Conference kaosws::canada

    They must shoot those court marshalled with a water pistol then.

    no in Quebec it's called Nationalisim.

Bill,

In Quebec it's *symbolic* and *normal* should be re-phrased to:

With *Quebec Nationalists* it's symbolic and normal.

Remember, Quebec Nationalists are not a majority in Quebec

/Mario

    
    
    Hey Mario,
    
    Love the personal name! :-)

    I personally wish Lucien had not sworn allegiance to Liz and the
    rest of the money sucking royals. It's time we swore allegance to our
    country and not the head of England.
    
    Want to start with a debt reduction tool, get rid of the royalty and
    all it represents in this country. 
    
    1 Governor General,
    10 Lieutenant Governors
    all their staff,
    all those big houses, 
    all those big cars, 
    all those stupid royal tours, all those tree planting sessions, all
    those plaques...........
    I wonder what this costs us per year just to say we are still an
    unofficial monarchy, supporting a figurehead monarch who has no real
    power in Canada.
    
    Terry_'who's_not_a_royalist_but_not_a_BQ_either.
    

    Terry-the-non-royalist-who-would-pay-extra-for-princess-di-in-tights-pics!
    
    Off with his head (be careful, in the US that may mean something else)!
    
    Do you think Bouchard would swear allegiance to Canada?
    
    Mario, sorry, I should not paint an entire province with one brush
    stroke.  We have a tendency to do that, it's too easy.        
    
    I think about being cleared to secret to work on government contracts. 
    
    Standing in front of a judge.  "Whats your excuse for breaking your
    oath son?"  "I'm a Quebec Nationalist!"  "Case dismissed."
    
    In days past, peoples lives depended on oaths.  It was a matter of
    integrity and personal dignity.  
    
      

    have to agree with .5 especially when the costs start adding up like
    they do there.  The monarchists will whine that it helps with tourism,
    which is likely true to an extent, but remember, people will travel to
    see something else if their first choice is not available.  It's a big
    (and great) country after all.  Just like many people will go to film
    'B' when 'A' is sold out.
    
    Doug
    

    But the only way to get out of it now is with a constitutional
    amendment and we know all about what happens to them (and what they
    cost, for that matter, keeping the monarchy probably costs
    significantly less then the process of amending the constitution would)

    Interesting, Australia is looking at telling the royals to take a hike
    also.  We get nothing out of it.  Cub Scouts can plant trees.  
    
    Why does administration cost so much money.  A size 12 boot cost less
    than $100.00.
    
    Didn't cost the USA big bucks to boot the Brits out.  
    
    What does all this have to do with Lucien and the Blocs symbolic oath 
    taking?
    
    Wizard to the King of ID.  "Sire, Sire, the peasants are revolting."
    The King of ID to the Wizard. "What do the weenies want this time?"
    Wizard to the King of ID. "They demand the right to bear arms."
    King of ID to the Wizard.  "Then go rip their sleeves off."
    
    

	re .9

>    Didn't cost the USA big bucks to boot the Brits out.  

	And how many Canadian lives is it worth to get rid of the monarchy?

	Tony

    re: 10
    
    None - The monarchy isn't armed, just got polo bats.  It's reduced to
    an expensive, money sucking symbolic institution of tree planters and 
    ribbon cutters.  
    
    Besides, how many Canadian lives would be saved by keeping our nose out 
    of other countries problems?
    
    We've got better things to do with our money and our time than toting
    these fluffed peacocks around!

    KAOOA::SLADE
    
     The royal heratige is not important to you, but that does not mean
    all people are so disinterested in it. If you stuck to economic,
    cultural, or nationalistic reasons for eliminating them, you might get a
    better response than name calling. But this being notes, it is easier to
    heap abuse on people than to use reason. There are many good reasons to
    distance ourselves from the monarchy, them being "fluffed peacocks"
    is not one of them. Try information, it works better than insults.
    
    
    							Derek.

	Derek,

	Was that really you? For some who loves a good hurl himself
	you certainly have become awfully pious all of a sudden.

	Charlie :-\
	

    Derek...re: 13....so there!
    
    Don't think calling a 'royal' a fluffed peacock' is too far off
    reality and hardly an insult.  Now 'money sucking'.....ya maybe.
    
    Course, the 'royals' do keep the tabloids in business, maybe your
    right, they do have economic value afterall.

    KUTIPS::LACAILLE
    
    >>Was that really you? For some who loves a good hurl himself
    >>you certainly have become awfully pious all of a sudden.
    
     I have just spent a little time looking for notes of mine that were
    based soley on insults. You know the type: Your a dogface, so you are
    wrong. I could not find any !!! I suppose the most insulting were
    cleared away by the moderator :*) I try to trash ideas rather than the
    people who present them. (With the possible exception of the time I
    said "Only an idiot would believe.....").
    
     I have just become tired of the needless insults, when good rational
    arguments are available to make the case. You dipstick %*)
    
    
    							Derek.

	Derek's mother's maiden name is Windsor...:^)

	Ben 

	I'm really pleased the Aussies are going to be independent of our
	Royalty at last.......I would be even more pleased if Canada followed 
	suit.

	I don't know why so many countries keep trying to hang on to us, it's 
	time they stood on their own, and I'm glad they're starting to grow up
	enough to realise it.

	Heather

>
>        I'm really pleased the Aussies are going to be independent of our
>        Royalty at last.......I would be even more pleased if Canada followed 
>        suit.
>
>        I don't know why so many countries keep trying to hang on to us, it's 
>        time they stood on their own, and I'm glad they're starting to grow up
>        enough to realise it.
>

Who says it's *hanging on* to Britain's royalty ?

By the same token why does Britain hang on to its Royalty ?  It's a part of
the country's heritage.  The same applies to Canada, Australia and so on.
What is wrong with the Queen acting as any country's nominal head of state ?
(I'd rather have some "permanent" type position, instead of some elected
politico who's in it for the glory.)

Stuart

    The point is not to replace the monarchy but to eliminate it.
    
    We are busy cutting social programs but still paying for outmoded
    traditions.
    
    Heritage is respect for the past.  Under the current situation, it may
    be the best to let the tradition die while it has some respect left.
    
    Besdies, Canada is a mature country with it's own heritage.
    
    Bill	

    Constitutionally she may be Queen of Canada, and I'm sure she works
    conscientiously at the Canadian dossier, but realistically she is the
    British monarch, and we are not a British possession in any sense any
    more.  The British carry the Lion's share of the institution's cost,
    but I don't like the colonial symbolism.  I don't know how exactly the
    monarchy would be replaced, and constitutional change can be a
    nightmare, so maybe it's wisest to hang onto the institution for a
    while, but it certainly shouldn't be taken seriously.
    
    Have you noticed that they always time their little visits for the good
    weather?

    I am inclined to agree with you Stephen ....
    
    The $ cost of the constitutional change to eliminate the monarchy
    would probably be beyond belief, and the procedure is likely to be 
    every bit as divisive as Quebec and Western separatism.
    
    On the matter of the cost of heritage, I don't believe that is
    really a fair measurement ... the houses of parliament are totally
    inadequate to hold the members of parliament, and their staffs and
    so on ... they were built for a turn of the century government
    not today's government.  The cost of maintaining these buildings
    in terms of heat and repairs must be phenomenal compared with a
    modern building ... maybe we should say so long to heritage and
    blow the buildings away.
    
    Perhaps we should abandon the traditions of English common law
    and the Napoleon Civil codes.
    
    What the Monarchy actually costs Canada in the overall picture of
    Government, compared with the cost of keeping Brian and Mila for
    example, is probably peanuts.
    
    Whether you like the symbolism depends on how you look at the
    picture.  When I look at the Queen acting on the Canadian good,
    I see the Queen of Canada ... when acting on the UK good, she's
    the Queen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.  Many of us do
    jobs that involve wearing different hats depending on the cir-
    cumstances, and it's just that the Queen's portfolio is that
    high profile international functions.  Other than that there really
    isn't a lot fo difference.
    
    Rather in the line of the quote that if man didn't have a god, he
    would create one, so we have done with our leaders.  If we did't
    have a Queen, we would want to create one.  I have certainly heard
    many Americans say that they would like the stability of a
    monarchy style head of state, even if just a figurehead, instead
    of an elected every 4 years.
    
    I can understand the desire to shed the remains of colonialism ...
    and go forward supposedly on our own, but that is essentially
    what Canada has done since the reign of Victoria and responsible
    self government.  Only on matters of the constitution has Canada
    had to refer to the UK for changes to the BNA act.  And to be
    honest, sometimes I see that there may be an advantage to having
    an outside arbitor in constitutional affairs, as a sanity check,
    just as having an upper house of parliament.
    
    The only real valid argument against a monarchy for any country is
    the idea that it is so far from the actual form of modern
    government that it is simply not applicable.
    
    Stuart

>Who says it's *hanging on* to Britain's royalty ?

>What is wrong with the Queen acting as any country's nominal head of state ?
>(I'd rather have some "permanent" type position, instead of some elected
>politico who's in it for the glory.)


I rest my case.

Heather

It would be "hanging on" if there really was no heritage that gave us close
ties to Britain's royalty.  There are certainly plenty of colonies where
the affiliation to Britain is tenuous at best, and there is no doubt that
after self-government, any attempts to retain the crown as head of state
are inappropriate.

The time is certainly approaching where the function of the crown, even in
Britain will certainly be even more spectacle than productive.  And all
commonwealth countries must examine the need for a constitutional monarchy.
Even Britain.

As long as Britain "hangs on" to its constitutional monarchy, then there
is no reason for other coutries for whom the monarch is head of state
should change.

Stuart

    I always thought the Kennedy's were the Yank's royals; seem to cause
    almost as much trouble..
    
    Doug

    Isn't it time us Canadian's grew up and became a fully independant 
    country. Our ties with England are strictly historical today. They are
    no longer the major trading partner or political partner of decades
    ago. In fact, I think less than 25% of our population now says they are
    of British heritage.  
    
    I's much rather shed the royal's completely - in fact I  don't even 
    like her picture on my money or stamps anymore. My children know who 
    the Queen is, but they know little of our Canadian leaders of the 
    past and present.
    If we're only hanging on to the royals for historical reasons, that's an
    excuse that doesn't cut it in the 90's. What's it really cost for us to
    support the monarchy and all it's traditions - anyone know what the
    Governor General costs per year, what about a Lieutenant-Governor.
    
    I'd be interested in seeing what it cost's for a royal visit as well. 
    
    Keep Canada, Canadian, eh.
    
    Terry
    

    Right on, Terry!!!  Get that face off of our money (and stamps).  I
    believe the British monarchy and all it represents no longer has a
    place in Canada.  And why should any Canadian have to swear allegance
    to the queen?  I'm surprised Lucien did.  If we break with the
    monarchy, maybe we can begin mending internal fences.  Not to say we
    should re-open the constitutional mess right now, but the Queen does
    seem to represent the worst of English Canada to Quebec'ers...
    
    JMHO,
    Otto.

    Bit confused Terry on your nationalistic, Heritage Canada stand.
    
    You want Canada to toss the Brits but your kids know little about
    our leaders past and present?
    
    Maybe you should look at what Canadian history they are taught in school.  
    
    Maybe they can name the last five Presidents!
    

    Otto,
    
     Surely you are not trying to blame our constitutional problems on the
    Queen. Quebec's demand for a veto on all future constitutional changes,
    or their demand for a certain % of the House of Commons regardless of
    population, seem like more of a problem than who appears on our one dollar
    coin.
    
     I am no monarchist, but my reasons are for Canadian identity and cost,
    not because I dislike them or feel they represent "the worst of English
    Canada". Could you explain that remark Otto ?
    
    							Derek.

    Sorry Derek, didn't mean to offend, but my *impression*, having lived
    in Quebec better than half my life, is that there is resentment by
    some Francophones over things British, probably from early in our
    history as a nation, proceding through WWI and WWII where fighting for
    the "Allies" was considered by some to be fighting on the side of Great
    Britain, right to Trudeau dealing with the monarchy on repatriation of
    the constitution without Quebec.  However, Trudeau does make it clear
    in his new book that Levesque didn't want to play because he gambled it
    would win him a favorable position in Quebec.
    
    So the "worst of English Canada" is in my mind a "perception" that
    English Canada aligns itself more closely to the monarchy than to the
    idea of a nation with 2 distinct cultures/roots.  I could be way wrong,
    of course, but that's my impression.  I didn't mean to make it sound
    like I was blaming our constitutional mess on the monarchy.  I'm a
    nationalist, and I do see a place for bilingualism (where required, not
    in Victoria, for example) and 2 cultures.  But I also believe Quebec
    has been whining far too long, and gets its way too often.  Like
    Trudeau, I believe in a strong central government.  My take is that
    certain elements in Quebec feel a self-imposed inferiority, and see
    seperation as a way to negate that.
    
    Interesting how conquered "nations" in Canada are treated.  The native
    people are moving towards self-government, and so is Quebec.  Maybe
    that's the right thing to do, maybe not.  The situations are not quite
    the same, but you an't have one without the other, it seems.  Too bad. 
    I like the idea of a united Canada with one governing body.
    
    Hope I clarified my views...
    Otto.

    I don't believe the rest of Canada aligns itself with the monarchy.
    There are a good many people who would rather do without it and
    then there are many who would prefer to keep it.
    
    Yes, I am pro-monarchy ... to a point ... but I am having a problem with
    the lack of leadership and morale that the monarchy should provide,
    both in Britain and here.  The scandals of the royals are a big problem
    and have certainly caused a lot of anti-royalty sentiment.  These
    people are human and have all the problems of all of us ... but it
    is their treatment and lack of understanding on how to deal with the
    problems of the young royals that has brought considerable disrepute.
    
    I do not believe that the monarchy represents the divisions in Canada.
    We have done a good job of creating those divisions all by ourselves
    by electing glory seeking politicos.
    
    If we did not have a costitutional monarchy, but rather a
    constitutional republic, I am quite certain that we would invent
    a new heap of pomp and circumstance to replace the trappings
    of the monarchy, and cost us as much if not more.
    
    Stuart

    Re .27
    
    Bill,
    
    I don't want the Brits out, just the Queen and all her friends, and
    what they represent. A major waste of our tax dollars today. 
    
    My kids are only 4 & 8 so they are not exposed to much Canadian history 
    in school yet. The only exposure they get is what we teach them at
    home, and from museums we've been to. 
    
    The Queen's face on our money & stamps is only trivial, however, it is 
    the exposure that the rest of the world see's of us. I'd be more than
    glad to see it replaced by John A Macdonald's. I believe Canada 
    faced a lot of similar problem's when we got our own flag decade's 
    ago, and dropped the Union Jack. 
    
    Yes I am not a royalist and glad to admit it.
    
    Terry

    If Mitsou was Queen, it would unify the country no doubt.

    The Department of External Affairs appears to have been renamed to
    Foreign Affairs.  Apparently it started as External because much of our
    diplomacy was with the U.K., which wasn't considered "foreign."
    
    Of course we still have a High Commisssioner in London rather than an
    Ambassador, since we share the same "sovereign."

    Lucien, Lucien, where for art thou Lucien?

>The time is certainly approaching where the function of the crown, even in
>Britain will certainly be even more spectacle than productive.  And all
>commonwealth countries must examine the need for a constitutional monarchy.
>Even Britain.

	It is already more spectacle than productive - except the
	spectacle bit brings in loads of tourist money, which helps
	redress the balance.

>As long as Britain "hangs on" to its constitutional monarchy, then there
>is no reason for other coutries for whom the monarch is head of state
>should change.

	If they didn't bring in the tourism money, then I don't think
	we would have hung on as long as we have. 
	If the monarch ever executed its consitutional right - against the 
	will of parliament, I believe it would die a death there and then.
	
	Why would you want a monarch in todays environment, if not for the 
	revenue they bring in?

	Heather

	re .35

>	Why would you want a monarch in todays environment, if not for the 
>	revenue they bring in?

	Answers, on a postcard please, to the Emir of Kuwait.

	Tony