Does Canada Need the Royals?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As a former Canadian Forces officer, I found it utterly ridiculous that I had to swear the following oath shortly after my recruitment:

I, (name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors.

I didn't sign up to swear fealty to a monarch. We're living in the freaking 21st century, not feudal times. Why wasn't my oath about defending the interests of the nation of Canada and its citizens? Or defending Canadian values such as freedom from oppression around the world?

As a new officer, I was eager to impress my superiors and wisely bit my tongue, but this has bothered me ever since.

I find swearing to the bible "under oath" is more offensive. The Queen I can deal with. Religion, I can't.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I find swearing to the bible "under oath" is more offensive. The Queen I can deal with. Religion, I can't.

The phrase "so help me God" is an optional addendum to the oath. I chose to omit it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As a former Canadian Forces officer, I found it utterly ridiculous that I had to swear the following oath shortly after my recruitment:

I, (name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors.

I didn't sign up to swear fealty to a monarch. We're living in the freaking 21st century, not feudal times. Why wasn't my oath about defending the interests of the nation of Canada and its citizens? Or defending Canadian values such as freedom from oppression around the world?

As a new officer, I was eager to impress my superiors and wisely bit my tongue, but this has bothered me ever since.

I find it awkward enough to read the inside of my Canadian passport where it says that the right for my mobility and safe passage is allowed at the request of the Queen of England.

Thanks Queen of England...

[Ozy_Flame]

FWIW because of our Commonwealth status, if you were in a country with no Canadian embassy / High Commission, you can go to a British or Australian one instead. I'd prefer to have that than no options whatsoever. That would be handy if you're an avid traveler you're in Africa or Southeast Asia. That's in the passport too.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

FWIW because of our Commonwealth status, if you were in a country with no Canadian embassy / High Commission, you can go to a British or Australian one instead. I'd prefer to have that than no options whatsoever. That would be handy if you're an avid traveler you're in Africa or Southeast Asia. That's in the passport too.

That's great, I'm all for staying in the Commonwealth. As mentioned before though, most Commonwealth countries ditched the monarchy a long time ago.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I have a rather strong sentiment to our storied military history and our service to the Commonwealth, probably moreso than others. I see Britain and our colonial history as an integral part in the formation of Canada, much as I see Chinese, Indian, European, African and Arab contributions also creating what we have today.

To tie it to one recent event/example, I am in huge support of going back to the Royal Canadian Air Force rather than simply Air Command. I think it highlights our history, prestige, and historical allegiance to our British allies which should not be forgotten.

Forgetting our history is exactly what Canadians going into the 21st century are doing because of our ever-distant relationship with Britain and the British monarchy. This is why I would choose to keep it alive.

I'm fine with keeping the references we already have in government institutions and businesses -- RCMP, Royal Bank of Canada, etc, etc. Even if we became a republic, I'd be fine with keeping the PM title as is, instead of calling him a president, as a nod to the past.

I just question the purpose of a symbolic head of state. What good does it do? When the royal actually were heads of state, it was because their ancestors managed to convince the population that a deity had willed them to lead the country or because they just simply seized power. Is that something worth keeping a symbol around for? I question it, personally.

[Shawnski]

There are pluses and minuses to this for certain.

It has been a while since my last discussion on this issue but there is a clause in the "Bank Of Canada Act" that still alarms me; perhaps someone could clarify it.

(2) The capital shall be divided into one hundred thousand shares of the par value of fifty dollars each, which shall be issued to the Minister to be held by the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...6.html#docCont

Does the Queen own our money (by "owning" the Bank of Canada)? I really can't recall the last discussion I had on this one, and what the possible scenarios where (yes, I am getting old....)

The impacts of trying to change the constitution to move away from the monarchy would be a huge can of worms (waives to La Belle Province...)

[Dirty Mr. Clean]

Why would any modern civilization want a monarchy? The Royals believe they are given this rights and titles from a invisible man in the sky. This is crazy!

[flylock shox]

I'd like to see the Queen and former PMs taken off all the currency, and a lottery be run every 3 years for a replacement.

I think it would be awesome to see money with a picture captioned "Ben, from Timmins" or something similar.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

There are pluses and minuses to this for certain.

It has been a while since my last discussion on this issue but there is a clause in the "Bank Of Canada Act" that still alarms me; perhaps someone could clarify it.



http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...6.html#docCont

Does the Queen own our money (by "owning" the Bank of Canada)? I really can't recall the last discussion I had on this one, and what the possible scenarios where (yes, I am getting old....)

The impacts of trying to change the constitution to move away from the monarchy would be a huge can of worms (waives to La Belle Province...)

Laws like that are much like the existence of the "Canadian Monarchy" itself - traditional. All of these were first written when Canada was a colony or dominion, and the verbiage simply remains. There really is only two possible scenarios out of situations like that: Either England's monarchy leaves it alone, meaning we really control it, not London, or England's monarchy doesn't. In the latter case, Canada would become a republic about 3 hours after the fact.

In truth, the fastest and easiest (though not cleanest) way for Canada to become a republic is for one of the Queen's representatives to place themselves ahead of Canadian interests. Though the Governor General technically represents the Queen's interests in Canada, the truth is, the position is beholden to the Prime Minister's Office. The next Governor General that puts London ahead of Ottawa will be the last Governor General Canada ever has.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In truth, the fastest and easiest (though not cleanest) way for Canada to become a republic is for one of the Queen's representatives to place themselves ahead of Canadian interests. Though the Governor General technically represents the Queen's interests in Canada, the truth is, the position is beholden to the Prime Minister's Office. The next Governor General that puts London ahead of Ottawa will be the last Governor General Canada ever has.

This.

There are two ways that this could go. Either they leave us alone and we do what we like. In which case there isn't a problem "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

The other choice is they do decide to get involved and vote their Bank of Canada shares or not sign laws or something. In which case we'd have the biggest political ####storm this country has ever seen, and we'd have our constitutional amendment dumping them without argument or dissent, because people would be pissed.

[North East Goon]

I am proud of our English heritage. Most of our traditions in regards to holiday's like Christmas and Easter come from English heritage. Whatever sticks in the craw of Quebec is a side bonus!

[North East Goon]

Should we change the name of many of our provinces and cities/towns as well? Alberta could be changed to Progressive Conservatory?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

I just question the purpose of a symbolic head of state. What good does it do? When the royal actually were heads of state, it was because their ancestors managed to convince the population that a deity had willed them to lead the country or because they just simply seized power. Is that something worth keeping a symbol around for? I question it, personally.

Personally I really like the symbolic Head-Of-State, though I always think of the GG as opposed to the Queen.

I think it's a great benefit to the Nation to have our Head-of-State separate from our political institutions. It allows the GG a level of freedom in their representation of the Nation that is not possible for a political Head-of-State. We can be represented by a person like Michaelle Jean - a female immigrant - who is free of the restrictions that a politician faces to draw attention to social and humanitarian causes and represent the more ... emotional leanings of the country.

To be cynical about it: having a symbolic Head-of-State can be liberating for the country. It gives us an opportunity to appear highly committed or invested in an issue, without the slightest necessity of actual action on it. Also, a Head-of-State who is unattached to a political party is able to have more nuanced and realistic political opinions, likely much more in line with an actual Canadian than any politician could possibly have.

This is something I have thought about at some length and, if the time came when Canada was seriously considering leaving the Monarchy, I would absolutely find a group of people who were interested in maintaining the Head-of-State in a symbolic role like the GG and volunteer time and effort to convince the rest of Canada it was the best way to go.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

Should we change the name of many of our provinces and cities/towns as well? Alberta could be changed to Progressive Conservatory?

Nope not at all. Did RSA change the names of there cities (well some but that has to do with the white man). I still believe the Monarchy serves no purpose. I also echo the post by the former officer. When I took my oath to join the army I swore to the Queen, I should have taken an oath to defend the country.

[Phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Random thought: do they still have the Union Jack hanging at the dome? I haven't looked for it in a while, even though I was there on Friday for a concert.

Yep, ironically enough I was at that same concert and I actually noticed that we had the UK flag up in the rafters for the first time ever that day. Been to many flames games / events at the dome, first time I noticed it was Friday.

[North East Goon]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf

Yep, ironically enough I was at that same concert and I actually noticed that we had the UK flag up in the rafters for the first time ever that day. Been to many flames games / events at the dome, first time I noticed it was Friday.

OT - The Black Keys were great!

[Azure]

Our current Governor General is a great man, and someone who can be pretty influential in a special way.

Obviously you don't 'need' him, but he is a benefit to Canada.

[Shin Pad]

We need to move away from the Royals. For that matter - so do the brits