Queen costs us more than the Brits pay

Over the past 10 years, the Canadian cost of supporting the monarchy has more than doubled

by Katie Engelhart

Queen costs us more than the Brits payRobert Finch has a favourite saying: “For the price of a cup of coffee, Canadians can enjoy the stability of the Crown.” By this, the chief operating officer of the Monarchist League of Canada means that the monarchy costs Canadians only $1.53 per capita each year, about the price of a large cup of joe at Tim Hortons. But in fact, Canadians are now paying more per capita to support the Queen than the British are.

According to the latest figures out of Buckingham Palace, while Canadians are shelling out $1.53 per capita, the British are only paying about $1.32. And the Monarchist League’s own numbers show the Canadian cost is skyrocketing. 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.

Finch says that the climbing costs reflect the fact that the Queen’s reps are taking on more active roles, with heightened responsibility and more travel time. While that might be costing Canadians a few extra pennies, he stresses that the monarchy “is not a very expensive operation.” But Tom Freda, national director of Citizens for a Canadian Republic, is not so sure. “Ah, the Monarchists. They love to break it down to per capita and make it sound all nice and rosy,” he says. “But $40 million or $50 million [a year] sure sounds like a lot to me.” The Monarchist League supports that figure, estimating that about $50,147,000 was spent during the 2006-07 year.

The problem, Freda says, is that Canada effectively has two heads of state: the Queen and the Governor General, as well as a band of provincial reps. And that overlap creates “redundant and obsolete positions” that end up costing Canadian taxpayers big bucks. The Queen’s agents need to learn a lesson in frugality during these tough times, he argues, especially since most of the work done by the lieutenant-governors is already handled by deputy premiers and other officials. 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. As for the “highly irrelevant” Governor General? “The Governor General has literary awards and cuts ribbons and plants trees and travels to Nunavut and eats seal meat. But what else?”

Finch counters that the Crown’s stabilizing presence is worth the money. He accounts for Canadians’ more sizable bill with more mundane explanations: our smaller population, for instance. He also explains that Brits have the home court advantage when it comes to the monarchy, since the U.K. receives income tax from royal estates and we don’t. In the end, it’s a small price to pay, he says, to safeguard Canada’s democratic tradition.

Despite such arguments, it seems like Freda and his Canadian Republicans are winning in the court of public opinion. According to a Canada Day poll by Strategic Council, only 30 per cent of Canadians feel a connection to the Queen or Governor General. And 65 per cent think ties to the monarchy should be cut once the Queen dies.

Freda cites numbers like that as support for his group’s radical proposal to completely overhaul the system. He calls for the Governor General to be replaced by “a wholly Canadian institution”—an independent head of state, accountable only to Canadians. Sure, he admits, that would still cost money. “But Canadians wouldn’t mind spending on an institution that they can call their own.”

While $1.53 may not get you very far at Tim Hortons, Freda hopes the escalating cost of supporting the Queen will set the wheels of change in motion. It’s not even about the money, he says. “It’s the 21st century. If we’re going to be an independent country, we bloody well better act like it.”




Browse

Queen costs us more than the Brits pay

  1. why exactly do we need a queens rep in a democratic country. there is nothing democratic about a monarchy that i am aware of.

    • It prevents tyranny. Check out the tsarism south of the border.

      • The last time we needed the queen to intervene, when Harper prorogued the second time, she refused.

        She is fine with tyranny or whatever, as long as we keep paying.

        • Queen gets no
          Money from taxpayers in Canada

      • Remember, we are not a democracy, we are a Representational Monarchy.

      • tsarism?, there has been more than one monarchy who can and does last a lifetime. Even Russia got rid of their monarchs. US presidents only last a little while. Tyranny is not alien to any form of government. Who want to take a chance on a life time of it.?

    • Good God, NO!!

    • The Queen has no political affiliations, and as head of state represents all Canadians impartially, with no hidden agenda, she owes no allegiance or favouritism to any particular group. She is a peaceful influence & unites Canada & the other nations in the family. Unfortunately this is not true of our political parties who tend to favour those groups that express their own personl views & that support them financially. Which leaves parts of Canadian society out of the loop.

      • Unfortunately she is the recipient of vast sums of money from Canada at the expense of our poor, wouldn’t that money be better spent on housing, water, and pluming on our natives reserves? The queen should pay for herself and if she is short of money she can always sell her jewels or a palace or two….Nasty pompous show of wealth in a time of austerity for all.

        • Actually, if you read the article you’d know that she is not the recipient of vast sums of money from Canada. Our only costs for the royal family are for when its members are on Canadian soil.

          • true, $50,000,000.00 + per year is a mere pittance Melvin… as of 2007, the monarchy cost Canadians approx $50 million per year… and it’s not hard to find proof… just google “how much does the Monarchy cost Canada every year” and you will find my numbers are backed up.

          • Actually, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. See, when one talks about “the monarchy” in Canada one is not simply referring to the Queen and her family but to all of the head of state functionaries within Canada, i.e. one Governor General and 10 Lieutenant Governors, along with their residences (e.g. Rideau Hall) and the officials who work for them. Of the approx. $50 million that Canadians pay for “the monarchy” the vast majority stays within Canada and goes towards paying for the offices of the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors. Again, the only time we pay anything for the individuals who make up the Royal Family is when they are on Canadian soil, which is a quite minimal amount since this happens at most every few years for usually around one week. All of their expenses in the UK come from the government of the UK. And even if we were to get rid of the monarchy (as other former British colonies have done such as South Africa, India, Pakistan, etc.) the offices of her representatives and their costs would still exist; the only thing that would change would be their names: President instead of Governor General and something, I’m not sure what, to replace Lieutenant Governor. In fact, given that without the monarchy the president (and the their provincial counterparts) who would take its place would bear the entire responsibility of being our head of state, it’s quite likely that they would be MORE expensive than they are as merely the monarch’s representatives.

            Now one can make other arguments why we should get rid of the monarchy that I would be sympathetic to. I am hardly a die-hard monarchist and could personally care less about the individuals within the Royal Family. But the issue of the cost of the monarchy is a complete red herring as an argument against it.

          • Actually if you read the article you will see that your comment is 100% wrong. It clearly states that Canada is paying her every year and we are paying more then the British are.”Robert Finch has a favourite saying: “For the price of a cup of coffee,
            Canadians can enjoy the stability of the Crown.” By this, the chief
            operating officer of the Monarchist League of Canada means that the
            monarchy costs Canadians only $1.53 per capita each year, about the
            price of a large cup of joe at Tim Hortons. But in fact, Canadians are
            now paying more per capita to support the Queen than the British are.” Did you miss this or what? A quick google search will also tell you that we pay her yearly not just when she visits it needs to stop we need to stop paying them. http://canadianawareness.org/2013/02/canadian-tax-money-goes-to-the-queen-her-majesty/

          • See my response to Soulmann Mann above. You’re actually the one who is wrong since you obviously don’t understand the difference between the monarchy as an institution, almost all of which would remain under a different name were we to become a republic, and the individuals who make up the Royal Family. As for the Canadiana Awareness website you linked to, it’s full of complete crackpot BS. “House of Senates,” “Senators are not elected but it’s the exact same thing as the House of Commons”? Seriously? It’s called the Senate and it actually has fundamental differences with the House of Commons. Go read the Canadian constitution if you’d like to understand them. As for this: “There have been times where the Governor General has struck down bills because it didn’t suit the agenda of the globalists”—it’s also completely incorrect. I dare, no, triple-dog dare (since your understanding of our political system is so elementary) you to name ONE such example. The last time a GG of Canada intervened in politics against the wishes of a sitting Prime Minister was the King-Byng affair of 1926, which had nothing to do with striking down bills (look it up since I’m certain you’re never heard of it). As for the ridiculous idea that we pay tax money to the monarch, this again shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. As our head of state, the government always acts, and receives tax money, in the name of the Crown. But this is a purely symbolic connection. What I said above stands: no Canadian tax money goes directly to the Royal Family. The only thing we pay for are their costs when they are on Canadian soil. Please find me any actual evidence to the contrary if you can.

        • Very well said!!!

      • Queens are useful for bees.

  2. also isn't the queen the richest individual in the world…. i think so, she could pay her own damn expenses

    • Um, no. There are many, many people who are much wealthier than the British Royal Family.

      We need to face the fact that getting rid of the GG/Queen would mean either politicizing the GG (making the position a de facto president) or tossing out the whole westminster system in favour of a congressional government. Both are huge changes, and not necessarily for the better.

      • It is going to take an extreme constitutional crises for Canada to ever amend its constitution, given the amending formula we were left with, I don't think any change in royalty will qualify.

    • Not the richest, her father had to rely on government funding to sustain his role. Most of the buildings, estates, & expensive trappings belong to the state, & are passed down from monarch to monarch The Queen has increased the family fortune through investment mostly in real estate. check Forbes. Many of the minor royals are off the payroll and the Queen pays a lot of her own expenses, & income tax from her personal income.

    • The Queen is far from the richest by a long shot

    • Sorry but I do believe the pope is the richest, lol, next is the queen

  3. Let's just cut out all of the lieutenant-governors and make Michaelle Jean our Queen. Problem solved

    • Yeah sure, and then what open the Lieutenant-governor's mansion a strip bar !

  4. While I don't have a problem with having a GG as the Queen's rep, I think we could save a packet by canning the LGs. They do seem to be a bit of overkill.

    • The only problem with this is that, as I understand it, each province is sovereign in and of itself. That is, the sovereignty of each province passes directly through the crown — not through the federal government. The federal government is also sovereign, independent of the provinces.

      This may seem like minutiae, but it is why we can say things like, "We don't need a sovereignty vote for Quebec — Quebec, just like every other province, is already sovereign." Hence the continued role of the LGs.

    • According to our constitution, the laws passed by the federal government and by the provinces must be signed by the queen's representative before they go into effect. Thus, the LGs are needed to sign the provincial laws after they are adopted by the provincial parliaments.

      • This is a key point, just like the GG can play a pivotal refereeing role in the case of a minority government question in Ottawa, so too do the LGs play that role for the provincial parliaments. It is unrealistic to expect one person – ie, the GG – to perform this role for 10 provinces and three territories, plus at the federal level.

  5. Get rid of the Constitutional Monarchy and the Lieutenant Governors, make Canada a Federation, and keep the Governor General as the Head of State, Protector of the Constitution, and Head of the Armed Forces.

    • Canada already is a federation. The Lieutenant Governor of Québec has been highly involved in promoting federalism there, to such an extent that the Bloc and PQ have wanted to get rid of that federalist voice in Quebec politics for years, which is surely an implication to consider when discussing the role of LGs. If we abolish the monarchy, due to the Westministerial system of gov't we have, the GG will simply morph into a President with essentially the same powers the GG already enjoys, as exists in India, for example. If the Republicans think the monarchy is expensive, well, when we have an official President to send abroad on our behalf and all the expectations foreigners will have of that office, we can only expect costs to increase. So it's not a simple black and white picture against our current institutions in the way that Republicans would like you to believe.

      • Canada is a Federation, but not technically; that's what I was referring to; I usually put officially in brackets when writing about this topic, but forgot to this time. My point isn't necessarily about saving money, but more along the lines of national pride. Why is the Queen on my money? Why is she our Head of State? She isn't even a citizen! I know all about tradition and history, but I'd rather have our Head of State be a citizen who actually *gasp* gives a damn about what happens here more than what happens in the United Kingdom!!

      • Canada is a Federation, but not officially; that's what I was referring to; I usually put officially in brackets when writing about this topic, but forgot to this time. My point isn't necessarily about saving money, but more along the lines of national pride. Why is the Queen on my money? Why is she our Head of State? She isn't even a citizen! I know all about tradition and history, but I'd rather have our Head of State be a citizen who actually *gasp* gives a damn about what happens here more than what happens in the United Kingdom!!

        • Canada first, bravo. You would think that at 142 years old we are sufficiently mature to move out of the parents house. Canada certainly is a federation, from the time Lower and Upper were first shackled. Are you thinking 'republic"?

          • Republic is what Canada needs. The world would look at us for once in our history and say "Wow The US's little retarded brother isn't so dumb after all.."

  6. But if we abolish the LG, who will keep the Queen informed with what is going on in the provinces? ;)
    While I do respect some traditions, once the Queen kicks the royal bucket, we should make some changes…

    • Ha! Yes, don't you know the Queen waits patiently every day for her report from the Canadian provinces? :)

  7. “The Governor General has literary awards and cuts ribbons and plants trees and travels to Nunavut and eats seal meat. But what else?”

    Oh, there was that little trifle of being the sole decider of the legal and constitutional and "convention"-al propriety of the PM's request to prorogue Parliament. Among other seldom-exercised but incredibly important powers. That buck's gotta stop somewhere, and it presently stops at Rideau Hall.

    To blame the GG's and LG's expenses on Her Majesty is a bit silly.

    But then, to have LG's at all is very silly. The ceremonial stuff can be abolished at the provincial level, and the (very!) rare need for exertion of sovereign power can be sent up the chain to the GG.

    • You, MYL, you are wanting to shackle the provinces to the federal GG?

      • Shackle is such a strong word. All provinces are "shackled" to the monarchy as it is, with the LG. Ask me if I care whether each province has its own silly little monarchical-representative industry.

        • MYL, do you care whether each province has its own silly little monarchical-representative industry?

          • Thanks for asking. NO!

  8. As to the prevailing sentiment that Elizabeth II may be the last popular monarch for the majority of her Canadian subjects, I must confess that as I look at the front of the succession line, I start humming a little ditty: God save our gracious Queen, LONG LIVE our noble Queen… LONG TO REIGN OVER US…

    • Oh, she's going to beat Queen Victoria, no two ways about it. So we've got another good 9 years at least.

    • What connection the the UK? I don't understand this. All we do is have the queen come in and parade around the country. She doesn't make any decisions or any of that crap. It's just tradition, nothing more.

      People would like to get rid of the GG, but their reasoning is purely emotional. "Representative of the queen?! OMG! Terrible!" but of course the title is meaningless. The GG has important responsibilities that are deffered to that person so as to create balance. The PM is already overpowered in our system, and giving that position all the powers of the GG would just further this problem.

      IF they were to do away with the GG, I would like to see more power given to parliament, and even more power taken from the PM. However, I don't see any reasoning (reasoning, like real reasoning not emotional garbage) for abolishing the post.

  9. I have to confess that I feel a great deal of affection for Elizabeth II… but not for the monarchy as an institution. When she passes away, we should keep our current system, but cut the tie to the UK.

    • As in, appoint a distinctly Canadian monarch or leave everything as is, but without a monarch for the GG to (theoretically) be responsible to?

      • What about a dual monarchy, like in Sparta? One King, one Queen; one of them anglophone, one of them francophone.

        • The queen IS anglophone and francophone. So is Prince Charles.

  10. Poor Chuck, sitting around Clarence House, out of work and waiting endlessly for mum to kick the bucket, and now the republicans want to deprive him of his chance to have his first job?

    • I think Charles looks a lot better today than he did 20 years ago. While he was once mocked for "talking to vegetables", his big issues – the environment and organic farming – have actually taken off (traditional architecture not so much). He is finally with the woman he loves – a woman who is not a limelight-seeking bimbo. Of his kids, at least William turned out okay (and at least Harry is serving his country). Oh and they tend to do a profile picture for the coins, so Charles' ears won't be a huge problem.

      • I agree. Charles has improved with age.

        • OMgawd — how bad was he before?

    • I won't have that slobbering idiot as my head of state. The Queen has a touch of class and I could manage to live with her till she croaks but that obnoxious son of her will never be King of Canada. (Couldn't even be King of Kensington)

      • Are you arranging your travel documents, then?

      • Elizabeth is going to outlive Charles if it kills her. XD

        • It'll be like Queen Victoria and her son Edward. She was so old when she died, Edward only lived a few years beyond it.

  11. Since most people that talk about replacing the queen support a homegrown governor-general taking that role, it isn't clear that Canada would be saving money by doing away with the monarchy. In general there are certain head of state roles. Whether they are taken up by the prime minister, the governor-general or the Queen they are going to cost us money. Given those options, I prefer one that honours our history, and keeps the role of head of state separate from that of head of government, so the country has a figure we can all rally around in crises.

    The problem with the American approach is that when the head of state and head of government are the same person, you get a bunch of dolts as president who "look presidential". They are constrained in office too by the notion that they have to be some sort of superman, and take a lot more damage than they should for things like sex scandals that don't impact the business of government.

    • Hear hear. They also command great loyalty from οἱ πολλοί by virtue of being head of state, which they do not scruple to use politically in their role as head of government. Whence, IMHO, the endless debates about American anti-Americanism, anti-American Americanism, etc. etc. etc.

    • I agree, your explaination is right on point., She & the Governor General fill a very important role. The costs, when we see when we see how wastefully the government uses our taxes, are good value & a drop in the bucket In many ways the GG keeps the government on its toes, & if push came to shove the GG could ask the oposition to form a government. I agree we should discontinue the L'Governor's they seem to have very few duties of any importance. Reading many of the preceding comments made me nausous. Such lack of understanding & petty bitterness.

      • The cost of running the GG's office has a budget of about $20M. Per capita, that's roughly the same as most parliamentary republics pay to have a ceremonial president ie; Austria, Ireland, Israel, Germany, etc. I could handle that, The GG does all the work of a head of state. – But we also pay $10-15M every time the Queen visits, plus, unlike any other visiting head of state, Canadian taxpayers also pay close to that every time a member of her family visits! This is just wrong!

  12. Unfortunately, thanks to provisions in the constitution, the monarchy would be nearly impossible to abolish. In order to reach agreement with the provinces for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1981-82, Trudeau had to appease Ontario's Bill Davis by enshrining the Monarchy in the constitution. While most parts of the constitution can be amended by Parliament and the ratification of at least 7 provincial legislatures (representing at least 50% of the population), changing the role of the monarchy must be unanimous. If Ottawa and 9 provinces ever agreed (a miracle in itself) to abolish the monarchy and make the Governor-General a President like they have in, say, Germany or Ireland (which would basically amount to changing the stationary at Rideau Hall), Prince Edward Island could veto the whole thing if it felt like it.
    We're stuck with the Windsors for a long time to come. Thanks a lot, Bill Davis!

  13. The $50 million is for the GG and a whole raft of Lt. Governerors (one per province). Is there any reason the GG couldn't assume all of the L.G.'s constitutional responsibilities. That's where the cost savings would be – not in GG vs a 'president', but in GG + way too many lt. governors vs. just a GG.

  14. no wonder the queen enjoy visiting Canada so much

  15. i'm British, and i'm a republican. i want the lot of them gone. this can only happen if you get rid of her first, same with the aussies, new zealanders etc

    please please

    • If you guys get rid of her then all the commonwealth can be done with her. If Canada for instance gets rid of her you could still keep her. Would be funny if Canada wanted to still keep the Queen and Britain didn't.

        • But for the fact that Her Majesty is not immortal.

  16. Stopped reading here:

    "as well as the cost of running the offices of the Governor General and our 10 provincial lieutenant-governors."

    Obviously, the analysis of cost here is flawed.

    • BC, AB, SASK, MAN, ON, PQ, NB, NS, PEI & NFLD – that's ten last time I counted… unless you're irked by the exclusion of the three territories?

  17. I wonder what the cost of composing this article was; what ever the amount, it was a waste. Freda and his band of angry Irishmen seem to have two absolutely delusional thoughts: a) that the provinces will freely hand their pieces of the Crown – in other words, their sovereignty – over to the federal government, all to save a few cents, and b) that a president of Canada would simultaneously hold another job, maybe at Subway, or writing computer software, and live in an Ottawa bungalo, travelling only when he personally could afford it. Dream on, chumps. Presidential palaces, security and lackey entourages, international and domestic trips… It would probably, if anything, cost even more.

    • "band of angry Irishmen"????????

      Is it just me or is that blatantly racist? Perhaps the Irish are no longer sufficiently exploited to merit fair treatment.

      • I imagine it's just you who can't differentiate between "band of angry Irishmen" and "all Irish on the planet." I certainly can't help it that a sizable amount of Citizens for a Canadian Republic's tiny following is Irish nationalists inspired to fight the monarchy here by their bretheren in the homeland.

        • You have the racial breakdown of Citizens for a Canadian Republic, and your know they are Irish nationalist? That is utterly astounding.

          I think the fact that you look at the issue in such terms and are compelled to publicly colour your remarks with such name-calling as 'angry Irishmen' is testament enough to your bigotry.

          • I have an intimate knowledge of CCR's membership, yes. You're entitled to think that my observations are bigoted, but that doesn't make you right.

          • Well what are you waiting for? Share the knowledge.They are a band of angry Irishmen, let's have the details.

          • What more detail would you like? Their message board is riddled with anti-British, Irish nationalist commentary, the group has openly supported individuals who's actions against the Crown were based on Irish national sentiment, and supporters of CCR's cause have been qoted as saying they were motivated by Irish politics. This is but a brief summary of evidence I've gleaned over a number of years, the full amount of which wouldn't fit in this limited space.

          • Ok, I searched their forum, at least a few dozen of their 12,000 posts, and there isn't a single message about Irish nationalism. The names I see are Ing, Holden, Scot, Lalonde,

            I found this interesting excerpt:
            > > You've based this opinion on what: One or two republicans
            > > who've gone public? I've met hundreds of our supporters and know
            > > a grand total of four who are Irish.

            It was in response to a remarkably similar accusation to your own.
            So, I would say you are full of crap and like to make totally unsubstantiated claims in support of a position can that only be defended by such weak-minded arguments.

          • Perhaps you shouldn't be so narrow and literal in your search methods. As I said already, disagree with me if you please, but it doesn't make you right.

  18. If Mr Freda would give me his mailing address, I can send him a check, once per year, for $1.53, do you think that will satisfy him?
    freealbertan: It very much is a part of our democracy. Think of it this way, with an elected head of state, even then it will only represent the majority of people equally; all those who voted against it are not represented. With an unelected representative it represents the entire populace at the same level.

    It is not as simple as eliminating the monarchy, and some of us, me included, can guarantee you that we would fight it tooth and nail, no matter how reactionary it may make us look.

    • And in one swift leap of logic, the whole notion of responsible government is vaulted. Missing in your explanation is that the GG gains democratic legitimacy from being appointed by Parliament. There is no necessary tie to the monarchy there.

      It is encouraging that there are people willing to fight for their principles. I would suggest teeth and nails might be lacking against some of today's advanced weaponry.

    • That's rubbish. It's like saying the President of the USA only represents Democrats. The head of state represents ALL citizens. We have a right to choose our head of state instead of having some unelected foreign monarch.

      • Riiiight… Tell that to the Democrats during the Bush Jr. years! :D Well, perhaps you just got confused because you tried to stray from the republicans' "boo-evil-autocratic-freedom-killing-dirty-foreign-not-born-in-Canada-like-a-true-Canadian-woman" talking points. Good try, but just stick to the script, okay?

    • Matthew I will split the cost with you. In fact why don't we send him double, $3.06, He can put it toward a new pair of spectacles, so that his view on life will be less distorted.

    • The queen plays absolutely no constitutional roll in Canada. Since 1947, all the work of the monarch is done by the GG. Tell me how continuing to have the GG do the same job as now, without a silly link to a foreign-based monarchy is any worse? The issue of importance that trumps constitutional function is the fact that Canadians can't choose one of our own citizens to be head of state of our own country. On top of that, to the world, it makes us look like we're subservient to Britain and have not yet attained full independence. It's time for Canada to prove it's grown up and get rid of this last colonial link to Britain.

  19. The monarchy is not in harmony with the values Canadians hold today- democracy, egalitarianism, independence. Currently, we are spending $ 50,000,000 a year to maintain an official institution embodying values- hereditary privilege, classism, colonialism- which are in opposition to those held by most Canadians! Mr. Freda is right- its time for a change.

    • Since when did you decide to speak for Canadians? If you wish to continnue doing so, however, you may want to first get a few facts straight: Even as a constitutional monarchy, Canada is already independent and democratic, and changing to a republic would not rid us of inegalitarianism; it would merely come in a different form. So, if it indeed time for change, the question remains: why?

      • First you question Mondo's right to evoke generally accepted principles in Canada, and then immediately accept them yourself, failing miserably to tie them into support for an institution that is based on the completely contrary principles Mondo pointed out: hereditary privilege, classism, and colonialism – and not to mention racism and sexism. These latter principles are, OF COURSE, what we should want the institution at the pinnacle of our society to represent.

      • First you question Mondo's right to evoke generally accepted principles in Canada, and then immediately accept them yourself, failing miserably to tie them into support for an institution that is based on the completely contrary principles Mondo pointed out: hereditary privilege, classism, and colonialism – and not to mention racism and sexism. These principles are, OF COURSE, what we should want the institution at the pinnacle of our society to represent.

        • How am I to respond to comments on things I never said? Mondo was out of line on two separate points: 1) his assumption that he can speak for all Canadians, and 2) his belief that the Crown makes Canada inegalitarian, undemocratic, colonial, and antiquated (which is the only thing I can guess is meant by the misuse of the term "classical"). I won't even bother to entertain your added ridiculous accusations of racism and sexism. Given that all these so-called points against the monarchy are either unfounded or themselves antiquated, the whole argument that a republic will save us is rendered baseless; there's nothing to be saved from.

          • Where did Mondo assume to be speaking for all Canadians? Do you mean his declaration that Canadian's value democracy, egalitarianism, and independence? If you have an issue with that declaration, then speak to issue.

            In your view, do Canadian's not value these principles? Mondo never claimed to be speaking for all Canadians. Mondo never claimed that 'the Crown makes Canada inegalitarian, undemocratic, colonial, and antiquated', he said the institution embodies the values of 'hereditary privilege, classism, colonialism'. His point is entirely about the principles that the institution should represent versus the principles that the institution actually embodies. You are either failing to comprehend his words or purposefully distorting them.

            How is the accusation of racism and sexism ridiculous? Are you suggesting that the rules for succession to the throne are not sexist . Are you suggesting that the monarch is NOT forbidden to be Catholic or marry a Catholic and that those stipulations are not based in racism?

            You further speak to some invented argument 'that a republic will save us'. I see no mention of a republic saving us in Mondo's post.

          • The Crown and the state are one and the same; as it has a monarchy, Canada is a monarchy. Thus, by calling the former undemocratic, colonial, etc., Mondo most certainly is using the same unpalatable adjectives to describe the latter. This, in tandem with his comment that "the monarchy is not in harmony with the values Canadians hold today" – and note, it's "Canadians", as in all of them – carries the implication that supporters of the Crown cannot be counted amongst Canadians, who for Mondo can only be those at odds with the present monarchical incarnation of the state, and thus need to save themselves from this intolerable situation. If he didn't think so, why did he bother posting a call for change?

            Of course, his entire argument is based on fallacious claims. The monarchy is no more in-egalitarian or antiquated than any other system, quite democratic, and certainly not colonial. It is also neither itself sexist (the succession laws were created and have been left unaltered by politicians, not monarchs) nor racist (Catholicism is not a race; but for religious discrimination, see my comment on sexism).

          • I'll leave your rationalizations to stand on their own merit.

          • I accept your concession.

          • Yes, I concede that you are forced to rationalize unsupportable positions.

          • And I accept your concession.

    • Mondo,
      Canadians really aren't sticklers for such principles.

      • And thank God for that. Too much principle only produces hypocrisy and the values-driven rhetoric that never ceases to flow from the USA. Mentally they've all got pictures of Thomas Jefferson in their living rooms just like Turkey.

      • And thank God for that. Too much principle only produces hypocrisy and the values-driven rhetoric that never ceases to flow from the USA. Mentally they've all got pictures of Thomas Jefferson in their living rooms just like North Korea.

  20. Well said Mr. Freda! I thoroughly support the objectives of your movement. Canada needs its own head of state. The institution of monarchy is not representative of the Canadian value system. Our value system is based on merit, not on birth, blood and religion. I was delighted to read that the majority of Canadians agree that the British monarchy must go and it is time we plan for the future as a sovereign and independent nation.

  21. Well said Mr. Freda! I thoroughly support the objectives of your movement. Canada needs its own head of state. The institution of monarchy is not representative of the Canadian value system. Our value system is based on merit, not on birth, blood and religion. I was delighted to read that the majority of Canadians agree that the British monarchy must go and it is time we plan for the future as a sovereign and independent nation. Now that does not sound radical to me.

  22. True, but if the people oppose it with a strong enough majority, anything can change. Including the constitution.

    • Also true, King Killer, but you'll be waiting awhile for that, too.

  23. That's all you're reduced to? Really, you should just have left it where you did; at least you retained some dignity at that point. If there's a question of yours I haven't answered, please point it out. If you wish to challenge my replies to your queries, please attempt to do so. If you want to admit the weakness of your position, go ahead. It's your choice, sir.

    • I don't require any validation from a bigot, thanks. Your rationalizations of unsupportable positions are very clear from the posts you have already provided, no further testimony required.

      • My, you've proven that you can indeed sink even lower; personal attacks and hyperbole. A predictable result, I suppose; you're merely displaying the typical republican's pattern. I suppose yours is an understandable reaction to being cornered. Well, better luck next time!

        • Yes, I have no problem calling someone a bigot when they make racial slurs. You are a bigot and my only resentment is that I have already wasted too much time pointing out this very obvious fact.

          • That's fine. You should just be sure someone actually made a racial slur before calling them a bigot, lest you look like a fool who is merely pulling out the racial card to distract attention from his own inability to actually attack his opponent's argument. Keep flapping and flailing if you wish; I doubt it's fooling anyone with half a brain in their head.

          • Angry? Not at all, as before, I thank you for making me aware of the very many ways is which the monarchy symbolizes principles that are totally contrary to the values of the majority of Canadians, and the mountain of wealth the is held in reserve for her use.

          • Angry? Not at all, as before, I thank you for making me aware of the very many ways is which the monarchy symbolizes principles that are totally contrary to the values of the majority of Canadians, and the mountain of wealth that is held in reserve for her use.

          • Really, Ed, it's only by willful ignorance that you maintain your beliefs on the monarchy. It's blatantly clear that you neither understand Canada's federal structure, the tenets of constitutional monarchy, the concept of responsible government, and this country's constitutional development, nor do you want to. If you did let down your guard, your emotional anti-monarchy stance would be weaked by these intruding facts and logic. Indeed, it's their very intrusion that makes you angry and defensive, what with your sophmoric regressions to straw-men and personal attacks. Really, come on over! The monarchy's fine!

          • GM, you're quite mistaken, I am fairly well educated on Canadian political structure. I just hadn't given much thought to the importance of symbolism inherent with the monarchy, happy enough to excuse its symbolism of fuedalism and other very ugly principles, for its representation of Canadians' respect for tradition. As I have said before, the workings of government would not be effected by excising the link between the GG and the Queen. Maintaining a GG would pay an appropriate amount of respect for our cultural heritage without symbolizing distorted principles – principles that you would like to excuse as not existing in the monarchy, but certainly are.

            When our Queen passes, I will happily celebrate her tradition, my only wish regarding that is that the statutory holiday fall on a February date. We could use a February holiday. The monarchy's continued existence at the top of all Canadian institutions, however, is mislaid.

          • No, no, Ed. Allow me to be more clear for you: That you believe the lieutenant governors can simply be dispensed with shows you don't understand Canada's federal structure. That you think they're undemocratic shows you don't understand the tenets of constitutional monarchy and the concept of responsible government. Your talk of the monarchy as a current foreign, colonial power shows you don't understand this country's constitutional development. And your evident notion that the abolition of the Crown – all for nothing more than personal interpretations of symbolism – would not in any way affect governance demonstrates a certain reckless misunderstanding of the whole idea of state structures.

            If the monarchy were as trivial as you make it out to be, why do you think the framers of the amending formula made it so difficult to alter any aspect of it? It was because it's the core of the entire governmental construct in this country, and, as such, must be protected against fickle values fashionistas who care about nothing more than their feelings.

  24. I think we still have them because of our weak army. We depend on the U.S. and the U.K. to protect us. That's why we're over there in afghanistan now. To kiss british and american butt. And we still have GG and LG to show the british how much we respect them. So we have no choice to keep kissing butt until we become a stronger country.

    • that's a joke the U.K protecting us the only reason we don't speak russian is because of the u .s .a next door.we don't need the U K FOR PROTECTION OR OTHER COUNTRIES ALL OF EUROPE IS PROTECTED BY THE U .S. A SO PLEASE ONLY ONE BUTT TO KISS AND THAT IS SOUTH OF US.BY THE WAY THE U K HAD A HARD TIME FIGHTING ARGENTINA ONE OF THE SMALLEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD,THEY USED CRUISE SHIPS TO GET THEIR SOLDIERS OVER.OK SO IN CASE CANADA NEEDS THE U K FOR HELP THEY WILL SEND THE QEEN MARY.GET RID OF THE QEEN PLEASE AND USE 50 MILLION TO HELP THE ECONOMY OF CANADA.

      • John, are you an American? The USA is not the almighty powerful country you think it is. They go around the world invading countries infinitely weaker than themselves. They invade Iraq, a country that barely had a military, because of the non existant WMD’s. North Korea was saying hey we are making them, and the yanks do nothing, as they won’t fight anyone that is capable of putting up a fight. They did very little fighting in Europe during WW2. If it wasnt for the British Commonwealth and the Soviet Union the yanks would be speaking German. And, Argentina had a bigger military then the UK in 1982. The fact the UK sent a force that far away from home and won a brutal war to liberate British subjects from Argentinian invaders, who were right next to their home country says alot more about their military might and loyalty to their subjects than the USA bullying countries like Iraq but being too cowardly to stand up to North Korea for doing the same thing they invaded Iraq for.

        • First of all the USA are the most powerfull country in the world. Two they don’t invade counties that are weaker then them. Iraq was not weak they did fight , also the uk , France etc also invaded. As for north Korea , it would cost far to much money and life’s due to there defence system and military. Third of all the did do a lot of fighting in europe during world war two, such as d-day , fighting in north Africa , and Italy they also send pilots to help fight in the battle of Britain. Plus they sent guns etc to the uk and Russia as well as helping in some cases protected ships for the uk,a food supply. Fourthly , the yanks were not under threat of invasion for Germany. Firth , in 1982 arganatian had an army of conscripts. Sixthly , north k and iraq are two different things. So please learn a few things and I am British and a monarchist.

      • The big tough USA also got chased out of tiny Vietnam with their tales between their legs

  25. I'm very happy to read this. I feel that the monarchy may have been necessary many years ago, but is now irrelevant to our society today. I remember arguing to my elderly political science instructor, that we had no need for the monarchy, and he shut me up by having the whole class stand up and sing "God save the Queen".

    It's symbolic, but it doesn't symbolize anything about Canada.

  26. the queen is the biggest joke in possibly the whole world..like who is she?? what does she do exactly?? but hey lets give her as much of our money as possible, throw in some tim hortons coffee while you're at it…

    • The jokes of the world are Victoria Beckham, Madonna, Britney, et al. Yet, somehow, they still have millions of dollars from people like you PAYING for their tawdry crap.

    • GOOD ONE

    • The queen is a royal Kim Kardashian, they both make a lot of money doing nothing.

  27. I can see you have a real understanding of canadian history. Anything decent in this country has roots to our british heritage. Great for your instructor!

    • That instructor was a dick. What kind of teacher instructs students to prevent another student from expressing their constitutional right to free speech? And he taught political science?

  28. The only Queen's and King's we should have are the ones on the Playing cards,As for the British Monarcy She should stay in Brittyon and leave us alone she is irrelevant to us and the majority of Canadians want to be Autonomous….Just take a voteand lets get rid of the Queen….Shees milking us anyway….and what does she do for us besides coming along and filling her pockets….

    • Do you even understand what you are talking about?!?!? There would be no Canada today without the help and assistance of the Monarchy…. Does anyone remember that the first people to colonize Canada were British (Native Tribes were the first groups here but the British brought revolution)? Does anyone feel badly that now more than ever I feel like I'm being pushed out of my own country by immigrants? Too many people nowadays are leaving their own country to make Canada their home, but then want change it all up… If you don't like our Monarchy find another place to live… I want the monarchy to stay…. We need the monarchy otherwise we'll end up on a path of self destruction…. For all of you who don't believe in the Monarchy remember if it wasn't for the British we would be just another state in the United States of America….

      • UNITE STATES OF AMERICA THAT IS NOT SO BAD.

    • Illogical, unfounded, inaccurate, and riddled with spelling and grammatical errors; this is a prime example of the sad state of our education system in this country, not only from the perspective of language, but also those of Canadian history and modern constitutional knowledge. Too many Canadians nowadays garner knowledge of their own country only from the mass media, which comes in only tiny drops amongst a tidal wave of American-centric information. The results are sad, but hardly surprising.

      • and your point as it relates to the topic at hand?
        or are you trying to give yourself as an example of someone who was cheated out of good education?

  29. Maybe we should have a referendum across all provinces about the roel of monarchy before making assumptions…..

  30. This country has spineless politicians. We can support our Military with that money spent in supporting the monarchy. The queen is rich enough to support herself and all her family combined. What about our poor, our health system, our seniors ?. I do not understand why we have to support the monarch. This is Canada. I do not see French Canada supporting France. I do not think Quebec would want to support the monarchy and would want to pay a $1.53 per capita each year. If we are supporting the monarchy, why did we have to buy out of commission British redundant lemon submarines ?.

    • YOU ARE SO RIGHT LEMON SUBS WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY,WE HAVE THE BIGGEST AND MOST POWERFULL MILITARY IN THE WORLD NEXT DOOR WHO WILL MESS WITH US .WE CAN CONCENTRATE ON THE ECONOMY NOT PURCHASING SUBMARINES THAT DON'T WORK,LET THE AMERICANS SPEND BILLIONS ON MILITARY .AND YES GET RID OF THE MONARCHY.

  31. Yep, we'd be in big trouble if not for the Yanks and the British. I'd rather kiss their butt than the damn Quebecois – which is what our federal government is doing by giving the French all the jobs in the Ottawa civil service.

  32. Why do we insist in reminding ouselves of our place in the world as an ex-colony. No wonder we have trouble on a Canadian identity. Think of all the good we could do if this money was invested right here in Canada instead of keeping a forgetful part of our history alive.

    • Think of all the good we could do if this money was invested right here in Canada

      It is. Read the article.

  33. I would love nothing more then to see the whole thing of Queens and Kings gone. Finch says they help to safeguard Canada's democratic tradition whats democratic about the Queen? Or the Govener General? Do we the people of this country get to vote on who the next GG will be? Do we get to have a say on who should be next in line for the throne? No we don't no one dose and if you ask me that sounds more like communism to me, its a system thats out of date and belongs in the past.

  34. Franco-Ontarian Perspective: we have an econo-army because we figured long ago that we could hide under America's skirt. We then realized that the savings afforded us a nifty national Health Plan. Never mind long live the Queen, long live America!
    Don't want to do away with Queen Elizabeth II. She's just as part of my heritage as the guards and bagpipes on parliament Hill on Remembrance morning. I love the Queen. If it's all the same to you, let's call it quits with the monarchy after Elizabeth II. I shuuuuudder to think that one day, Camilla and Chuck could or would be my Queen and King. ''Sacrebleu''

  35. I think the people who want rid of the monachy should move to the usa or france. If it wasnt for the monachy and ties with the uk through out history this great country would probably be new france or part of the usa. honour your canadian heritage dont just cast it aside as many of our british and canadian ancesters died for what we enjoy now

  36. wow, think of what 40 or 50 million could do if put into education or health care. why do we need lt.goveners? what do they do exactly? why do they need to have staff if they dont do anything? and dont give me any bull about literary awards. ooo I got an award from someone who does nothing, dont i feel special. i must be nice to be paid lots of money for public appearences, and traveling. where can I sign up for that job.

  37. I understand the Queen is one of the richest individuals in tthe world, so let her pay for her own expenses, Who needs a Queen,
    I was a Brit 50ys ago.

    • You understand incorrectly.

  38. We needed Monarchs when we were in the Middle Ages.
    It's way overdue for getting rid of "Reigning over us" just because the Person was born into the right family.
    Look at the world – the great majority has moved on – right into the 21st century. When will man ever be free when he has to bow before another man?

    • No one has to bow before anyone. In certain cases, it's customary to, and I can think of very few people who might be as deserving of the honour of a respectful bow than Her Majesty, who has devoted more than half a century to serving the Commonwealth realms–a job that she never asked for, that she watched kill her father, but that she has always performed with the utmost dignity and respect.

      • Don't you think that is putting it on a bit thick? It killed her father? His lung cancer, I suppose, was caused the his frequent trips to the coal mines to encourage the workers. Other than fulfilling her rather pleasant tasks with a quiet dignity, what has Elizabeth ever contributed, especially in light of the privilege, favours and fortunes bestowed upon her?

    • Never; without anarchy, that is. And, speaking of: have you ever taken a moment to look at the majority of 21st century republics? Or is it just one and its myths that you're in love with?

  39. I like the monarchy- long may it last.

    It's cost is miniscule, on a per capita basis, and it provides stability. The Queen is a figurehead, no more. Does anyone really believe she dictates our poltical course? Do we really want to be a republic (like the USA)?

    As I understand it, all elected officials swear an oath of allegiance to the crown. Given this oath, how could they possibly sever the ties?

    • Members of Parliament swear an oath to the Queen because she is the living symbol of the Canadian system of government, which is a democratic system in which elected representatives come together to advance their views how the country should be run. That their views will sometimes be in favour of changing fundamental aspects of the system, even the Crown itself, in no way conflicts with their oath, so long as they are operating within the system in good faith. This is one of the many fantastic features of the Canadian monarchy.

      • Those are ironies of Canadian monarchy. They are features of Canada.

        • They are features of the Canadian system of government, which is a monarchy. It is only ironic if your view of monarchy is unduly influenced by old fairy tales, and not so much by, um, the actual history of our monarchy.

  40. A Head of State separate from the Head of Gov't is vital to protect from the PM trying to become a dictator. Who better but the Queen to be Head of State as someone who has no personal interests in Canada to prevent a conflict of interests. The Gov't has to answer to the voter not to the Head of State. If the Head of State is called on to rule on a dispute, the Head must refer to the constitution not personal interests. Canada should invite Prince Harry to be Governor General so we would have a real Monarch. Being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces he can be involved with Canadian Forces around the world. Somebody has to do the job and get paid for it, why not a real Royal ? The Governor General is just a ceremonial position with little say in governing the country.

  41. An after thought— With Prince Harry as Governor General, he could marry a Quebecois lass and possibly end the thousand year old French-English War that the Quebecer separatists have been fighting. Long Live our New King and Queen ! ! EH ! !

  42. I do not advocate doing away with the monarchyl, and actually feel that we should remain part of the commonwealth. However, having eleven ceremonial positions costing $50 million is a bit over the top. The Governor General and ten Lieutenant Governors postions are an expense that is wasted on an anachronistic system that should be moderized. If the Queen wants to keep her vice-regal representatives here in Canada, maybe she should pay for them. Or, given todays technologies, why not have the Queen read the speach from the throne via closed circuit live satalite TV. Or, for that matter, just send Chuck or one of the boys over to do it. All of the other ceremonial stuff can be done by appropriate Canadian dignatories.

  43. Time for Canada to grow up and dump the Monarchy – keep the symbols on the coin for a period but we really DO NOT need a Gov General and all the other puff that goes along with her trips home and to France.

    • Of course we don't!… Er… Why don't we, again?

  44. The headline of this article is extraordinarily misleading. These are not the costs of "the Queen", but rather the costs of having a head of state who is not the head of government (which is extraordinarily important, especially in a parliamentary system), and the costs of having a federal system (as opposed to the British unitary system). These costs would not go away in the unfortunate event that we abandoned the monarchy, and either way it's money very well spent.

    • This is a bit too simplistic. These institution inherited a bloated sense of self and were designed to promote allegiance to the monarch and to the country. They could easily be pared down and made more legitimate. I think the need for LGs has passed. I can't imagine any detrimental effect to removing them, and like Rick Mercer, having a massive residence and estate in downtown Ottawa and others throughout the country is extremely wasteful.

    • This is a bit too simplistic. These institution inherited a bloated sense of self and were designed to promote allegiance to the monarch and to the country. They could easily be pared down and made more legitimate. I think the need for LGs has passed. I can't imagine any detrimental effect to removing them, and like Rick Mercer, having a massive residence and estate in downtown Ottawa and others throughout the country is extremely wasteful. Make them into public parks.

      • Good grief; you really have no idea what you're talking about! For 147 years, the provinces have fought against federal intrusion in their jurisdictions, and yet, now, suddenly you know that they're going to just hand over their sovereignty to Ottawa; have your homeless president sign provincial bills into law? Ha!

        • right on cue, bloated sense of self. budda-bing

          • And more predictable personal attacks to cover the attacker's lack of fact and logic! :D

          • Hilarious how someone who makes racist comments about angry Irishmen gets so indignant about a little name-calling.

          • How could I be indignant when I find your frothing and gurgling so amusing! You have nothing to back yourself up, you can't refute my points, and now you're pouty and embarassed. But don't worry; I've seen it all before: you've been through denial, you're now in the anger stage, and next will come acceptance. I'll help you through it.

          • Come now, boys. At least when I attack people, I make it funny.

          • You are right Stephen, a lighter tone is called for.

          • In that spirit, I would like to offer the following conspiracy theory. GM is actually an anti-monarchist posing as fixated monarchist in order to expose the weaknesses in that position.

      • The point is that the only way to eliminate the costs of having a separate head of state is to cease having a separate head of state. Yes, those costs can be adjusted, whether we're a monarchy or not, but they won't go away. And since they could easily be reduced without losing the monarchy and they could easily be much higher if we did, using these costs as an argument against the monarchy is disingenuous.

        Also, I think you owe an apology to Rick Mercer, who I'm quite sure is not "extremely wasteful".

  45. Not to mention we are supporting a sectarian institution. Being or marrying a Catholic explicitly and automatically excludes ascension to the throne. How can anyone possibly defend that in a head of state for all?

  46. I love the Queen but when she passes that should end our relationship with the Monarchy. There is NO WAY I will ever worship Charles and his Mistress – then his wife. They are both responsible for Diana's death and she was the "real thing" – she would have made an amazing Queen. I will NEVER understand how and why Camilla was finally accepted by the Queen. The Queen sure has lowered her standards of moral decency – the way she approves of her whole family sleeping and living together before marriage. WHAT and WHO to respect???

  47. 1. Get over it – we're always got to have a Head of State who does the jobs that busy politicians can't be bothered with (like meeting with visiting minor dignataries who don't vote here, so why bother?) or have no time for (Arts awards? I don't artists and they don't like me anyway). And that person is the GG (or more provincially, the LGs).

    2. If the PM screws up royally (pardon the pun) someone has to say "no" — they didn't have anyone to say that in the US, so they got Dubyah and a host of others who couldn't be bothered to read the small print on the US Constitution. And the one who says "no" here is the GG. Even if someone is sleeping at the counter, the store is a lot safer than not bothering with anyone there.

    Bottom line: if you have a system where you elect your Head of State, the cost will be greater and you'll regret it far more frequently.

  48. 1. Get over it – we're always got to have a Head of State who does the jobs that busy politicians can't be bothered with (like meeting with visiting minor dignataries who don't vote here, so why bother?) or have no time for (Arts awards? I don't artists and they don't like me anyway). And that person is the GG (or more provincially, the LGs).

    2. If the PM screws up royally (pardon the pun) someone has to say "no" — they didn't have anyone to say that in the US, so they got Dubyah and a host of others who couldn't be bothered to read the small print on the US Constitution. And the one who says "no" here is the GG. Even if someone is sleeping at the counter, the store is a lot safer than not bothering with anyone there.

    Bottom line: if you have a system where you elect your Head of State, the cost will be greater and you'll regret it far more frequently.

    • if you have a system where you elect your Head of State, the cost will be greater and you'll regret it far more frequently.

      WhyÉ Who sets the ruels for these things – or do we just follow the U.S.`s lead because we`re neighbours, or because someone tells us it`s so…..
      Just because a person is born into a wealthy family who have had power for many, many years does not mean they are the best person to be a head of state – or that we even need one. It could be a volunteer position by an elected leaders wife, girlfriend or brother. Period.

      • Just because a person gets voted in doesn't mean they're the best person to be a head of state, either; in fact, someone who's been raised from birth to fill the post will make a decent head of state more often than someone trained otherwise and ran for the office for personal gain.

        • Spurious argument, it is not the Queen who makes such decisions in Canada, it is the GG.

          • Is the Queen not still the head of state, Ed? That is what we're talking about; not her representatives.

  49. Oh yeah — cost.

    If you put the budgets (ceremonial and other relevant expenses) of the GG, the LGs and — yes — the PM together and multiplied it by 10, how many decimals do you suppose we'd be short of what the US spends merely on their Prensident?

    As far as the Queen is concerned, I don't believe she — personally — costs us a penny, and we get to use her picture on our coins and stamps for free — just think, if we had been using the self-proclaimed "King of Pop" instead, we'd even now be paying (again, pardon the pun) royalties, but to the estate of the late Jocko.

    • I don't believe she — personally — costs us a penny
      Um, yeah – she does – As for the picture on the money – big deal. There are other prictures on our money too, why would we need King of Pop or any other entertainer's picture on money – this is a dumb statement that has absolutely no relevance to this topic. Even in Britian, people are sick of the monarchy & the class distiction & social discrimination it promotes.
      Because the U.S. spends $$$$ on their presidents we should tooÉ Look at the difference in population between Canada & the U.S. & the number of American companies that own subsidiaries in Canada.
      Wake up & think for yourself.

      • Um, yeah – she does

        Well argued. Er, wait: not "well"… and not "argued"… Where was I, again?

        Because the U.S. spends $$$$ on their presidents we should tooÉ Look at the difference in population between Canada & the U.S. & the number of American companies that own subsidiaries in Canada.

        Um… what?

        • And you are ok with the fact our head of state is barred from being or marrying a Catholic?

          • What does that have to do with the discussion?

          • I think its a very important point.
            I have a problem with people being excluded from being head of state based solely on their religion. That is called sectarian discrimination and has no place in modern Canada.
            Do you think it is appropriate for Catholics to be excluded from the position of head of state of Canada?

  50. this is a big scum! i don't see the relevance of the monarchy in a democracy, we should dump the monarchy asap!

  51. People are confusing republicanism with democracy. The two are in no way interdependent, or even related in the political sphere. The notion that we cannot have democracy without being a republic is to ignore the fundamentals of what democracy means: A GOVERNMENT elected by the people to best serve them. The state does not equal the government. One governs the other, the other gives the one a reason to exist as a legislative institution. The monarchy is not about a person, but rather the institution. I agree that after Elizabeth goes the monarchy is likely to fall apart, but I do not think that Canada ought to take the dangerous step of politicizing the state. Rather, keep state and government separate. Personally I would prefer to see a continuation of the monarchy. The monarchy is not a British institution, but rather one that serves to conjoin 52 nations together by embodying a shared language, culture, and to an extent, history. We may as well admit that the monarchy ties Canada to a huge amount of the world in these fundamental aspects of any civilization. And lets face it: the British DID conquer the world, and they DID spread their civilization across the globe. To deny this is to deny the past 200 years, and to deny the results of the colonial experiment is to deny the fact that English is now the dominant language in the world, and European culture is the dominant culture. The Queen is the queen of 16 nations, Canada included, and in each one she serves a specific role as Queen of THAT nation. Forget about the person, and focus on the benefits of the institution.

    • If your first point is meant to clarify the point that a republic is NOT the only alternative to the monarchy, I agree with you. I would add to that point that our institutions could remain just as they are now, but with the removal of the monarchy, and there would be no effect on the regular workings of government.

      I also agree that we should be proud of our heritage and our British imperialist past, but only to a degree. It was British and it was imperialist, both characteristics being at odds with most Canadian's makeup and sentiments. Is it really appropriate to have the institution at the pinnacle of our society, be so heavily laden with such values and symbolism? Even the British are concerned about the legitimacy of the institution.

      You are hearkening to a time that has passed us by. The empire no longer exists, shall we summon the knights? I think the monarchy is definitely viewed as thoroughly British, the world over, and it is absolutely a British institution. Determining that they should not stand above all other institutions in Canada is not the same as breaking all links to them, or refuting their importance in the early development of Canada. Retaining a Governor General who becomes the titular head of state, would pay homage to our heritage, and remove a host of compromises of principle that we have had to make, in order to prop up an institution that is laden with distorted principles that are very contrary to the values held by the vast majority of Canadians.

      England never conquered the world, or even came close to it. If it had, would that be something to celebrate? English is not the dominant language in the world, that is patently false. It is the language of business, but that is more representative of American expansion than British. European culture is the dominant culture? That is just a repugnant attitude.

      I think that in the past hundred years Canadians have come to identify themselves as a people of compromise and tolerance, but at times this has gone too far, to the point of acquiescence. We stand for values of egalitarianism, non-sectarianism, and freedom, and we deserve to have an institution at our helm that not only holds those values, but symbolizes them. The British monarchy does not symbolize those values.

  52. The so called "royal"family plus all the hanger on folk are a royal pain in the A$$ plus in the pocket book. Let us remember that the first language of queen victoria was German, they are no more British that a native Indian in Canada. It is time for a referendum in Canada to hopefully get rid of these unelected bums.

  53. Off with their heads.

  54. wow—- we don't need queen —period— we have so much finanacial burden at home – we can not afford A queen

  55. The laugh: love how this stuff brings out the republicans and anti-monarchists. LOVE IT. most of you clowns can't even list important Canadian facts NOT related to the Crown and use American, as opposed to Canadian, spelling.

    One thought: I'm confused; I took an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and Heirs so do I turn myself into a liar/traitor/whatever? … They told me dishonesty was a sin. now they want me to pretend I never swore allegiance and dump the Crown. I have no answers. But I do have a conscience. So what do I do? Treason ? or stand by my values? I chose the latter. I want to be able to look my Queen in the face and say I didn't go back on my word.

    Question: is being a patriotic Canadian an innuendo I'm a racist?

    Question: who paid for the study? Generally those who pay have the results stacked in their favour.

    Thought: money (which has become a REALLY big joke) : people squall about saving money by dumping the Crown but my experience has been that another way is found or waiting in the wings to use up the funds and then demand even more of the same – such that the original "expense" becomes trite. Money is one of the three lies in life; ie" The Cheque is in the mail"

    Thought: "if it works, don't fix it." It's working.

  56. I can easily be convinced on the need to dump the monarchy, but not like this. It's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.

    • Many small improvements can have considerable cumulative benefits while being barely detectable (if at all) to the population.

  57. Like many, I am struggling with the prospect of "King Charles of Canada." As I look at the course of Canadian politics and government in the relatively short span of my life (47 years), it has had some pretty drastic swings that suggest to me that the monarchy provides much needed stability.

  58. There's nothing very democratic in a republic, either. At least the monarchy doesn't try to pretend to be a democracy. The US republic pretends it's all about voting and the individual's rights, but behind closed doors it's every rich guy for himself. You can try to fool yourself on a regular basis when you go to vote, but the reality is that a republic is no better.

  59. Enter text right here!WE

  60. We have a queen because the country has always had a monarchy even before confederation and we were colonies-it is our birthirght just as much as the UK's. It costs about 1.70 per Canadian each year! Give me a break about the ""doubling of the cost", what propaganda! A small price to pay for a CANADIAN instution that has ALWAYS been there'; people who like to say it is "foreign have not got a leg to stand on. If it was not for the kings and queens of Britain and France there never would have been a Canada, not to mention the people of Britain and France, ancestors ofe mine and others in this country.

    • WHAT'S YOUR POINT,IF IT WAS NOT FOR CANADA THE USA AND RUSSIA IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR ENGLAND AND FRANCE WOULD BE SPEAKING GERMAN.

    • It is also traditional for blacks to be in slavery and women not to have the right to vote.

  61. John 321654987- many a Canadian soldier in our "weak" army as you call it, were heroes to many in England and France and the like where we alot of branve young men saved their buts, so how dare you call our army "weak". Why, because it is not the size of the United States? Guess what, no army is! And by the way what a great Canadian you are while more brave Canadians are dying overseas right now; and all you can do is sit on your but in front of the computer disrespecting our army and our Queen.

    • NO DISRESPECT FOR OUR ARMY THEY ARE GR.SOLDIERS BUT FOR THE QUEEN WE HAVE NO USE FOR HER .

  62. this is stupid we pay britan 5.5 cents a year totally stupid .out with the queen!

  63. I think it is worthy of note that Obama's inauguration last year cost the taxpayers far more than our entire monarchical institution. Abolishing ties to Elizabeth II will do very little to lessen the strain on the coffers.

    • Many small improvements can have considerable cumulative benefits while being barely detectable (if at all) to the population.

  64. Supporting the monarchy is wastefull, pure and simple. Time to let it all go, enter it into the history books and move on, tradition is not worth $50M a year. She needs to know what's happening in Canada, tell her to pick up a news paper or check the Internet.

  65. It makes little sense to alienate ourselves from the UK by getting rid of our ties to the British Monarchy. A long and hard look at the expense accounts of all the LG's and the GG is definitely in order. Also its great to have the GG be the HoS of Canada as we could see some serious abuse by the PM without a GG. And MacCross you should look up the definition of a Federation as Canada has always been a Federation with a Constitutional Monarchy bent.

    • Oversight would be in the form of the senate (though I would prefer that this be abolished as well given it ensures the overrepresentation of the territories and six least populous provinces in the house of commons), supreme court and subsequent election.

  66. In my opinion, 50 million a year is not nearly enough. She is the Queen folks.

  67. With the cost of the GG in Ottawa and the 10 LG's across canada rising every year, i think the 60 million dollars that is wasted every year would be better spent on protecting our North, or just better child care for kids in canada. Canada is poised on becoming one of the most important nations in the world but that will not happen unless we rule our own nation. we can still stay in the common wealth. Barbados a small island in the west indies only 166 square miles and population only 300,000
    got rid of the queen in 1964 and they have never looked back and they are much better off for it now. That was 46 years ago
    whats wrong with us?

  68. what's with those guard hats anyways…we don't need those anymore =) Canada's needs a Princess from home;) lol

  69. hello my name is luke and i am from the United Kingdom and i am 17 years old. when i read this article i was disapointed because i thought Canada and the United Kingdom was great friends and allies and the Queen was the symbol of our great friendship that brought our great nations together. in my opionon it will be a very sad day when we lose Canada =(

    P.s

    if the UK ever went to war with the USA will Canada support the UK or the USA

    • Whaat?? Lose Canada? We aren't part of Britain, my friend. Time to get some after-school tutoring.

    • Luke – Canada is not a nation – it is a post colonial mess

  70. I would like to support the Queen, but the last time I went through London I had to wait in a line with all other nationalities . My father fought in the war for god king and country and now the EU has an express lane to get into England and we have to wait with all other nationalities. I say sned them packing and pay them nothing .

    • True, Britain doesn't care a rat's ass about Canada – or even the rest of the Commonwealth anymore. The empire is dead, and even Britain knows it.

  71. The queen is useless like the UK. OUT YOU GO!!

  72. Take  a good look at today’s World.  If Canada gives up her Queen we will give up what created all that created what we stand for today.  We are already letting too many other cultures change what we are and what we stand for.  I myself am an immigrant to this great country.  My family came hear because of what Canada had to offer, not to change it into what we had left behind.  If what we wanted was in the country we were in we would have staid there.   We have adapted to Canadian ways and are Proud Canadian Citizens. I am married to a Canadian, I have raised Canadian children, I eat Canadian food, I speak English as it is spoken in Canada, my children attended Canadian Schools which displayed crosses, had morning prayers before class.  If we did not pray we took this time for silent reflection.  What is our own is kept to our house and our festivals.  We do not want to change the Country that has been so good to us.  We would never have been able to achieve what we have achieved if we had not come here.  CANADA IS MY HOME.  I don’t want it changed, I came for what it was not for what other cultures are trying to make it into. 

    • such a pile of… unbelievable how you love to be a slave!

    • assimilated slave

  73. Wow, about time – I hate the idea of supporting the monarchy and the elitism, over consumerism, opulence and all the hoopla (royal wedding – how that money could have been better spent for the betterment of humanity)  I have no respect – get with the 21st century and it makes me crazy whenever I see the bear skin hats of the royal guards that is our Canadian black bears people that are baited and slaughtered for their greed – oh no faux fur for them – THE MONARCHY SHOULD FALL AND THE SOONER THE BETTER – just really imagine what Canada could do with 40 mil a year!

  74. Sooner or later we will get rid of the monarchy, why not sooner, we’ll save a ton of money.  As for the Governor General, there are enough people in government doing nothing and getting big fat checks.  No thanks.

  75. I wish canadians could get some pride in having thire own country, and get on with the movement. most canadians are weak tho ‘eh. let’s have the head of state a CANADIAN, having a queen or king is so embarassing ‘eh.

  76. Sorry I am from the UK and a royalist but one or two of you miss understand somethings. The Queen does not live of the income from the British Taxpayer nor did her father. A lot of the Queens income comes from her own land and the duchy of Lancaster plus her peronal income.

    • Does the queen provide appropriate income and council tax to the treasury? I assume not.

  77. Also would just like to piont out you pay for her visits not to keep monarchy. Also the EU is a joke but thats a different debate.

  78. monarchyfreecanada - Empire in the sense of the word is dead, but not in partice while the Common wealth still stands then the empire lives on in one way or another. We do care about Canda more of us belive we should have more to do with the Commonwealth the the EU but the goverment are stuck in a hole which they cannot get out of. Part of our EU deal sees us pat more because we still trade with you, when we went to join france wanted that stopped follow stop

  79. The unnecessary slaughter of our black bears for their thousands of pomp and circumstance hats is a grotesque example of what is terribly wrong with the picture. As is the control of “crown land” for the rape and pillaging of our natural resources for the crowns corporate rule. Oligarchy / Plutocracy should have ended 100 years ago, but yet, here we are.
    Gross eh?

  80. Why do we continue to support the royal theiving family. The government tells us that it doesn’t have money for our pension plan, and so forth, yet we continue to give money to Britain. The simple fact is, Canada cannot stand on it’s own two feet. We criticize the U.S, however, they stand on their own two feet. I have been to university and what I learned about this country is appaling. The simple fact is, our government screws us, and yet we support The Royal family. When will Canadians wake up and say enough is enough. If the average person has any common sense, we would tell the government what we want.
    The simple fact is Britain has lived off ( free loaded) other countries all of it’s life.The monarchy has been stealing and robbing it’s whole life. I am ashamed to be Canadian; likewise anyone in their right mind should also be!!!!

  81. get rid of the crown expenses we dont need that ..50M is a lot of money can be spend on education, health care, or other essentials in the countries for countrymen….we stop using tax payers money on ex queen of canada.why waste our money on them?

  82. The monarchy and the benefits we get out of the common wealth are great. People have to see the larger picture and not just the $1.53 that it costs us each per year… seriously $1.53 big deal.

    • I suspect the majority of the population would have the positions of
      governor general and lieutenant governors abolished, with 45 additional MPs seated in the house
      of commons, making Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario more
      appropriately represented, increase voter turnout and participation and
      reduce the influence of special interests (due to lower cost of
      campaigning). I have similar opinion of the senate.

    • We were asked to leave the commonwealth.

  83. How’s about a balance between the public programs to which she is directly a patron vs. how much we “pay” to have a monarch. Do your research.

  84. Exactly , what kind of free man bend the knee in front of a granny who gave herself a divine status from birth….. What kinf of modern people support an instution base on hundred of years of persecution of the average people, monarchy is tyranny , imo supporting monarchy isnt really far from supporting facism.

  85. Queen is the theater and quite nice one, and sometimes is good for business (tourism and souvenirs and stuff). This theater doesn’t affect our democracy and independence in any way and everybody knows about it. But keeping useless queen’s governors (general and lieutenants) is a total waste of money. We should get rid of them. As well as the Senate.

  86. what’s the difference if we give it to the Queen., or the Prime Minister or Premiers take another pay raise?… it’s not like the extra monies will go where it’s needed.

  87. According to the 2011-2012 report, the governor general now costs taxpayers approximately $45 million, including costs incurred by other departments, but excluding the opportunity cost of using the governor general properties for mixed-use (residential and commercial) high-density buildings. I suspect the majority of the population would have the position of governor general abolished, with 45 additional MPs seated in the house of commons, making Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario more appropriately represented, increase voter turnout and participation and reduce the influence of special interests (due to lower cost of campaigning). I have similar opinion of the senate.

  88. the queen has no say in the making of our laws the entier monarchy in canada is just cerimonial

  89. The Queen owns Canada plain and simple. Look at your property title.

  90. Why are we still paying the Queen? Didn’t Canada declared interdependency from being a British colony? This makes no sense we pay the Queen and her family to look pretty and have more kids we need to protest we need to stop paying these people, if they want our money then they need to work for it.

    • Your not paying for the queen , you pay her role in Canada you don’t pay for them to have kids even we don’t in the UK. Look at what it pays for

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *