HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


View Poll Results: Monarchy - Keep or Ditch?
Keep 149 52.28%
Ditch 136 47.72%
Voters: 285. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2011, 7:11 AM
ToxiK ToxiK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
I think vid was probably referring to the LG's role in cases of provincial govt crisis and other constitutional roles.

Although that brings up a point, could those roles simply be taken up by the Courts?
Or by anything else that isn't related to the British Crown. It could be a high civil servant trained for that job (in theory, it would be better because a civil servant works for the public while a Lieutenant-Governor works for the Crown).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2011, 6:33 PM
BretttheRiderFan's Avatar
BretttheRiderFan BretttheRiderFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,667
I know popularity of the Queen is a whole lot higher than the popularity of the Prime Minister, so I'd rather have Lizzy as our head of state than Harps any day of the week. I wouldn't mind David Johnston being head of state, however.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2011, 8:55 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoscStudent View Post
I think we could easily manage to have 11 heads of state for less the $50 million a year. Elections could be held during general elections so the cost would be virtually nothing extra and there is no reason for them to live the lifestyles they do now. We'd need to spend roughly $5 million a year for each head of state to equal the cost of what we pay for the monarchy. They also don't need to be elected.

Personally I don't care if we keep the monarchy or not but we could find cost savings in doing so.
I doubt that very much. If you go through the Monarchist League's accounting of the costs of monarchy, you quickly discover that pretty much all the same costs would exist with republican equivalents, if not more so depending on their nature (i.e. elected officials will tend to cost more than unelected ones).

http://monarchist.ca/en/cost-of-the-crown

Cost is frankly a red herring.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2011, 9:39 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix View Post
It would be easier to do than becoming a republic and would likely have the support of most Canadians. As for why it hasn't happened yet, no idea. It was still funny to read about the Monarchist Association of Canada's response to Harry being a possible contender "absurd".
I think the Monarchist League have really shot themselves in the foot with that one. They've just disposed of a really useful middle option in the future. The Crowns are already distinct legal constructs (effectively the Crowns are held in a personal union, though this was not always the case) so it's only a small step to make their bearers separate people. The easy way to do that is to transfer the succession of the 'Maple Crown' to another of Queen Elizabeth's descendants (my preference is Peter Phillips, either in his own right or as regent for his Canadian daughter Savannah).

Quote:
True nationhood. I mean come on, look at our history; went from a bunch of separate colonies to a self-governing Dominion in 1867. Acquired further domestic powers via the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Created our own flag in 1965. Repatriation of the Constitution in 1982. The last step to true nationhood is to sever the last legal threads tying us with Britain with either our own separate monarchy or by becoming a republic.

And this is one of my biggest problems with the monarchy; as you've just clearly illustrated, she's like an outsider looking in. Those things should be a part of her "culture" as our Head of State (who should be born and raised here) instead of what it currently is; some interest in a former colony.
A useful thing about the idea of separating the monarchy is that it breaks one of the main republican arguments as used in Canada: that the monarchy is "foreign". Strictly speaking it's not true, but that's the perception and it requires a heavy degree of pedantism to argue otherwise. With the option of a separate monarchy on the table, republicans would have to engage in a "clean" monarchy-vs-republic argument, rather than being able to win points on the basis of its current "foreigness".
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2011, 9:44 PM
GDS's Avatar
GDS GDS is offline
Always High
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: -=514=-
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I doubt that very much. If you go through the Monarchist League's accounting of the costs of monarchy, you quickly discover that pretty much all the same costs would exist with republican equivalents, if not more so depending on their nature (i.e. elected officials will tend to cost more than unelected ones).

http://monarchist.ca/en/cost-of-the-crown

Cost is frankly a red herring.
No its not - there is no reason to assume that an equivalent is required.

A lean version of a GG that does not travel abroad would greatly reduce personnel, rcmp and dnd costs. Moreover, the link you provided lists 16 million in Program expenditures without giving any indication as to what that is and how it is broken down. Pretty half assed when that represents 85% of the GG budget - I have a hard time believing there is no waste in that.

Without having any effect on services for Canadians, the GG could easily absorb a 20% reduction in operating budget. Moreover, things like the Citadelle should be transfered into a different budget group like Heritage Canada as it clouds the true cost of the GG.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2011, 12:28 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDS View Post
No its not - there is no reason to assume that an equivalent is required.
Then just what person is going to exercise what are currently the reserve powers of the Crown? Placing these in the hands of the first minister is a massive conflict of interest while placing them in the hands of some other person, whether elected or not, is effectively a republican equivalent. You don't have a lot of choices here. You might be able to get away without having equivalents to the LGs by making the GG or its replacement do all the duties of the LGs, but that would seem to come with increased travel costs and less time for ceremonial activities like the awarding of various honours.

Quote:
A lean version of a GG that does not travel abroad would greatly reduce personnel, rcmp and dnd costs.
Well it would, yes, but I would tend to think that as a republic we'd have more foreign travel for our head of state, not less. The GG, as the Queen's representative in Canada, is not really expected to travel abroad, but our would-be head of state in a republic might well be expected to do more of that.

Quote:
Moreover, the link you provided lists 16 million in Program expenditures without giving any indication as to what that is and how it is broken down. Pretty half assed when that represents 85% of the GG budget - I have a hard time believing there is no waste in that.
Check it again. You'll find that they broke it all down in the first list, then presented it in a second way ("Another way of Breaking down the budgetary allowance of the Governor General is as follows:"). That's why the totals are the same in both. Besides, the accompanying text provides even more information on what those funds are used for:

"Governor General’s Office was granted $19,149,541 as an operating budget. These funds provide “for the payment of the Governor General’s salary, for the costs of the Governor General’s annual program including visits within Canada and abroad, for citizen access and visitors’ services program at Rideau Hall and the operation of the office and residences.” The federal government also allocates monies to the Office of the Governor General for the Honours Program. This provides for “the administration of programs in the National Honours system,” which includes the Order of Canada, the Order of Military Merit, the Meritorious Service Decorations, Bravery Decorations, the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, and certain other recognitions to citizens, such as the Caring Canadians Award."

If you do a little calculating, you'll find that something like $11.4M of the $16.5M in program expenditures is actually personnel costs. That's probably somewhere in the range of 100-150 personnel.

Quote:
Without having any effect on services for Canadians, the GG could easily absorb a 20% reduction in operating budget.
Maybe, but I would suspect that the honours would be hit.

Quote:
Moreover, things like the Citadelle should be transfered into a different budget group like Heritage Canada as it clouds the true cost of the GG.
I think you need to read the report a little more carefully:

"The expenses incurred in maintaining and running La Citadelle are covered by the budget of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. For 2006-2007 the overall cost was $1,096,430.21"

It's the Monarchist League itself that has pulled in the cost of the Citadelle as a cost of monarchy since it is an official residence. They could choose to not include it I suppose but then they might be accused of not fully accounting for the cost of monarchy. At any rate, whether we are a monarchy or a republic, we would be bearing the cost of the Citadelle unless we sold it off.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2011, 1:49 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretttheRiderFan View Post
Keep the monarchy

Change the rule of succesion, so that the crown goes to the first born of the monarch, not necessarily the first male born.
The UK has been trying to get the other realms to do that, but obviously not very hard. I think they want all the realms to recognize it that way when they recognize Prince Charles as King.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
Although that brings up a point, could those roles simply be taken up by the Courts?
They're too slow to act. You need someone who understands precedent, because unlike the US, many aspects of our constitution aren't codified, they're simply tradition and precedent that must be learned and understood by people in positions of authority.

Although given some choices of Governor General and Lieutenant Governor in the past 25 years, I'm not sure if that is entirely important. Part of the cost of those positions is in having staff to research what to do in certain scenarios if they come up, but you'd still need someone to make and execute a decision. Every government has an executive branch and chief executive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToxiK View Post
Or by anything else that isn't related to the British Crown. It could be a high civil servant trained for that job (in theory, it would be better because a civil servant works for the public while a Lieutenant-Governor works for the Crown).
But these days, it is considered that the Crown also works for the public. When you consider that Prince William basically can't be anything but king, in a way it is the ultimate civil service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GDS View Post
No its not - there is no reason to assume that an equivalent is required.
When a law is passed, you need someone in a position of authority to execute that law. That is what a president or governor does.

Minnesota is not led by "Head Civil Servant Jane Smith". It is lead by "The Governor of Minnesota".

Quote:
Originally Posted by GDS View Post
A lean version of a GG that does not travel abroad would greatly reduce personnel, rcmp and dnd costs.
Yes, and Barack Obama would be cheaper if he didn't travel, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GDS View Post
Moreover, the link you provided lists 16 million in Program expenditures without giving any indication as to what that is and how it is broken down. Pretty half assed when that represents 85% of the GG budget - I have a hard time believing there is no waste in that.
Governors have programmes too. Mike Huckabee had his "let's all get healthy" project when he was Alabama governor. That came out of his Governor budget. Abolishing the monarchy and its viceroys won't change those kinds of things. Actually, since I can't think of any equivalents in Canada, these pet projects would likely make the executive branch more expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
You might be able to get away without having equivalents to the LGs by making the GG or its replacement do all the duties of the LGs, but that would seem to come with increased travel costs and less time for ceremonial activities like the awarding of various honours.
It would cause problems with throne speeches as well. All the provinces have them, too, and since they're all switching to fixed election dates in the fall, their throne speeches will be falling on similar dates. October/November will be a very busy, cross country expedition for an overarching Governor General.

Also, the Crown is considered to apply to the provinces separate of the Federal Government. Technically, the Queen is also Queen of Ontario, Queen of Alberta, etc. The same viceroy can't represent 11 monarchs.

Also, the viceroy must be up-to-date on the government activity. But then, the Queen stays up to date on the activities of 16 realms while Canada only has 11 equivalents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2011, 2:39 AM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
It would cause problems with throne speeches as well. All the provinces have them, too,
All but one - Quebec. The lg, so far as I can tell, never actually enters the National Assembly Chamber.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2011, 3:48 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Well Quebec is différent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2011, 6:21 AM
ToxiK ToxiK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post

But these days, it is considered that the Crown also works for the public. When you consider that Prince William basically can't be anything but king, in a way it is the ultimate civil service.
The Prince could abdicate and retire. I think he can afford it

All I am saying is that we could abolish the Lieutenant-Governor and hire a top public servant at half the salary and a third of the operation budget to do the same job and no one would see the difference (except that we would look less like a British colony, and in Québec that would mean a lot).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2011, 6:17 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToxiK View Post
All I am saying is that we could abolish the Lieutenant-Governor and hire a top public servant at half the salary and a third of the operation budget to do the same job and no one would see the difference.
When has the government ever successfully abolished a position and replaced it with a less skilled individual with a third of the budget? If anything, we'll end up with 14 civil servants doing the same thing for six times as much, and they'll all get bonuses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2011, 7:48 PM
blacktrojan3921's Avatar
blacktrojan3921 blacktrojan3921 is offline
Regina rhymes with fun!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 887
Keep it, if we ditch the monarchy and end up being a U.S. clone, I'm moving to Cuba >:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2011, 10:15 PM
ToxiK ToxiK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
When has the government ever successfully abolished a position and replaced it with a less skilled individual with a third of the budget? If anything, we'll end up with 14 civil servants doing the same thing for six times as much, and they'll all get bonuses.
The Lieutenant-Governor isn't nominated for skills, but for political reasons. It is symbolic and we spend to much money on that symbol, especially since it is a symbol from another country. Change the title of the job for a public servant one and cut the budget and the job will still be done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2011, 11:05 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToxiK View Post
The Lieutenant-Governor isn't nominated for skills, but for political reasons. It is symbolic and we spend to much money on that symbol, especially since it is a symbol from another country. Change the title of the job for a public servant one and cut the budget and the job will still be done.
Here are the responsibilities of Lieutenant Governor. These are the roles that you want to be undertaken by a high ranking bureaucrat with a greatly reduced budget:

• Guarantee continuous and stable government
• Act as a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power
• Be the core of authority within the province
• Appoint the premier and cabinet
• Announce proclamations and orders-in-council (our equivalent of an executive order)
• Appoint judges
• Summon the legislature
• Read the speech from the throne (our equivalent of a state of the union address)
• Prorogue or dissolve parliament
• Signs bills into law
• Host foreign heads of state
• Meet with the people of the province (Obama was in Rock Island, IL the other day, so travelling just to give speeches isn't exclusive to monarchies)
• Present medals and bestow honours (pretty much every country does this)

I have trouble seeing a bureaucrat, even a top bureaucrat, undertake these responsibilities.

All of these points would require constitutional changes of not the monarchy, but the nature of the executive branch. At this point we aren't even debating whether Canada should be a constitutional monarchy or not. We're now debating whether or not the government should have a proper executive branch, and how that branch should work if it will exist. You're talking about reform of a branch of government here, not simply the nature of our head of state.

I would be open to changing the head of state to a republican system, but I am not open to abolishing the position entirely or replacing it with a bureaucrat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2011, 4:13 AM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
I'll be honest, the throngs of people ecstatic over Will and Kate and proclaiming how much they love them, on Canada Day, makes me ill.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2011, 6:30 AM
habfanman habfanman is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,122
So I guess all of you pro monarchists are OK with this:

The head of state of Canada must also be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, therefore: Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, non Church of England Protestants, Agnostics, Atheists etc. etc. need not apply. And females can forget about if they have an older male sibling.

CANADIANS NEED NOT APPLY! Canadians themselves can never aspire to be the head of state of their own nation. Our head of state can only ever be an Anglican Protestant Brit, preferably male.

Is this something that we should supporting in 21st century Canada?

I'd really like to see a monarchist defend the hereditary selection process.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2011, 6:44 AM
habfanman habfanman is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Here are the responsibilities of Lieutenant Governor. These are the roles that you want to be undertaken by a high ranking bureaucrat with a greatly reduced budget:

• Guarantee continuous and stable government
• Act as a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power
• Be the core of authority within the province
• Appoint the premier and cabinet
• Announce proclamations and orders-in-council (our equivalent of an executive order)
• Appoint judges
• Summon the legislature
• Read the speech from the throne (our equivalent of a state of the union address)
• Prorogue or dissolve parliament
• Signs bills into law
• Host foreign heads of state
• Meet with the people of the province (Obama was in Rock Island, IL the other day, so travelling just to give speeches isn't exclusive to monarchies)
• Present medals and bestow honours (pretty much every country does this)

I have trouble seeing a bureaucrat, even a top bureaucrat, undertake these responsibilities.

All of these points would require constitutional changes of not the monarchy, but the nature of the executive branch. At this point we aren't even debating whether Canada should be a constitutional monarchy or not. We're now debating whether or not the government should have a proper executive branch, and how that branch should work if it will exist. You're talking about reform of a branch of government here, not simply the nature of our head of state.

I would be open to changing the head of state to a republican system, but I am not open to abolishing the position entirely or replacing it with a bureaucrat.
Oh please, any trained monkey can fulfill the responsibilities of lieutenant governor, it's the most ridiculous of rubber stamp positions. Hardly anybody knows or cares about who their provincial lieutenant governor is. They do the rubber chicken circuit, with everybody saying "Who the fuck was that?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2011, 6:50 AM
habfanman habfanman is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921 View Post
Keep it, if we ditch the monarchy and end up being a U.S. clone, I'm moving to Cuba >:
Yeah, like we're not already a U.S. clone and the U.S. is the only republic on the face of the earth. We wouldn't wan't to be too much like impoverished, backwards-ass Germany, for example.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2011, 6:53 AM
habfanman habfanman is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
I'll be honest, the throngs of people ecstatic over Will and Kate and proclaiming how much they love them, on Canada Day, makes me ill.
I found it extremely embarrassing. It took a couple of British pop stars for us to have a record number of people to show up for Canada Day. Pathetic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2011, 8:22 AM
ToxiK ToxiK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Here are the responsibilities of Lieutenant Governor. These are the roles that you want to be undertaken by a high ranking bureaucrat with a greatly reduced budget:

• Guarantee continuous and stable government
• Act as a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power
• Be the core of authority within the province
• Appoint the premier and cabinet
• Announce proclamations and orders-in-council (our equivalent of an executive order)
• Appoint judges
• Summon the legislature
• Read the speech from the throne (our equivalent of a state of the union address)
• Prorogue or dissolve parliament
• Signs bills into law
• Host foreign heads of state
• Meet with the people of the province (Obama was in Rock Island, IL the other day, so travelling just to give speeches isn't exclusive to monarchies)
• Present medals and bestow honours (pretty much every country does this)

I have trouble seeing a bureaucrat, even a top bureaucrat, undertake these responsibilities.

All of these points would require constitutional changes of not the monarchy, but the nature of the executive branch. At this point we aren't even debating whether Canada should be a constitutional monarchy or not. We're now debating whether or not the government should have a proper executive branch, and how that branch should work if it will exist. You're talking about reform of a branch of government here, not simply the nature of our head of state.

I would be open to changing the head of state to a republican system, but I am not open to abolishing the position entirely or replacing it with a bureaucrat.
Habfanman answered before me; many of these tasks can be done by anyone. Some of them could be done by a computer. Apointing people is just officializing a decision made by someone else (someone with real power). Replace the rubber stamp by a printer and voilà.

Your best argument is that it would be very difficult to ditch the monarchy. Constititional changes for a symbol... If we want to make changes in the Constitution, I am sure there are a lot of other things that are more important and that would be more worthy of the time and energy spent.

But if we chose to make some changes, I still say get rid of the monarchy.
(And would getting rid of the Lieutenant-Governors by the provinces who want it really needs a constitutional change? I mean, it is not the General-Governor).
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:04 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.