Why is Canada still a constitutional monarchy?

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why bother with national monuments? Why bother with stupid museums that need to be publicly-funded?

Ahhh, I see. Straw men are fun!

National monuments would be CANADIAN monuments.
I would be staunchy opposed to funding a BRITISH National Monument in Ottawa. That's not my country. Same goes for paying for British heads of state.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The alternative is to have the federal government own every piece of land in Canada...

Yes, as opposed to an elderly British lady.

Sounds good to me.
Considering the theory is you elect who gets to own your land.

[KrazyHorse]

Asher seems to think that getting rid of the monarchy is justifiable because it may or may not save some ridiculously small amount of money (<100 million? <10 million?). It's an important institution and is "part of our heritage".

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The alternative is to have the federal government own every piece of land in Canada...

Would someone mind explaining me why the government/Queen actually needs to own every single piece of land in Canada?

[KrazyHorse]

They aren't British monuments: the Queen is Queen of Canada too.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Asher seems to think that getting rid of the monarchy is justifiable because it may or may not save some ridiculously small amount of money (<100 million? <10 million?). It's an important institution and is "part of our heritage".

KH, this is precisely why the liberals need to get out of power.

What's 100M here, 100M there? It's all small beans.

Go figure that the current government "misplaced" $1B in funds, "accidentally" transfered $4B extra funds to various provinces (Quebec got several billion extra, IIRC, which is not surprising considering where Chretien is from...)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Would someone mind explaining me why the government/Queen actually needs to own every single piece of land in Canada?

The federal government exercises ultimate sovereignty over its demesne, thus "owning" it. If the government wished, it could expropriate every single acre of land (after having passed the required Amendments and laws).

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
They aren't British monuments: the Queen is Queen of Canada too.

Is not. This is one of the loopholes I've talked about.

The Queen has been to Canada once in her life (or was it twice?).

We don't need her, she's not Canadian, let's amputate our ties to her.

[KrazyHorse]

Cost-benefit analysis. Now. Then you have to ask Canadians whether or not they feel the costs (if any) are greater than the immaterial benefits they feel they enjoy due to our constitutional status.

[ravagon]

Re: Re: Re: Why is Canada still a constitutional monarchy?

Originally posted by Asher
Like having the Queen actually own every piece of land in Canada. That's ridiculous, and shouldn't be.

That's a technicality though surely and only applies to public land?
When the British royals had to budget down recently it wasn't bits of Canada they were getting rid of (unless they did try and the US just didn't meet the reserve price )

Originally posted by Asher
Says who?
What republic-related expenses would be added? We've paying the cost for republic-related expenses on top of the useless symbolic monarchy expenses. Why oh why?

Says common sense I would have thought ... Can you really see the government suddenly freeing up funds for public health when they have the excuse (real or not) to spend it on the "new" head of state?
Maybe Canadian politicians are different from the rest of the worlds but I wouldn't bank on them being that different...

[Tingkai]

About the only big cost is the G-G and L-Gs, but if we got rid of the Queen, we might very well end up with a system that still has a G-G by another name (e.g. a Prime Minister and a President like many other nations).

The cost of trying to make the change would be horrendous. Things of how many Royal Commissions it would take. Think about how long we would be arguing over this change.

We have enough problems in Canada without opening this can of worms.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Cost-benefit analysis. Now. Then you have to ask Canadians whether or not they feel the costs (if any) are greater than the immaterial benefits they feel they enjoy due to our constitutional status.

Costs: >$1
Benefits: $0

Therefore, it is wise to get rid of it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Is not. This is one of the loopholes I've talked about.

The Queen has been to Canada once in her life (or was it twice?).

We don't need her, she's not Canadian, let's amputate our ties to her.

She's Queen of Canada whether or not she's here. She's Queen of Scotland and Wales and N. Ireland and Australia and N. Zealand etc. all at the same time. Monuments to the monarchy in Canada are Canadian monuments by default.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is Canada still a constitutional monarchy?

Originally posted by ravagon
Says common sense I would have thought ... Can you really see the government suddenly freeing up funds for public health when they have the excuse (real or not) to spend it on the "new" head of state?
Maybe Canadian politicians are different from the rest of the worlds but I wouldn't bank on them being that different...

They already SPEND it on our head of state, Chretien.

There's no new money to spend by cutting symbolic ties to Britain. But there is money to be saved.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The federal government exercises ultimate sovereignty over its demesne, thus "owning" it. If the government wished, it could expropriate every single acre of land (after having passed the required Amendments and laws).

And it has such great power for what reason?