The way I see it, the Monarchy costs us money. On the other hand, the money is all spent here in Canada (that I know of). And it is spent on such things as hosting parties for visiting diplomats and foreign leaders. <br /> <br />Maybe I'm a little bitter that I don't get the job of partying with people from all over the world. But I'm with you lesouris, the monarchy isn't that important. <br /> <br />I don't believe that the Governor General could successfully intervene against the will of the people. The position is decorative in function, even if there are more powers than that in theory. I don't think it's worth dwelling on. We'd be more wise to spend our time and resources reworking the Canadian Code of Law to give it a logical structure so that people actually understand the laws.

   

While I respect my heritage, I have some difficulty seeing where the Monarchy fits into a modern Canadian nation. <br /> <br />I think we need to cut the last few ties that bind.

   

Calumny, I tend to agree with you on this. I know the monarchy alienates hardline Quebec sovereigntists. And it should be on the list of things to reform. I just believe that we should put it way down the list because there are structures in Canada that actually have an impact on every day life that are in desperate need of reform first. The example of the Code of Law is one, as well as the overall governance of our country (ie: the money and responsibility to provide a service should exist at the same level of government), our environmental policies, our defunct military, and our continentalist trade pacts with the US. These are issues that, if resolved wisely, could empower our nation and allow people to actually live by their values rather than struggling to tread water in a rapidly inundating world. <br /> <br />The monarchy should probably be scrapped (and replaced with an elected governor general), but the resulting benefit doesn't justify the waste of energy of achieving it at this time.

   

It costs us relatively little and the GG does spread a fair bit of goodwill and so on. If we got rid of the monarchy we'd likely replace that position with something else, so the savings wouldn't be huge. <br /> <br />Why not stick with it? It seems easier than a huge battle to get rid of it.

   

I don't think it's a priority nor an issue worth battling over. However, it's difficult to fully reconcile Canadian sovereignty with a continuing tie to the Monarchy. <br /> <br />Given the upcoming group of royals, its difficult to view any ongoing attachment to the Monarchy as having more pros than cons.

   

The Monarchy is part of our heritage. Kind of like the Pope with who our country maintain certain relationships. Some people actually care about this kind of stuff and I don't think it causes any harm to keep it (in perspective). The Monarchy can be useful in the event of major trauma to nations when people seek a higher authority to speak to them. She has done it before on a few occasions. Hirohito did the same in Japan. I personally do not think she should be on our money anymore. It is unfortunate however that there seems to be nobody of the stature of Queen Elizabeth to carry on. Finally I will remind everyone that Queen Victoria asked that no harm be done to our First Nations people. And this should still stand for something??? Can we just dump our heritage because we do not see the value of the day?

   

On a simplistic level, it's similar to what sometimes happen when young people first move out on their own. For the first while they may return often to do laundry, have dinner, etc.. In the most obvious sense, they've left and begun to establish their independance, but in another sense, they haven't entirely left and remain to some degree dependent. <br /> <br />To become fully adult, it's a necessary step at some point to cut the dependency tie to parents. This doesn't mean you're discarding everything your parents have given or done, because these will be part of your being, and there may be regrets and feeling of loss on both sides (okay, more 'whoopee' on the parent's side). What it does mean is that you're becoming, or are, an adult. <br /> <br />Some of our problems arise from remaining tied to paradigms that may have given value at earlier time but are counter-productive in a current time. The U.S. 2nd amendment may be such an example, in that in the current day it has been warped into supporting ideas that were probably not the intent of the authors, but, as the constitution, is viewed in near religious terms as the basic principles supporting the foundation of the nation, what do you do with it? <br /> <br />How to escape paradigms that have formed the basis of who we are but which have, in the intervening period between birth and present, become counter-productive is one of the most difficult questions for an individual and nation to answer.

   

Repatriation of the constitution was apparently a good thing but did not seem to work all that well, with hindsight. <br /> <br />How is keeping some symbolic linkage to the Monarchy counter-productive? I personally do not care much about the Queen, but some people do and I will respect that.

   

I personally like the monarchy. I'm not trying to anger the people of Quebec but there is something about having the monarchy in Canada that makes our country feel more noble. If the monarchy does indeed start affecting our sovereignty even more as the years go on, then I say get rid of it. <br />Side Note: I like the title of our leader as Prime Minister better than the title President! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

   

There are countries in the world that have a prime minister and don't have a monarchy like Italy for instance. We should get rid of the queen because it's ridiculous to still have her all over our money. If we did become a republic it wouldn't mean that we can't still keep the title of prime minister.

   

Okay...hypothetical question: let's say the monarchy is scrapped in the UK, as her now largest realm, should Canada welcome the Queen and abolish the position of the GG? <br /> <br />If Canada did become a republic, what would our head of state be called? Would we retain the Governor General postion? Would we convert to a presidency separate from the post of Prime Minister? Would we merge the PM with the GG into a presidency? Would we even call it a president or use a different term to help Canadians differentiate between the American and Canadian positions? What would we call it in that situation? <br /> <br />(btw I support the monarchy, but for a really stupid reason; I just like how everthing in Canada is "Royal", it makes us sound so cool, like the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Ontario Museum, the Royal Bank, et cetera) <br /> <br />I also think we should take the Queen off all of the money, except the penny...I mean the penny has no real purpose, the monarchy has no real purpose, they <i>used</i> to be important, but not so much anymore.

   

I personally am an ardent Republican! Canada deserves better, I think it is insulting how some monarchists say that it will make us "less Canadian" or "more American". How can us being "less British" make us "less Canadian". We are our own nation and therefore we deserve our own head of state, elected, CANADIAN and responsible only to the people of Canada. I wrote an article for my paper on the subject and I'm going to submit it as an article under politics, look for it!

   

The Constitution of Canada declares that the Government of Canada and the Command in Chief of the Forces are vested in the Queen. Her Majesty is one of three parts of the Parliament of Canada (Queen, Senate and Commons). She is Sovereign of the Order of Canada, Sovereign of the Order of Military Merit, Colonel-in-Chief of numerous units of the Canadian Forces, Honorary Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Patron of many institutions and organisations in various walks of Canadian life. <br /> <br />The Canadian statute entitled The Interpretation Act clearly defines the Crown. It says: "...'the Crown' means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth". <br /> <br />The Queen succeeded to the Throne in 1952. She assumed the separate title "Queen of Canada" by Act of Her Canadian Parliament 1953. Was crowned 1953. Became the first Sovereign to open the Parliament of Canada in person 1965. proclaimed the National Flag of Canada 1965. Presided at the Centenary of Canadian Confederation 1967. Opened the Montreal Olympics 1976. Celebrated Her Silver Jubilee in Ottawa 1977. Proclaimed the revised Constitution of Canada 1982. Created Canadian Heraldic Authority 1987. Presided over Canada Day Celebrations, Parliament Hill, 1990 & 1992. <br /> <br />Canada Has Always Been A Monarchy <br /> <br />From the days of earliest settlement the only form of society Canadians have known has been a monarchy. The native people themselves had a tribal idea of kingship. Our tradition of monarchy was French and British and became, as it now is, distinctly Canadian. In 1867 Canadians freely and deliberately reaffirmed their allegiance to the Monarchy. They have done so at each subsequent stage in their political development. <br /> <br />Monarchy Or Republic <br /> <br />The Queen of Canada is more democratic than a President of Canada ever could be because she represents all Canadians. An elected president would owe his selection to a political faction, and this would publicly divide him from many of his countrymen and would make his claim to represent "the people" less convincing. Frequent selections of presidents would interrupt the continuity essential for an effective head of our country. The Queen and her heirs have been trained from birth for one vocation -- that of discharging the duties of sovereign of Canada. Therefore, they are the only Canadians fit to assume this important position. <br /> <br />Monarchy And Federalism <br /> <br />An appointed President, or Governor-General can only be a figure of the central government. The Queen, however, transcends and encompasses both central and provincial governments. She is non-partisan between levels of government as well as political parties and therefore is indispensable to the federal system. At Regina in 1978 the ten Premiers stated: "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." Monarchy makes the Provinces in their fields of jurisdiction as potent as the Federal authority, thus allowing for a flexible federalism. <br /> <br />Monarchical Government <br /> <br />Constitutional monarchy alone is capable of integrating the executive, legislative and judicial functions of government. The Crown’s authority lends a universal legitimacy to the many particular decisions made by and at different levels of government. Constitutional monarchy allows the celebration of public social events, such as the marking of collective anniversaries and the bestowal of honours, to be free of the taint of partisan politics. In a world of rapid social change, where there is a price to be paid for uncertainty, be that price only economic, constitutional monarchy provides continuity, especially at time of political transition. <br /> <br />As well, the Monarchy gives Canada a distinctive political system at a time of strong North American Continental trade, social and cultural influences. <br /> <br />Monarchy For The 20th And 21st Centuries <br /> <br />Most of the stable and prosperous democracies in the world today are constitutional monarchies. On the other hand, most of the unstable countries in the contemporary world are republics, many of which have overthrown their monarchies. The republics of history were born into violence, whereas kings usually are born into their position through an act of love. There is a sense of easy communication between monarchy and people, which politicians by nature are unable to develop. Canadians participate fully in their Queen’s life; they are involved in her activities during home-comings and through the media. he and her family have visited more parts of Canada than most Canadians. Many newcomers to Canada have come from countries with monarchies. They readily identify with our Canadian Monarchy which is a living institution of the twentieth century, constantly changing and adapting to our modern way of life. Moreover, the colour and ceremony which surround the Monarchy attract the interest of Canadians, especially young people, in our process of government. <br /> <br />This Land Is Their Land <br /> <br />The Royal Family’s personal ties with Canada began with our history. The first member to be present in the new land was King George III’s son Prince William (William IV) who arrived in Newfoundland in 1786. Queen Victoria’s father, the Duke of Kent, during his nine years’ residence here from 1791 to 1800, prepared the military defences that warded off the invader in 1812. The 1860 tour of the Prince of Wales (Edward VII) cut through sectional differences -- especially in the Maritimes -- and hastened Confederation. Princess Louise played a role in the Canadian cultural flowering in the latter pat of the nineteenth century: the Royal Canadian Academy and the National Gallery of Canada are both associated with her. Another Prince of Wales (Edward VIII) made a triumphant cross-Canada tour in 1919 and helped bring unity to a Canadian society sadly divided by class strife following the Winnipeg General Strike. In our own time, Prince Philip as President of the Canadian Medical Association in 1959 stimulated a concern for physical fitness among Canadians. His Duke of Edinburgh’s Award established here in 1963 has involved thousands of Canadian youth. In 1977 the Duke of York (Prince Andrew) attended school in Canada. A major biographer of the Queen has commented that not only is Her Majesty Queen of Canada in law but that she also feels Canadian. On her first tour of Canada in 1951 as Princess Elizabeth, the Queen commented that the warmth of the welcome Canadians had given her "made us feel how truly we belong to Canada". In 1978, she declared in Edmonton "I am getting to know our country rather well". On Parliament Hill in 1990 after the collapse of the Meech Lake negotiations, she reminded Canadians, "I am no fair weather friend" thus asserting the Monarch’s concern for Canada in difficult times as well as happy times. <br /> <br />Hereditary? <br /> <br />Perhaps Canadian historian Jacques Monet has said it best. "...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." <br /> <br />The Governor-General <br /> <br />The Governor-General is the Queen of Canada’s personal representative in Canada. Canada shares its monarch with many other countries, countries with whom we have a common legal and constitutional history in the Commonwealth. Normally the Queen resides in her most ancient realm, the United Kingdom, but she is regularly present in her newer kingdoms around the world. When she is not in Canada, the Governor-General exercises the Queen’s prerogative powers, as empowered by the Letters Patent issued by King George VI in 1947. These powers, however, belong to the Queen, not to the Governor-General. For example, the Governor-General represents the Queen in Parliament but is not himself a part of Parliament. In addition, the Governor-General exercises certain other functions that are conferred upon him by Parliament in his capacity as administrator of the Government of Canada on behalf of the Queen. The Constitution of Canada recognises two distinct positions, that of Queen and that of Governor-General. The position of Governor-General is subordinate to and derived from that of the Queen. Although the popular expression "head of State" is sometimes used to refer to the Queen and to the Governor-General, the Governor-General as representative of the Queen is clearly not a head of state. He carries out the duties of the head of state but is not himself one. Nor does the Governor-General "advise" the Queen. He either acts as the Queen or is a channel of advice from the Prime Minister to the Queen. The Fathers of Confederation wished the Sovereign to play an active role in the Canadian Constitution, even though at that time distance prevented the reigning monarch from being physically present. This is clear from resolution number 4 of the Quebec Resolutions (the principles on which the Constitution of Canada was based), stating that the Government is "to be administered ... by the Sovereign personally or by the Representative of the Sovereign duly authorised". The Fathers were determined to have the Sovereign at the head of their Canadian kingdom, not just an appointed official with the somewhat colonial sounding title of Governor-General. The Governor-General has an extremely important function, although that is seriously impaired if the holder does not consciously carry it out as representative of the Queen.