HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

What should Canada get rid of first?

View Poll Results: What should Canada get rid of first?
The Monarchy 30 50.85%
The Senate 29 49.15%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-04-2013, 10:59 PM
  #1
TP
Mod Supervisor
HFBoards
 
TP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 7th Circle of Hell
Country: United States
Posts: 21,839
vCash: 500
What should Canada get rid of first?

Personally, i think the Monarchy should go first. The USA got rid of the monarchy over 200 years ago, and I'm pretty envious of them for that.

I'm just not sure what should happen with the senate... reform it, so it's an elected body... or simply abolish it? I really don't know... But I know for sure the Queen is pointless, and I'd rather have an appointed head of state (who is Canadian) or simply elect a President.

so... ?

TP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 11:02 PM
  #2
Tim Calhoun
Troll *********
 
Tim Calhoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Mexico
Posts: 7,934
vCash: 325
Definitely the Senate. I don't mind the monarchy.

Tim Calhoun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 11:17 PM
  #3
Seanconn*
mission accomplished
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manhattan
Country: United States
Posts: 4,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Calhoun View Post
Definitely the Senate. I don't mind the monarchy.
The Senate is a much bigger waste of resources, that's for sure. But I view the Monarchy as a symbol of colonialism/ times of old. Both are dinosaurs, but at least our Senators are Canadian. The Queen is not the Queen of Canada... She is the Queen of England... (yes i know, officially she is the Queen of Canada, when she put on that "hat", but come off it... she's the Queen of England) For me, it's simply an issue of symbolism. I'd much rather have an appointed head of state who is Canadian... not an appointed representative of the Queen of England.

Both the Senate and the Monarchy hold tremendous power in theory, but in reality, they don't have legitimacy to use that power to influence the political/economic landscape of Canada.

which would be easier to get rid of? I think the monarchy... simply because Quebec would not support abolishing the senate, unless they were guaranteed to have more seats in the House of Commons, than they deserve according to their population... (as it is right now)

Seanconn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 11:25 PM
  #4
Johnny LaRue
Registered User
 
Johnny LaRue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kudamatsu-shi, Japan
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,172
vCash: 200
Neither. I am a monarchist and think the senate can play a very positive role.

Also, as Wetcoaster would probably bring up, getting rid of the senate and monarchy would likely be riughly equal in difficulty to eliminate. Do dissolve the senate or get rid of the monarchy would require unanimous agreement from all provinces. That would be nearly impossible.

Johnny LaRue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 11:29 PM
  #5
Seanconn*
mission accomplished
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manhattan
Country: United States
Posts: 4,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny LaRue View Post
Neither. I am a monarchist and think the senate can play a very positive role.
what does it mean to be a monarchist?

Like you believe supporting for the monarchy is an important aspect of your life, or what?

what positive role do you think the monarchy plays, currently?

and how do you think the senate could play a positive role?

Seanconn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 11:31 PM
  #6
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,686
vCash: 663
Monarchy, I don't believe in the state establishment of religion, especially when only a small fraction of Canada is actually Anglican. That said, the Senate has been really crazy lately. The direct election of Senators might solve that though, but the results need to be legally binding unlike the Albertan method which Harper is so keen of.

Concordski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 11:38 PM
  #7
Johnny LaRue
Registered User
 
Johnny LaRue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kudamatsu-shi, Japan
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,172
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilottalk View Post
what does it mean to be a monarchist?

Like you believe supporting for the monarchy is an important aspect of your life, or what?

what positive role do you think the monarchy plays, currently?

and how do you think the senate could play a positive role?
The senate has historically did a lot of great work and research into issues that have led to great policy moves, like the elimination of the penny. I am certain with a little research we could find out about a lot of great work the senate does.

I support the monarchy because it is part of our history and part of what makes Canada what it is. I like the culture and history that surrounds the monarchy.

If you really like the political culture in the United States better than the culture here, then we don't have a lot of common ground.

Johnny LaRue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 11:42 PM
  #8
kaiser matias
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,805
vCash: 500
I support the monarchy as well, so probably would pick the senate.

Were we to get rid of the monarchy and create the position of president, the obvious solution would be to simply rename the office of Governor-General to president. Like most countries the president would probably not have any power, so the office would likely adopt the same role the Governor-General has now, that of a figurehead.

Now the question comes up, do we appoint a president, or elect one? Appointing one seems undemocratic and contrary to the very idea of having this system. Electing one would cost us a lot more than the monarchy does now. An election would cost millions, money that we currently do not spend on the monarchy (yes, we fund them on their visits to Canada, but the Queen comes here once every decade or so, while the others aren't frequent either). I'm not interested in wasting money in this fruitless exercise, but again I'm a supporter of the current system.

A radical idea I've thought of, and one that will never happen, is to appoint a distinct Canadian monarch. Bring in one of the royals, one of the younger ones like Charles' brothers or even Harry, have them live here and create a new Canadian monarchy. Obviously this will never happen for a variety of reasons, but one can dream.

kaiser matias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 11:43 PM
  #9
Seanconn*
mission accomplished
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manhattan
Country: United States
Posts: 4,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBryanRoleModel View Post
Monarchy, I don't believe in the state establishment of religion, especially when only a small fraction of Canada is actually Anglican. That said, the Senate has been really crazy lately. The direct election of Senators might solve that though, but the results need to be legally binding unlike the Albertan method which Harper is so keen of.
Have you noticed how Harper has only appointed "young" senators? It's pathetic... the guy says he wanted to reform the senate... but just ends up appointing people who will be eligible for the largest pensions/ serve the longest, due to their "young" age.

The only way I could support elected senators, would be if there were massive electoral reforms in the house of commons. I see no point in having a SECOND house of commons.


Having an equal numbers of senators for each province, would be a good way to prevent regional disparity within Canada's federal government. two or three Senators from each province, and one senator from each territory. 23 or 33 senators.

I would support that sort of elected Senate, if Canada implemented corresponding reforms to the electoral system for electing Members of Parliament, in favour of more proportional representation.

If we had an elected senate to protect regional interests... I believe there would be no problem in having a PR electoral system to elect MP's. The end result would be a much more democratic process!

Seanconn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 11:46 PM
  #10
Seanconn*
mission accomplished
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manhattan
Country: United States
Posts: 4,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaiser matias View Post
I support the monarchy as well, so probably would pick the senate.

Were we to get rid of the monarchy and create the position of president, the obvious solution would be to simply rename the office of Governor-General to president. Like most countries the president would probably not have any power, so the office would likely adopt the same role the Governor-General has now, that of a figurehead.

Now the question comes up, do we appoint a president, or elect one? Appointing one seems undemocratic and contrary to the very idea of having this system. Electing one would cost us a lot more than the monarchy does now. An election would cost millions, money that we currently do not spend on the monarchy (yes, we fund them on their visits to Canada, but the Queen comes here once every decade or so, while the others aren't frequent either). I'm not interested in wasting money in this fruitless exercise, but again I'm a supporter of the current system.

A radical idea I've thought of, and one that will never happen, is to appoint a distinct Canadian monarch. Bring in one of the royals, one of the younger ones like Charles' brothers or even Harry, have them live here and create a new Canadian monarchy. Obviously this will never happen for a variety of reasons, but one can dream.
Why not appoint a distant Canadian Canadian monarch? King Harry? wtf is that?

what about King WAYNE GRETZKY.

the idea of transplanting a british royal to live in Canada is the monarch is even WORSE then sticking with the UK monarch.

Seanconn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 02:21 AM
  #11
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 8,508
vCash: 500
I don't have any problem with tradition. As long as it doesn't try to supplant our own at-home Canadian heritage.

It's Canada first. More activist retro behaviours and attempts to get back into the womb of the mothership will meet with more resistance.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 02:31 AM
  #12
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,177
vCash: 50
Dissolve the Senate, hire this guy who just became available instead:



Begin Canadian world conquest. Everyone here is amazed that Cynicaps was actually right!

RandV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 02:31 AM
  #13
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,177
vCash: 50
Really though I don't care much for the monarchy myself but like the ties to the British Commonwealth.

RandV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 02:51 AM
  #14
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaiser matias View Post
I support the monarchy as well, so probably would pick the senate.

Were we to get rid of the monarchy and create the position of president, the obvious solution would be to simply rename the office of Governor-General to president. Like most countries the president would probably not have any power, so the office would likely adopt the same role the Governor-General has now, that of a figurehead.

Now the question comes up, do we appoint a president, or elect one? Appointing one seems undemocratic and contrary to the very idea of having this system. Electing one would cost us a lot more than the monarchy does now. An election would cost millions, money that we currently do not spend on the monarchy (yes, we fund them on their visits to Canada, but the Queen comes here once every decade or so, while the others aren't frequent either). I'm not interested in wasting money in this fruitless exercise, but again I'm a supporter of the current system.

A radical idea I've thought of, and one that will never happen, is to appoint a distinct Canadian monarch. Bring in one of the royals, one of the younger ones like Charles' brothers or even Harry, have them live here and create a new Canadian monarchy. Obviously this will never happen for a variety of reasons, but one can dream.
I remember reading a convincing argument once about a distant cousin of the Queen who was kicked out of the succession line because he dared marry a Catholic French Canadian.

Appoint that one King of Canada, create our own royalty with local blood.

PricePkPatch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 02:57 AM
  #15
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 8,508
vCash: 500
The British Commonwealth made a good economic counter-weight as a trading bloc to perhaps too much exposure to US integration. But it's the Conservatives under Mulroney that pushed the FTA and more North-South economic activity. Culturally, the US is more republican and Monarchy-secular as they revolted against the Crown historically. IMHO. Conservatives have only themselves to blame for the rapprochement with republican rebels

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 03:26 AM
  #16
Seanconn*
mission accomplished
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manhattan
Country: United States
Posts: 4,267
vCash: 500
Rand, do you not think we can respect our ties to the commonwealth, but replace the Monarchy with something entirely Canadian?

and Puck, what do you see as Canadian Tradition? Stuff post Statute of Westminster? Or a lot of the stuff we did before that too?

Also, Puck, I assume by mothership you mean the UK, not the USA?


If anything, Conservative traditionalist monarchists like Johnny, try to equate Senate reform and abolishing the Monarchy, as a drastic shift towards American style democracy. People like Johnny take up issues like the role of the monarchy and the role of the senate, and say they shouldn't be reformed or abolished... yet can't tell you good reason's why.

This is a trick. People Johnny Larue, try to present a strawman based on the false idea that reforming the senate/ abolishing the monarchy would be changing Canada into something more like the United States, and that to be more like the United States is bad. The reality is that the Senate is especially detrimental to our Canadian democratic ideals, and the Monarchy is detrimental to our Canadian identity.

Johnny tries to make people believe the lie that monarchy is an important aspect of what makes Canada great, and ultimately, what makes us Canadians... not Americans. To me this sort of thinking is utter bull crap. The Monarchy and Senate are irrelevant issues, something the average Canadian doesn't give much thought about. To say Canadians are different then Americans, because we still have the Queen... is entirely true! But it's also entirely superficial, and having a Queen has nothing to do with what makes us Canadian.

I'm sure he'll come back and say I'm putting words in his mouth, but he hasn't given me some real good personal reasons why he feels the monarchy has played an important part of his life as a Canadian.

Nor has he explained why some of these useless, stationary, ornamental aspects of Canada's political system are actually important.

He hasn't described the functional benefits of the monarchy, nor the functional benefits of having a senate.

He has touched on their symbolic and sentimental value, but has described nothing in regards to their importance in Governance. He hasn't given one substantive benefit of the Monarchy to your average Canadian... and his example of the senate being instrumental in getting rid of the penny is, very small in deed. Almost ironic... the senate has helped get rid of a useless coin, that we spent millions on every year... but they won't help us get rid of our useless senate, who we spend many more millions on to keep their jobs every year... oh and serve Canada as the sober second thought ... BIG HELP lol.


To me, Johnny is your typical Canadian, the typical Canadian that gets all defensive, every time a comparison to America comes up. I especially think this, because this time he's the one brought up the Unites States.

getting rid of the Queen, or electing an senate, doesn't make Canada like America, Johnny.

to Johnny... I'm sure that a Canadian senate based on regionalism, where there is a set number of elected senators from each province and territory... is just "way too american", and totally not useful, because it's like totally not based on our awesome Canadian traditions... there would be no usher of the black rod... no throne speech... close to 70 traditional canadian jobs would be lost... to this American Style senate. lol.


Slashing the number of Senators, would more than make up for the cost of their elections. RIGHT?! I proposed we have 2-3 senators for each province, and one for each territory. That would be no more than 33 senators, if every province gets 3 senators. Some provinces may only receive 2 senators (Under 1.5 million people, or some other measure of size)


To me the Monarchy and Canadian Senate are very similar, both are dinosaurs, and both should be turned upside down, and re-designed, based on our "North-American", or for the sake of Johnny... our "Canadian" traditions.

At the very least, I think any patriotic Canadian should demand for Canada to appoint it's own, Canadian head of state. This Canadian head of state will be the head of the senate, and the senate will be composed of an elected body, who represent the distinct interests of of Canada's many regions. The Head of state doesn't have to be elected, but he or she should have to be a Canadian. I don't mean he or she must be born in Canada, but should be a Canadian citizen, first and foremost.

So I ask you this Johnny. Would you support some of the progressive, democratic reforms I have suggested?

the DL : DR version is this.


#1 Abolish the Monarchy

#2 Appoint a Canadian Head of State

#3 Reform the Senate, to be an elected body of representatives. 2-3 senators will be elected from each province, and 1 from each territory. The Senate will continue to be the Sober Second thought... just an elected Sober Second thought... you know a Sober Second thought that is able to say "hey, we need to rework this piece of legislation", and have the legitimacy to demand reasonable changes to pieces of legislation coming out of the House of Commons.

#4 Keep on being Canada, not the USA.

#5 Keep our ties to the British Commonwealth... just like India.


Last edited by Seanconn*: 03-05-2013 at 07:06 AM.
Seanconn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 08:05 AM
  #17
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,622
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
The thought of going through the headache of Constitutional reform to simply change the wording of the Governor General's role and make parliament even less efficient is why I resist such change.

I'm while the Senate should be somewhat of an equalizer, no way in he'll should PEI get as many votes in the Upper House as Ontario. But in trying to split the country into regions you either have to lump Ontario and Quebec into one, something neither would go for, or count as one each which will create the balance off a bit. Perhaps Hockey Canada solved such a problem for us:
Pacific-15
Central-15
Ontario-15
Quebec-15
Atlantic-15

The territories would get none because they're just territories and would throw off the numbers.

Roughneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 08:33 AM
  #18
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,460
vCash: 50
From the outside looking in, as a fervent (small r) republican, I don't understand the logic behind having a hereditary monarchy in any way, shape, and form. That being said, it's not like it's a drain on Canada in any way, whereas the upper house in Westminster systems is essentially useless, so I'd vote for you guys to abolish the Senate.

Ask me the same question about the UK getting rid of the monarchy or the House of Lords, and I'd say the monarchy even if they took a hit in the tourism dollars.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 08:50 AM
  #19
Free Torts
Registered User
 
Free Torts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,106
vCash: 883
Send a message via MSN to Free Torts
They're both ridiculous but the senate.

Free Torts is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 08:55 AM
  #20
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,332
vCash: 500
I met the Governor General once, but never met anyone associated with the Canadian Senate, so obviously the Senate must go.

Also, I don't really see how the monarchy harms Canada in any way. I don't see how the Senate harms Canada either (haven't been following the news?) but their potential for harm seems a lot greater than anyone from the House of Windsor.

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 09:06 AM
  #21
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,049
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
I go with the monarchy because I view it as simply pointless tradition, but I'm not overly concerned with getting rid of it since it really has no actual power.

The Senate really just needs major reforms. It serves a useful purpose, IMO, if it works properly.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 09:53 AM
  #22
tape to tape
Registered User
 
tape to tape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,126
vCash: 500
Aren't all first nations treaties signed with the crown, Queen Victoria, etc? Removing the monarchy opens up that can of worms. Any Senate reform opens up the debate about whether French Canada, being one of two solitudes, should have an equal number of senate seats as English Canada.

If there is a way to prevent Senators from abusing their priviledge, then that should be implemented. Anything beyond that will require another Meech Lake/ Charlottetown Accord. Are Canadians willing to go through that again? It has to be done someday I suppose, but is it an urgent priority?

tape to tape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 09:57 AM
  #23
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tape to tape View Post
If there is a way to prevent Senators from abusing their priviledge, then that should be implemented. Anything beyond that will require another Meech Lake/ Charlottetown Accord. Are Canadians willing to go through that again? It has to be done someday I suppose, but is it an urgent priority?
The issue I see with that is it will require an admission of abuse of priviledge, something I doubt we see.

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 11:02 AM
  #24
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
It seems many people here have formed there opinion with minimal serious consideration to something as drastic as transforming our system of government. It further seems that there is a shocking degree of indifference to the simply outstanding track record of our system of government for providing stable, continuous, and good governance.

There is a place to argue about the history/tradition and what it means and what value it has. But those are subjective things which are nothing more than emotional opinions.

Do a hard evaluation of political systems. Assess what system represents the greatest guarantor of our rights and freedoms. Consider what systems are more prone to deadlock.

What system does a better job of protecting against authoritarianism/dictatorship than a system in which those dangerous but necessary powers of the state belong to an individual who can never have the democratic legitimacy to use them except in defense of democracy?

No, Canada is not harmed by the monarchy. Canada has been well served by the monarchy and the monarchical system of government. Is there really anybody who looks with envy to the various republics of the world on how much better governed they are? I can't think of one.

Although not perfect, it is my firmly held belief that our constitutional monarchy/federal-parliamentary democracy represents the pinnacle of political systems and governance in the world. Is there anybody out there who can point to any of the republics of the world and say "I wish we were as well governed as they are"?

Sure there are perhaps some examples around the world from which there are small/specific lessons that could potentially be beneficial to learn and apply in Canada. But then what are those well run countries form which we may have something to learn? Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Australia... I guess that doesn't really work for the republican argument, does it?

It is not a coherent, mature position to say "get rid of the monarchy and replace it with something else because monarchy is repugnant to my sensibilities". Replace it with what specifically? What would be the benefits of your specific proposed alternative? And that is just dealing with the political systems aspect of it. How are you going to get agreement on what to replace it with? How are you going to get agreement on choosing how that replacement is chosen?

Until you've even thought about those questions (much less have answers to them), go back to the playpen and think about what it is you want and what you're arguing for.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=160 - the Unofficial HF Political board
thome_26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 11:43 AM
  #25
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,460
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by tape to tape View Post
Aren't all first nations treaties signed with the crown, Queen Victoria, etc?
No. "Crown" is just synonymous with "government" in that sense. Getting rid of the monarchy would have zero impact on that.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.