I'm off to North America for a month soon, mainly the USA, but start in Toronto. I've hence focussed most of my research into the USA and haven't given much thought about Canada. However, I've done some tonight which got me thinking about why Canadians still accept Queen Elizabeth (British Royals) as their monarch. I don't understand that at all, except as a minority view. So, what's the score? Why aren't you (Canadians) a republic yet? Etc..

Feel free to move this to the politics forum, but I've started this thread merely to acquire understanding of the Canadian mindset in the 21st century. I'm not here to slag off anyone nor offering any theories, solutions. I'm merely a tourist trying to make sense of a destination before I get there.

I ask myself the same thing from time to time.

felltoearth wrote:I ask myself the same thing from time to time.

I'd genuinely like to hear you express your opinions, positive or negative. I mean, you're Canadian and I'm seeking opinions from Canadians.

I don’t mind the Monarchy as far as ceremony goes etc. I don’t mind tax dollars going to the GG. Trudeau repatriated the Canadian constitution in 82 so Canada has a bit more self-determination than before that date.
It goes beyond the pale however when it is used for political machinations, such a proroguing parliament to avoid debate and votes on particular issues.

Are you saying that you'd prefer Canada to become a republic?

jamest wrote:Are you saying that you'd prefer Canada to become a republic?

In short yes.

piss off mate.

Lets elect our head of state. What could possibly go wrong.

Think of the Commonwealth. Lizzie's prize project.

felltoearth wrote:

jamest wrote:Are you saying that you'd prefer Canada to become a republic?

In short yes.

Yup.

I know that we're a wealthy nation and I don't notice the money that goes towards them coming out of my pocket but poverty is still a thing in Canada. Meanwhile, we spend tens of millions of dollars to support the British monarchy annually. It's not like they generate money for us the way they do for the UK. The idea we don't financially support the Royal Family is absurd.

In a year we spend over $40 million CAD on them, which they spend in a day on a wedding that benefits us in no way, shape or form. Gross.

Most of the British monarchy are old enough to get jobs and not receive public assistance. It's about time.

I'd rather it be retained to distinguish us from the US system of gov.

Spending Canadian tax payers money on the Brit Royalty is a different matter and I'd like to see what support you have for that claim.

The two issues are entirely seperate.

Macdoc wrote:I'd rather it be retained to distinguish us from the US system of gov.

Spending Canadian tax payers money on the Brit Royalty is a different matter and I'd like to see what support you have for that claim.

The two issues are entirely seperate.

There’s more than one kind of Republic. You can distinguish the Canadian system by simply making it more democratic. As it is, it is more like the US system than I would like. FPTP has the same kind of outcomes as the EC.

We spend more per capita than the brits.

Canada's cost to support the royal family in 2015 - Business Insider

Oh, you didn't know it costs us anything? It's actually one of the pricier things we do in Canada. According to the Governor General's financial report, we spent approximately $20.86 million last year.

Although, there is a line item in the annual report that isn't mentioned in the financials. The "support from other government departments" tallies up to another $22.06 million. Is $42.92 million starting to sound a little more significant?

You could retain your current parliamentary system of government and just get rid of the chinless wonders. But I'm coming at it from a 'Murikan perspective - We bow to no kings!

As far as I can tell, Canada doesn't pay any substantial part of the ongoing expenses of the royal family in the UK (Wikipedia article on the finances of the British royal family here). The high cost to Canadians is partly hosting visits, but mostly keeping up the offices of Governor General and 10 lieutenant-governors in Canada, and those positions do seem somewhat strange to me. From a 2009 Canadian article here:

Over just the last 10 years, the per capita bill for supporting the monarchist framework— including expenses incurred by the royal clan on Canadian soil, as well as the cost of running the offices of the Governor General and our 10 provincial lieutenant-governors—has more than doubled....
Freda says it is “exorbitant,” for example, that the Ontario lieutenant-governor employs nine staff members, and “shocking” that the B.C. office shells out piles of cash each year to run a 102-room official residence for its lieutenant-governor.

The UK does have a Lord Lieutenant as the Queen's personal representative in each county (Wikipedia article here), but the Lords Lieutenant are unpaid except for some expenses, and as far as I can tell they certainly don't have 102-room official residences. From the Wikipedia article:

They are unpaid, but receive minimal allowances for secretarial help, mileage allowance and a driver. Male Lords-Lieutenant receive an allowance for the ceremonial uniform, worn when receiving members of the royal family and on other formal occasions. There is no uniform for a female Lord-Lieutenant, but there is a badge which can be worn on ceremonial occasions.

I don't understand why the lieutenant-governors in Canada seem to cost so very much more than their equivalents in the UK. I presume this is a decision made by the Canadian government, not the UK?

Ummm spending on the Governor General is not spending on the royal family.

The office of Governor General is the oldest continuous institution in Canada and is an unbroken link with the early days of our country’s recorded history. Samuel de Champlain was appointed the first governor of New France in 1627 and was followed by seventeen French governors until 1760. From then until 1867, a total of twenty-one British governors and governors general held office in Canada. Until 1952, Governors General were British. The 1952 installation of Vincent Massey, the first Canadian to hold the office, reflected Canada's new sense of autonomy and identity in the post-war era and Canadian sense of pride in the Canadian Crown.

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-herit ... neral.html

The GG is outside the political system but in rare occasions is vital decider when parliament is locked up unable to move forward....she can decide then to call on another party to form a government or to call and election.

This is an appointed Canadian deciding Canadian matters and has nada to do with Liz

GG is head of state of Canada and a non-political role.

Macdoc wrote:Ummm spending on the Governor General is not spending on the royal family.

The office of Governor General is the oldest continuous institution in Canada and is an unbroken link with the early days of our country’s recorded history. Samuel de Champlain was appointed the first governor of New France in 1627 and was followed by seventeen French governors until 1760. From then until 1867, a total of twenty-one British governors and governors general held office in Canada. Until 1952, Governors General were British. The 1952 installation of Vincent Massey, the first Canadian to hold the office, reflected Canada's new sense of autonomy and identity in the post-war era and Canadian sense of pride in the Canadian Crown.

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-herit ... neral.html

The GG is outside the political system but in rare occasions is vital decider when parliament is locked up unable to move forward....she can decide then to call on another party to form a government or to call and election.

This is an appointed Canadian deciding Canadian matters and has nada to do with Liz

GG is head of state of Canada and a non-political role.

What you say makes sense to me, but from the article I quoted above, it seems that when it's claimed (as the article does) that the monarchy is costing Canada tens of millions of Canadian dollars, it's the expenses of the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors which are being counted?

We're talking about the monarchy not the royal family. GG and LtG are the monarchy.

Macdoc wrote:This is an appointed Canadian deciding Canadian matters and has nada to do with Liz.

The GG is the Queen's representative in Canada. Very much to do with Liz.

What a crock. She's an appointed Canadian, chosen by the the Canadian PM dealing with Canadian affairs.....period ....she has ZILCH to do with the queen beyond a rubber stamp. The role in no way interferes in our autonomy.

I prefer a non-political head of state and would actually like to see tighter ties across the commonwealth such as visa free work/travel...there is a move afoot for that.
http://www.canzukinternational.com