The Monarchy in Canada | Queen Elizabeth 1926-2022

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Okay I know this is getting really off topic here, but I can't read stuff like this and not say anything. This is what I was talking about when I said we create self-defeating myths about ourselves. Canada is about as far from a "mono-economy" as you can get. Our research and IT sectors are way bigger than you think and just as significant as resources, if not more so, in terms of both employees and economic impact. Sure when oil in Alberta struggles it impacts the country, but when IT in Ontario struggles the country feels it just as much. Yes we should be investing a lot more in R&D, but if you think all we have is RIM and Corel you have no idea.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ict-tic...h_it07229.html

Get real. are Innovation sector puts a small 5% dent in GDP. We still rely on roughly 40-55% from resources and the manufacturing of those resources. Take away fluff like service/consumption, housing, and Banking+'investments' - and the Canadian economy starts to look quite vanilla.

The site you posted shows you have a small number of extremely large companies, who yes employ a wack load of people and produce a large amount of stuff.

I don't know what you have left if you took away logging, mining, and oil from the Canadian economy...... nothing.

The economy of this nation is completely quacked out, it really baffles me how its set up. From the regional desparaties, inefficiencies, and that 78% of your export market being based in one place.

I blame lizards, Elvis,The Illuminati, and The Queen

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by osmo

Get real. are Innovation sector puts a small 5% dent in GDP. We still rely on roughly 40-55% from resources and the manufacturing of those resources. Take away fluff like service/consumption, housing, and Banking+'investments' - and the Canadian economy starts to look quite vanilla.

The site you posted shows you have a small number of extremely large companies, who yes employ a wack load of people and produce a large amount of stuff.

I don't know what you have left if you took away logging, mining, and oil from the Canadian economy...... nothing.

The economy of this nation is completely quacked out, it really baffles me how its set up. From the regional desparaties, inefficiencies, and that 78% of your export market being based in one place.

I blame lizards, Elvis,The Illuminati, and The Queen

Wrong again. IT alone is 5%, and that doesn't include other kinds of innovation. Logging, mining, and oil puts a small 5-6% dent in the GDP. Resources and manufacturing (all manufacturing, not just resource-related) isn't even close to 40%. The "fluff" as you call it is the basis of EVERY developed economy. Regional disparities are common everywhere.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cis-sic...013.html#vla2b

[freeweed]

It doesn't really matter how much of our GDP is based on resources anyway, because the Queen can tell us to stop selling our oil at any time and we have to listen to her because of the commandments inscribed in stone that say so.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by freeweed

It doesn't really matter how much of our GDP is based on resources anyway, because the Queen can tell us to stop selling our oil at any time and we have to listen to her because of the commandments inscribed in stone that say so.

yeah.. as if she or any monarch would.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Overground

Canada's head of state is based in Canada.

No, she's based in England.

Originally Posted by freeweed

It doesn't really matter how much of our GDP is based on resources anyway, because the Queen can tell us to stop selling our oil at any time and we have to listen to her because of the commandments inscribed in stone that say so.

That would be hilarious

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Tony

yeah.. as if she or any monarch could.

Fixed that for ya. I can't think of a single western monarchy in the past several centuries where the monarch has been able to do anything near that stupid, and not faced open revolution.

If anything, brutal dictatorships have come from (semi) elected leaders. Or at least in some measure Republican systems. Ironically considering most people's simplistic view of things, monarchs listen to their people much better than elected officials. At least recently.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

also, to elaborate on my point about "although possibly should be elected at some point", I said that because the most critical role he or she would play would be interpretation of constitutional law, so I look at the position more like that of a judge, than a politician, and wonder if a public election is the best route. What about a council of former GG's who vote in a new GG?

The position should remain plainly ceremonial.

[Acajack]

I am surprised no one has posted this in this thread yet:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/20...ttawa-727.html

[Gerrard]

I suppose some people don't understand that artwork gets rotated every so often. I'm sure in a couple years they'll replace it with a big painting of Harper's face.

What a tempest in a teapot.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gerrard

I suppose some people don't understand that artwork gets rotated every so often. I'm sure in a couple years they'll replace it with a big painting of Harper's face.

What a tempest in a teapot.

I don't have strong feelings about this, but this does not appear at all to be a question of "rotating artwork". I believe the Pellan paintings were put there (permanently it would appear) when the Lester B. Pearson Building was opened sometime in the early 1970s.

It is more a question of "choices in symbolism". As I said before, I don't feel that strongly about it, and even consider it relatively normal that government buildings have portraits of the country's head of state displayed in them.

But that said this is still not just a banal rotation of artwork replacing a Pellan with a Colville, and then with a Carr, then a Riopelle and then with Varley...

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't have strong feelings about this, but this does not appear at all to be a question of "rotating artwork". I believe the Pellan paintings were put there (permanently it would appear) when the Lester B. Pearson Building was opened sometime in the early 1970s.

It is more a question of "choices in symbolism". As I said before, I don't feel that strongly about it, and even consider it relatively normal that government buildings have portraits of the country's head of state displayed in them.

But that said this is still not just a banal rotation of artwork replacing a Pellan with a Colville, and then with a Carr, then a Riopelle and then with Varley...

Do you really expect anything less from the Conservatives who didn't need Quebec to get a majority?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Do you really expect anything less from the Conservatives who didn't need Quebec to get a majority?

But I seem to recall a lot people saying that the fact the new federal government had almost no representation from Quebec wouldn't make a bit of difference?

[jmt18325]

I hardly see how this in any way as seen as a jab at Quebec. Talk about oversensitivity.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

I hardly see how this in any way as seen as a jab at Quebec. Talk about oversensitivity.

I at least never said it was a jab at Quebec, nor did I even mention the province's name until J-P did.

But there does seem to be something going on:
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/27...-royal-revival

If this is indeed a jab at anything, it is probably against modern art and artistic elitism, and a reaffirmation of "tradition".

[Gerrard]

It's not necessarily a slap against Quebec (although with the neo-cons who knows). I'm sure if it were another Canadian artist they would have been replaced as well. It's just the CONservatives being anti-intellectual and perhaps stirring the pot.

I commented before I saw what they replaced the artwork with, I didn't realize it was some horrible photograph of that old ghoul.

[Acajack]

I am not sure if there really is a concerted effort to push the Queen and the monarchy into our faces more, but if there is, in the end the Conservatives and their monarchist friends may end up wishing they had just let the sleeping dog lie.

As it stands now Canadians are used to seeing the Queen on the money and that's about it. Aside from that for the most part the monarchy is out of sight and out of mind for the vast majority of Canadians. This includes those millions Canadians who are not supporters of the monarchy but don't give it much thought either.

But start putting it front and centre in conspicuous places and people may end up starting to increasingly pose questions such as these:

Originally Posted by habfanman

So I guess all of you pro monarchists are OK with this:

The head of state of Canada must also be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, therefore: Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, non Church of England Protestants, Agnostics, Atheists etc. etc. need not apply. And females can forget about if they have an older male sibling.

CANADIANS NEED NOT APPLY! Canadians themselves can never aspire to be the head of state of their own nation. Our head of state can only ever be an Anglican Protestant Brit, preferably male.

Is this something that we should supporting in 21st century Canada?

I'd really like to see a monarchist defend the hereditary selection process.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Gerrard

It's not necessarily a slap against Quebec (although with the neo-cons who knows). .

I for one do not believe the Conservatives are anti-Quebec. On the other hand, this government more than any recent Canadian government will have (and will likely exercise) the ability to totally ignore the views of Quebec's population and elected officials on any policies it pursues.

If Quebec likes what we do: good. If they don't: tough noogies.

[Gerrard]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I for one do not believe the Conservatives are anti-Quebec. On the other hand, this government more than any recent Canadian government will have (and will likely exercise) the ability to totally ignore the views of Quebec's population and elected officials on any policies it pursues.

If Quebec likes what we do: good. If they don't: tough noogies.

I don't think Rob Ford is necessarily anti-urban or diversity (I think he just wants to make money for himself and his friends) but if it serves the purposes of his agenda and helps to win him greater support I don't think he'd pass up the opportunity to flaunt that particular agenda at all.

Conservatives/Populists win votes by creating gulfs not filling them in.

[jmt18325]

Canada is a constitutional monarchy. The Queen's picture is present in many government buildings (almost all of them, I think), and this move isn't anti anything. Oh, and the paintings are far worse looking than the Queen, IMO.

This is all part of the attempt to manufacture scandal by Conservative opponents.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Canada is a constitutional monarchy. The Queen's picture is present in many government buildings (almost all of them, I think), and this move isn't anti anything. Oh, and the paintings are far worse looking than the Queen, IMO.

This is all part of the attempt to manufacture scandal by Conservative opponents.

As someone who lives in Ottawa-Gatineau and who goes into many federal buildings in a given year, I can confirm to you the Queen's picture is NOT present in the vast majority of them. In fact, except for the Parliament buildings, I can't think of any federal buildings where I have seen the Queen's picture in recent years. If it is there, I must have missed it and it is not in a very prominent place.