Should Canada keep the Monarchy?

[salvius]

Height, weight, square footage of homes I'll give you.

Isn't that a lot of things, right there? Pretty poor...

Miles I won't, since I've never heard anyone use miles in my entire life, which I have lived entirely in Canada (Mississauga, 25 years). Maybe some old people use miles. My dad is 50+ and he doesn't. He may KNOW them, he doesn't use them. He also knows Fahrenheit, no one else in my immediate family does. We may see Fahrenheit on maps in small numbers, but no young person knows it.

I've heard people in Windsor/Sarnia, etc. use Fahrenheit on occasion. I get annoyed by it since I don't understand what the hell they're talking about...

In any case, miles I don't hear either. HOWEVER--Why feet and inches for height and homes, but everyone uses meters and kilometers for distance? People talk about liters and milliliters (ounces used, but rarely), but never about kilograms and milligrams. It's a pretty botched job.

 

[ShonTron]

It's worse in Britan. They still use MPH on motorways, but most weights and measures are in metric (part from beer and cider, still sold by the pint), and area (acres, sq. ft., etc).

 

[Lone Primate]

Everyone: I am on the fence about this question of Canada's independence. I believe when that Canada got the 1982 Constitution that the idea was to be a separate nation as opposed to British North America. I understand that the royals are just figureheads and the real ruling government is the current prime minister at any given time. Many Canadian citizens of British descent are with the UK but many feel also that Canada should have its own home rule. I wonder also if the average American citizen knows about or realizes this about the government of our Northern neighbor. I think the fair way would be a referendum on this question of becoming a truly sovereign nation. LI MIKE

We do have home rule; we've had responsible government since the 1840s. We've been a country since 1867; a full peer of the UK since 1931. The main thing that happened in 1982 was that we finally agreed on a means to amend our own constitution. We tried unsuccessfully a number of times before, but the feds and the provinces could never agree. So, we simply left it in the hands of the British... which they weren't thrilled with because it meant every time we decided to amend OUR constitution, it would wind up taking up time on THEIR legislative slate. Luckily for us all, Canadians finally agreed on a process and brought the thing home.

A referendum on the monarchy could be instructive only; constitutionally, it could not be binding because the status of the monarchy is actually written into the amendment formula we adopted in 1982. To change the status of the monarchy in Canada requires the unanimous consent of the federal government and all ten provinces. They might be advised, even compelled by a referendum, but a referendum alone couldn't end or change the institution of the monarchy in Canada.

 

[Lone Primate]

The same could be said for any country with a British colonial history, even the ones that are not a part of the commonwealth and do not have the Queen as head of state. Look at the laws and political structure of the U.S., South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. The difference is that they're not using these historical roots to define their PRESENT selves, and have long moved on to make their own marks in history and culture.

Why should this be seen as obliging on us, anymore than our retention of the monarchy should oblige them to re-adopt it? There are sixteen countries in the world that retain the Queen as their head of state. Why not look to their example as well? Simply pointing to the experience of others doesn't oblige us in either direction. But this is a stable, mature, progressive country, and the institution of the monarchy doesn't impinge on anyone's rights or freedom. Replacing it with something else, just for the sake of replacing it, seems to me to be asking for a major headache for no real benefit, and the can of constitutional worms we'd be opening doesn't bear consideration. It strikes me like hauling all the plumbing out of your walls because you don't like the style of your bathroom sink.

 

[Hydrogen]

So we need the monarchy?

 

[JasonParis]

No, but do we need to go through all that getting rid of the monarchy will entail? On that, I'm not so sure.

 

[Lone Primate]

So we need the monarchy?

We don't need it; but we need far less to be rid of it, if you see what I mean.

 

[Hydrogen]

Sorry Gents, but both these answers sound a tad like sitting on the fence concerning this issue.

We could easily move away from the monarchy. The country would not come to an end. It would evolve.

 

[gibsonm]

One thing's for sure, I wish the Queen didn't take up so much space on our currency. I'd much rather see great Canadians like Penfield, Banting and Best, McLuhan, Frye, Terry Fox -- you get my drift. The Queen's image should be relegated to a small sillouhette in the corner. I think the monarchy is an important part of our history that still has some weight today, but Canada is so much more than the colonial outpost that some of our cultural staples seem to indicate. Symbols and images are significant, and should reflect our country in all its splendour.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

We don't "need" the monarchy, but we want to keep it. It can be that simple.

 

[Dan416]

If there was some big NEED to get rid of the monarchy, we already would have, like the United States did.

 

[ganjavih]

Wow, I posted this poll four years ago and it's still goin' strong.

 

[lordmandeep]

well in this time and age we need something to makes us different from the States, because even Tim Horton's has gone to the States and Canada hasn't won the Stanley cup for like 15 years....


We still have government owned liquor stores!!

 

[Zephyr]

Why does Canada either want or even need the Monarchy?

There is nothing to be gained by maintaining these largely symbolic ties - nothing more than sentiment and nostalgia. Put the Monarchy on the other side of the fence, representing the past, and live as an independent nation in name as in fact from now going forward. We are already seven years into the twenty-first century - enough is enough.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

We already do live as an independent nation in name and in fact.