingham Palace, could do it then.
The original role of the GG and the LG's were put in place because the executive role of the Crown simply couldn't "execute" in a timely fashion, due to the global nature of the Empire. Today, with modern communication and travel, the role of the GG is quite redundant in many regards. Before it's tossed aside casually, however, it's important to note that in political terms, the Crown and by extention, the GG, is an incredibly stabilizing force. Unlike the Americans or the French, who vest actual political involvement with executive authority, the confederation instead has an apolitical executive. This is one of the major reasons why we don't have the same problem with political assasination that the US has had historically: You cannot effect real political change by killing the GG, nor can you decapitate the government by killing the PM, so assasination is not useful.
#2 - The Queen not being "Canadian". This one is a big myth shoved forward by pro-republic types and has, at best, a sliver of legitimacy. Elizabeth Windsor, the person, not only has defacto citizenship, she personally owns an estate in British Columbia. Not the Crown properties, but an actual estate that she and the other royals use when they visit British Columbia.
#3 - Prince William assuming the role of King of Canada. This is not a new idea. In fact, in the discussion that lead to the Statute of Westminster, there was discussion of scrapping the confederation and having the provinces "re-branded" as the Kingdom of Canada. In the end, the confederation of equal provinces was kept, but with it's own seperate crown, but worn by the same person. One of the big reasons that the idea was not pursued was because the Americans threatened war over the idea: They did not want a resident "King" anywhere in North America. While that's a threat that the US would have surely had problems backing up, the British opted to spare the blood and treasure of both the US and the Empire.
#4 - So Mr.Know-it-all, you have any suggestions or are you just going to spout off? My suggestion would be to scrap the GG position outright. Replace it's constitutional role by "promoting" the provincial LG's to each being Governor Generals appointed by the provincial PM's. Each provincial GG already represents the Crown, which essentially covers the entire confederation in terms of representation. The GG's can take turns signing the acts and bills into law by Royal Assent, with my personal suggestion being that it's determined by the member that put forward the bill's province of representation(Ex. If Paul Martin puts forward a bill, the GG of Quebec signs it in, but if Chuck Cadman puts it forward, BC's GG signs it). A simple vote among the GG's would be required to dissolve the House of Commons, rather than one person "Dropping the writ". This would have an interesting back-door constitutional safety valve effect: If the confederal government goes nuts, the provinces can yank the plug on it, forcing them to go back to the polls. It also ends the silliness of "one from Ontario, one from Quebec" for the GG office by making each province's GG co-equal and giving Albertans, British Columbians and others fair representation in the confederation. Another positive point, it further enhances the apolitical nature of the role, making it less of a risk to political violence.
Oh yeah, one more thing, it would actually cost less, since we already have the LGs, but could take the entire GG budget and apply it speeding up the recruiting process for people joining British Columbian reserve armoured regiments!
#1 - The GG's trips outside of the confederation. The cost of the trips is a bit excessive, but my problem lies with the fact that such a trip is directly incompatible with the job of GG. The GG is supposed to be the Crown's personal representative in the Canadian confederation. If the GG can do thier job from outside the confederation, then we don't need one, because the Crown, resident in Buckingham Palace, could do it then.
The original role of the GG and the LG's were put in place because the executive role of the Crown simply couldn't "execute" in a timely fashion, due to the global nature of the Empire. Today, with modern communication and travel, the role of the GG is quite redundant in many regards. Before it's tossed aside casually, however, it's important to note that in political terms, the Crown and by extention, the GG, is an incredibly stabilizing force. Unlike the Americans or the French, who vest actual political involvement with executive authority, the confederation instead has an apolitical executive. This is one of the major reasons why we don't have the same problem with political assasination that the US has had historically: You cannot effect real political change by killing the GG, nor can you decapitate the government by killing the PM, so assasination is not useful.
#2 - The Queen not being "Canadian". This one is a big myth shoved forward by pro-republic types and has, at best, a sliver of legitimacy. Elizabeth Windsor, the person, not only has defacto citizenship, she personally owns an estate in British Columbia. Not the Crown properties, but an actual estate that she and the other royals use when they visit British Columbia.
#3 - Prince William assuming the role of King of Canada. This is not a new idea. In fact, in the discussion that lead to the Statute of Westminster, there was discussion of scrapping the confederation and having the provinces "re-branded" as the Kingdom of Canada. In the end, the confederation of equal provinces was kept, but with it's own seperate crown, but worn by the same person. One of the big reasons that the idea was not pursued was because the Americans threatened war over the idea: They did not want a resident "King" anywhere in North America. While that's a threat that the US would have surely had problems backing up, the British opted to spare the blood and treasure of both the US and the Empire.
#4 - So Mr.Know-it-all, you have any suggestions or are you just going to spout off? My suggestion would be to scrap the GG position outright. Replace it's constitutional role by "promoting" the provincial LG's to each being Governor Generals appointed by the provincial PM's. Each provincial GG already represents the Crown, which essentially covers the entire confederation in terms of representation. The GG's can take turns signing the acts and bills into law by Royal Assent, with my personal suggestion being that it's determined by the member that put forward the bill's province of representation(Ex. If Paul Martin puts forward a bill, the GG of Quebec signs it in, but if Chuck Cadman puts it forward, BC's GG signs it). A simple vote among the GG's would be required to dissolve the House of Commons, rather than one person "Dropping the writ". This would have an interesting back-door constitutional safety valve effect: If the confederal government goes nuts, the provinces can yank the plug on it, forcing them to go back to the polls. It also ends the silliness of "one from Ontario, one from Quebec" for the GG office by making each province's GG co-equal and giving Albertans, British Columbians and others fair representation in the confederation. Another positive point, it further enhances the apolitical nature of the role, making it less of a risk to political violence.
Oh yeah, one more thing, it would actually cost less, since we already have the LGs, but could take the entire GG budget and apply it speeding up the recruiting process for people joining British Columbian reserve armoured regiments!
- Reaction score
- 4,862
- Points
- 1,160
There is one fundamental problem with any proposal re: the Canadian monarchy and its functions: any such change requires the unanimous agreement of the federal parliament and all provincial legislatures - none of the 7/50 stuff, this is big time unanimity; Québec, Alberta and PEI all have vetoes.Getting rid of the monarchy is more complex than it was in Cromwell's day - just ask the Australians. It appears, to me, that a fairly solid majority of Australians wanted, still want a head of government who is an Australian, not, in other words our gracious sovereign lady nor her son or grandson. Seems reasonable enough to me ... The status quo monarchists won the referendum, though, because the other side could not agree on what form of Windsorless government should be put in place.
My idea is simple: keep the constitutional monarchy, ditch the monarch ... the next one, anyway.
The succession to the thrones of the United Kingdom of Great Britain etc, etc, etc ad infinitum is governed by many Acts of Parliament, the most important being the Act of Settlement of 1701. Some Canadian republicans have tried, unsuccessfully, to have this Act declared unconstitutional in Canada because its base (no Catholics on or even very near the throne) offends our Charter of Rights. Our courts have decided not to deal with the issue but such an interpretation does open the way for a uniquely Canadian solution to the monarchy puzzle - one which does not require a constitutional amendment.
Readers should know that the succession to the throne is not automatic; it requires a conscious action by an official of the government - representing the state. In Britain it is the duty of the Earl Marshal of England to say, at the appropriate moment, something like "The Queen is Dead; God save the King!â ? In Canada, I believe, the duty to proclaim a new head of state (our sovereign) rests with the keeper of the Great Seal of Canada: the Registrar General of Canada who is, also, the Minister of Industry. There is an important constitutional nicety here - the nation chooses its sovereign, not vice versa.
I propose that our functionary - the Minister of Industry - should, at the appropriate moment, say: "the Queen is dead!â ? He (or she) should then go back about the nation's business. The effect of this would be to choose a form of constitutional monarchy known as a regency. Regencies are neither new nor rare - there have been many in British history - they usually occur usually when the monarch is very young or quite mad. There is nor reason, however, that one could not exist just because we don't like the monarch who is 'on offer' by the royal family.
Now to make this work smoothly, and to be polite, too, we should do a few things first:
"¢ Pass a resolution in the House of Commons - not a bill, per se, no royal assent required - saying that since the Act of Settlement of 1701 is, indeed, offensive to the principles of our Charter the Parliament of Canada should consider the proper succession for the Throne of Canada and until that is done the existing line of succession should be held in abeyance;
"¢ Write a nice letter to the Queen, from the Prime Minister - whose [i[advice[/i] she is constitutionally bound to follow - advising her that her son will not, necessarily, be proclaimed as King of Canada until the Parliament of Canada has time and energy enough to wrestle with the issue of the succession; and
"¢ Figure out a better way to select governors general who will, after all, be Canadian heads of the Canadian state since, presumably, we will never get around to wrestling with the issue of succession.
Voila! a monarchless state without a constitutional amendment! No change to the form of government, just some tidying up of the 'bums in seats' issue.
Think of the advantages - we could reduce the envy which characterizes the Canadian regimental system by allowing everyone - even the second best - to wear Queen Victoria's cipher. :
B
Boydfish
Guest
Rusty Old Joint:
I've heard similar proposals before, the problem is that they won't work. They would work if we were a banana republic, but if done in a Westminster democracy, which, both the confederation and the ten provinces all are, it wouldn't work.
First, the "constitution" and the CCRF are all secondary things: The convention of the supreme nature of the Crown, the Parliaments and Legislatures, Assemblies means that Trudeau's docs are pretty pieces of paper and nothing else.
Second, if the Canadian Parliament doesn't proclaim it...who gives a shit? If the BC government proclaims it, the Crown succession is complete as it pertains to BC, Canadian resolutions be damned. Ditto for any other province. As you said, getting 100% agreement ain't going to happen. What makes you think that British Columbians are going to accept whatever regent the Canadian Parliament appoints as the new "Royal Family" of the confederation? It won't be a British Columbian, that's for damn sure and I'd likely guess that thier name would rhyme with "Turd-o". Just what we'd want out west: A Liberal on the throne for life.
Third, I see no evidence that there is a "majority" seeking to drop the basis of our historical system of government.
I've heard similar proposals before, the problem is that they won't work. They would work if we were a banana republic, but if done in a Westminster democracy, which, both the confederation and the ten provinces all are, it wouldn't work.
First, the "constitution" and the CCRF are all secondary things: The convention of the supreme nature of the Crown, the Parliaments and Legislatures, Assemblies means that Trudeau's docs are pretty pieces of paper and nothing else.
Second, if the Canadian Parliament doesn't proclaim it...who gives a shit? If the BC government proclaims it, the Crown succession is complete as it pertains to BC, Canadian resolutions be damned. Ditto for any other province. As you said, getting 100% agreement ain't going to happen. What makes you think that British Columbians are going to accept whatever regent the Canadian Parliament appoints as the new "Royal Family" of the confederation? It won't be a British Columbian, that's for damn sure and I'd likely guess that thier name would rhyme with "Turd-o". Just what we'd want out west: A Liberal on the throne for life.
Third, I see no evidence that there is a "majority" seeking to drop the basis of our historical system of government.
- Reaction score
- 4,862
- Points
- 1,160
I agree that it is, indeed, convention uber alles and the supreme convention is that the monarch reigns and parliament rules. Further, I'm not convinced there is a separate 'throne' of BC, I'm sure BC gets a voice/veto if we change the form of government but I'm not sure anyone cares even a wee tiny bit about what British Columbians may (or may not) think about who gets to sit on the throne of Canada.
B
Boydfish
Guest
There isn't a seperate throne for British Columbia or any of the other nine provinces, nor does there have to be: Once British Columbia, or any other province, declares the new monarch, it's in full force and effect there.
At best, the proposed plan would create a circumstance where you'd have some provinces under the lawful monarch King Charles, others under what we can call the Trudeau regent and maybe a few other permutations as well(Ex. Alberta opts to go for a regent option, just nobody named Trudeau. Or Quebec appoints Bernard Landry as it's regent).
This is important because we're a confederation of ten equal provinces, not a republic or a United Kingdom: The Lieutenant Governor-Generals are not representatives of the GG in the provinces, they are the direct representatives of the monarch in the provinces. If you end up with one province under King Charles, another under Regent Prince Morton of Alberta, another under Regent Prince Landry of Quebec(Plus a few more likely as well) and the confederal government under Regent Prince Trudeau, you end up with some pretty wonky circumstances that would rip the confederation apart in very short order.
In short, there is no way that you'd get enough agreement from the provinces to even attempt your plan.
At best, the proposed plan would create a circumstance where you'd have some provinces under the lawful monarch King Charles, others under what we can call the Trudeau regent and maybe a few other permutations as well(Ex. Alberta opts to go for a regent option, just nobody named Trudeau. Or Quebec appoints Bernard Landry as it's regent).
This is important because we're a confederation of ten equal provinces, not a republic or a United Kingdom: The Lieutenant Governor-Generals are not representatives of the GG in the provinces, they are the direct representatives of the monarch in the provinces. If you end up with one province under King Charles, another under Regent Prince Morton of Alberta, another under Regent Prince Landry of Quebec(Plus a few more likely as well) and the confederal government under Regent Prince Trudeau, you end up with some pretty wonky circumstances that would rip the confederation apart in very short order.
In short, there is no way that you'd get enough agreement from the provinces to even attempt your plan.
Similar threads
