Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  12 ... 16  Next

You're absolutely right.

The Queen herself costs Canada nothing. The only thing we pay for are her official visits when WE ourselves invite her here. And the services provided by the GG are necessary in any country and if we were a republic they would be carried out by the same sort of office only with a different name.

There's no reason to get rid of the Queen. Canada is a part of the former British Empire, what is now the Commonwealth. That's who we are. If you really really want to live in a republic, there are a few I can suggest you move to.

   

If we were a republic, the president will replace the Honor Prime Minister, so we will save all GG's costs.

   

On that case the GG will be the first out of the office.

   

No, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Everything the GG does has to be done by someone, if not her it would be the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister already has a full time job with what he does now (i.e. running the country). Therefore, we would have to replace the office of GG with a president, but this president would not actually run the country. He'd go around cutting ribbons just like the GG does.

If you're talking about replacing altogether our system of government with something that more closely resembles the US gov, forget it. It isn't possible. No government would ever vote to make itself redundant.

   

I say this to any anti-royal's out there... leave my Queen alone! Canada can be Canada just fine without having to get rid of mum's finest daughter.

   

its true that the Queen doesnt cost Canadians daily but the Queen and the other royals cost on occassion and the GG does daily...--Contrary to common misconception, Canadians do not pay any money to the Queen, either for personal income or to support the royal residences outside of Canada. Only when the Queen is in Canada, or acting abroad as Queen of Canada, does she draw from Canadian coffers for support in the performance of her duties. This rule applies equally to other members of the Royal Family.[16] Usually the Queen's Canadian governments pay only for the costs associated with the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors in their exercising of the powers of the Crown on behalf of the Queen, including travel, security, residences, offices, ceremonial occasions, etc.[16]

Provincial and federal records of expenditures associated with the Crown are kept, but no official report on the cost of the monarchy to Canadians is compiled. However, every three years the Monarchist League of Canada issues a survey, based on various federal and provincial government budgets, expenditures and estimates, that outlines a yearly cost for the functioning of the Crown. The 2005 survey found that the institution cost Canadians roughly $49 million in 2004.[17]

Previous surveys found that the overall cost of the Canadian Crown was $22 million in 1999,[18] and $34 million in 2002.[16][19] (This does not take into account the inflation of the Canadian Dollar over these years.)

   

a few million here a few million there.... it all ads up.... cheerio....

   

And nearly all of those costs would still be present in a republic, unless you advocate simply having no head of state. What costs, other than the incidental royal visit (which would still happen, just as a visit from a foreign royal family on a diplomatic trip), would not be present in the hypothetical Republic of Canada?

Almost all countries have a resident head of state or de facto head of state. They all cost money. That isn't going to change.

Even if the PM was combined with the GG to make some hideous creation, that person would still have to perform more duties, and the ones he or she couldn't do would be split up among lower functionaries. Everything would still be there, just divided into smaller portions.

   

I’d have to disagree with getting rid of the Queen for one simple reason. Some a-hole somewhere would get the bright idea to put P.E.T. on our money. I’m sorry but I just can’t let that happen.

   

Score one for the Monarchy.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/01/22/ot-queen-080122.html

   

It is possible to maintian British colonial tradiotions while persuing Republicanisation: the GG office can be democratised and given the powers of the monarchy.



Elizabeth II 's title is Queen of Canada; we are a soverign nation. Canada does should make the GG head of state and become a constituional republic based on the Cahrter and British Common Law.

   

Yes the office of GG is neccesary and other then appointment through elections rather then by the Queen on PM's recomendation the office does not requirte change.

But should we have to invite our head of state to come occassionally, should we have an office,attainable though birthright which gives the holder, free flights, not because it is in the national intrest or because it was earned, but because of decent. So long as we do this we are not a true democracy.

   

If the Queen is our primary obstacle on the road to being a "true democracy" (whatever that means) I'd say we've done a pretty good job.

Personally, I think it's insulting and rude to the people to have a "democratically" elected figurehead. It's no more than an expensive process and the illusion of democracy where none will exist. That would be more of a smokescreen than anything else. "Look, I have your mandate but I can't actually do a damn thing to enforce it!"

   

Why should we. If that's what you believe, then say why others ought to agree with you.

Canada's government works very well the way it is now. Who ever heard of replacing something that works?

And the GG cannot be an elected figure. That just cannot work. An elected GG named as head of state would be receiving legitimacy to actually govern, and their comfort in exercising the largely traditional constitutional powers would compromise the Prime Minister's authority, required in his job of actually heading the government.

Just for this reason, a GG would always need to be appointed by the PM (the way he or she would be now). But when you also consider that the position of the Queen, and by consequence the GG, is to be a non-politicised, non-partisan symbol of the Canadian people, then making the position an elected office compromises this purpose completely.

Every visit by the Monarch is a tourist event that gives an enormously healthy boost to any local economy it is held in. The money spent by the Department of Canadian Heritage to organise a Royal visit, is money well spent in terms of the economic benefits seen in return. Royal visits are extremely popular events not only with Canadians, but also Americans, all with money in their pockets ready to shop, eat in restaurants, stay in hotels etc... I just don't see a problem with that.

As far as that position being hereditary, I sort of don't even care. I know it doesn't seem 'fair', but their powerless roll only seems to make that insignificant. I would be angry about that if they actually governed, but when you don't even pay them anything you have to ask yourself why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

The person we actually do pay earns their appointment through accomplishment and excellence in an important career pursued before that appointment.

I'm proud of Canada'a traditions and distinctiveness in North America as a Constitutional Monarchy. That compels me to be against most talk of eliminating it.

   

The current system is an insult to every Canadian citizen; there is no constiutional limitation on the GG doing actuall work and if the GG was elected an active role would be not only acceptable but demanded.

   

Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  12 ... 16  Next