Why Canada should be become a republic...

Err, maybe it's just me, but people represent a country, not figurehead politicans.

I’m sorry, republican, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.
What I mean is, in my opinion no one person can represent all of Canada. However, the man of Pakistani decent would have a diverse cabinet and at the very least live in Canada. I cannot claim to know what Austrailians want because I do not live there so why can the Queen?
And as for the Queen having her own Parliament and Cabinet, how many times do they all meet and discuss? In Britain the PM is required to meet at the Queen at least once a month to report-as far as I am aware the Queen only met Chretian in Canada once and has never met Martin as PM.
Also, I am not saying the Queen is necessarly British-although you did admit that in away she was-I am merley saying she is not Canadian either.


Princess Margarette of the Netherlands was born on sovereign Dutch soil in Ottawa. The Canadian government signed over the land and they even got Dutch soil from the embassy. She also fits other requirements-she lives there and has Dutch roots.

Canada IS a larger country but it also has a smaller population. I think if we had a referendum it would not be too expensive and heck if we can have two for Quebec why not have 1 for a republic?


There will be a large emotional and financial cost to all of that. That’s all I’m saying.

There arelarge emotional costs to just about anything that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

Actually, if the PM is corrupt Canadians cannot ‘vote them out’. Canadians don’t even ‘vote them in’. The PM is, technically, appointed by the Crown

See I find this statement interesting, you claim Canada uis a democracy and the Crown now has not power with a democratic government and now you say that we cannot vote them in our out? Thats why we need a democratic republican government. To make them accountable.


How is it you know this? Though it is the Governor General who would be dealing with these issues, are you sure that she has not been closely watching the goings on with the governmental scandals?

Anyone watching CBC news can keep tabs but what is she doing about it?And it still does not deal with the bigger issue-I don't like my PM being whipped and made accountable by an unelected person-we have a Parliament for that!

The Queen wasn’t forced on us. Were there secret boogey-men who thrust a monarch on Canada? Did the Queen exercise some supreme imperial power to keep Canada as one of her colonies? No, Canadians chose to have her, and her successors, out of their own free will.

Yes but we never got to choose for ourselves-only Treaudeu. We should have a referendum-republic-yes or no?

I can certainly agree that power should be less centralised in the PMO. However, changing this has nothing to do with republicanism. This can be achieved with the Canadian Crown still in place.

But they are being just as centralised by the Crown you said so yourself.


BTW I am sorry if I edited what you said, I will go back and see-it was late when I was copying and pasting. I would answer some more but I am off to my awful factory job.
republican

/--- What I mean is, in my opinion no one person can represent all of Canada. --/

Then, why bother fighting to have a Canadian president? Unless you’re proposing that Canada’s executive powers be embodied in some kind of cabinet, or committee, or tribunal, then you’re stuck with one person representing Canada, sovereign or not.

/-- However, the man of Pakistani decent would have a diverse cabinet and at the very least live in Canada.---/

Why would a Canadian president of Pakistani decent have a more diverse cabinet? Wouldn’t it be just as diverse as the one we have now?

/-- I cannot claim to know what Austrailians want because I do not live there so why can the Queen? ---/

No, you nor I are in a position to be an Australian head of state, because we do not have Australian ministers and an Australian governor general reporting to us. (Not to mention that their constitution makes neither of us their head of state.)

However, geography is not a limitation on someone’s ability to rule. Only laws are. Otherwise, the Prime Minister would have no say in the goings-on of British Columbia because he is neither British Columbian, nor does he live there.

/--- And as for the Queen having her own Parliament and Cabinet, how many times do they all meet and discuss? ---/

The Queen and her ministers rarely meet in person and discuss political affairs because the governor general is here to do that for her. I’m not aware of the exact number of times the governor general meets with his or her ministers, but I’d believe its relatively often, as many functions of the Canadian government must be carried out with the GG’s ‘approval’ based on the minister’s advice.

Other than that, the entire parliament assembles with the governor general (or Queen if the government asked her) at the opening session where the Throne Speech is read.

/--- In Britain the PM is required to meet at the Queen at least once a month to report-as far as I am aware the Queen only met Chretian in Canada once and has never met Martin as PM. ---/

It is tradition for the British prime minister to meet the Queen once a week to discuss matters in a private and informal manner. But it is just that—tradition. There is no obligation, and recently Tony Blair has been receiving some criticism in the press for shirking these weekly meetings.

So, as you can see from Blair’s case, the informal meeting with the sovereign is done pretty much at the PM’s pleasure. If Martin wanted to arrange a meeting with the Queen, I’m sure he would be granted an audience very quickly. However, he strikes me as a man who sees himself as the sole power in Canada, and wishes to ignore the Crown as much as he possibly can.

/--- Also, I am not saying the Queen is necessarly British-although you did admit that in away she was-I am merley saying she is not Canadian either. ---/

I did indeed say she’s British. There’s no doubt about it. However, she’s also Canadian.

She’s British not through citizenship, because she is not one, but because she is the Queen of the United Kingdom, sovereign of the British Crown. Thus, she’s not Canadian through citizenship, because she is not one, but because she is the Queen of Canada, sovereign of the Canadian Crown.
If the ideology applies in Britain, it applies just as equally in Canada.

/--- Princess Margarette of the Netherlands was born on sovereign Dutch soil in Ottawa. The Canadian government signed over the land and they even got Dutch soil from the embassy. ---/

You’re right on that point. However, my research tells me the government decreed the hospital room where she was born Dutch territory just to avoid the whole dual citizenship issue. I’m sure it was agreed all around that allowing the princess to be born on Dutch territory, thereby clearly making her only a Dutch citizen, was the best route to take to avoid any international or national confusion later in her life.

/--- She also fits other requirements-she lives there and has Dutch roots. ---/

The Queen actually has German roots. Does she therefore fit the requirements to be Queen of Germany? The Queen also has more distant French, Spanish and Dutch roots. Does that make her eligible to be the sovereign of France, Spain or Holland? No- because none of their constitutions say she is.

This whole ‘roots’, place of birth, where you live issue is becoming a little threadbare.

/--- Canada IS a larger country but it also has a smaller population. ---/

Population of Australia: approx. 20,000,000

Population of Canada: approx. 32,000,000

/--- I think if we had a referendum it would not be too expensive and heck if we can have two for Quebec why not have 1 for a republic? ---/

Republican, you’re failing to see the larger issue here.

This isn’t about one referendum. It is never, ever going to be as simple as that.

If you go by the Australian example, the reality you’re looking at for Canada becoming a republic will involve a minimum of a decade of debate. This debate will require committees, Royal Commissions, inquiries, studies, lawyers, and on and on. There will also have to be public education, to teach people about the system we have now, and to educate them on the new system being proposed. There will also have to be input from public groups, associations, legions, committees, Native bands, etc. And all this will have to take place not only on the federal level, but on the provincial level as well, seeing as removing the Crown from the constitution will affect every single provincial government’s structure.

Then Canada can have a referendum.

Just to get to that point in Australia, as I said, the cost was estimated at some $800,000,000. And there one referendum failed to bring the results the republicans wanted. They continue to this day to waste Australian’s tax dollars on this issue. The bill just keeps rising and rising.

And I still believe it would be more expensive in Canada. Constitutional debates always are in this country—just look at the Charlottetown and Meech Lake debaucles.

Even if a referendum passes which says Canadians wish to move to the new proposed republic, there is still the cost of actually DOING it. The incalculable price of restructuring the legal system, changing government offices, changing Canadian heraldry and replacing countless Royal Arms and police and military arms. And on, and on, and on….

/--- There arelarge emotional costs to just about anything that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. ---/

I doubt there are large emotional costs to just about ANYTHING. And besides, constitutional change really isn’t just ‘anything’. It is extremely important, and as I mentioned above, always a divisive and contentious issue in Canada.

/--- “Actually, if the PM is corrupt Canadians cannot ‘vote them out’. Canadians don’t even ‘vote them in’. The PM is, technically, appointed by the Crown.â€

doubt there are large emotional costs to just about ANYTHING. And besides, constitutional change really isn’t just ‘anything’. It is extremely important, and as I mentioned above, always a divisive and contentious issue in Canada.

Oh I don't know. People are different and choose to be sensitive about different things. Some people might not care about the constitution all together and yet would be outraged if you changed something in their town. Anything can have an emotional cost, the question is, is it worth it.
And besides becoming a republic will not change everyday life. The country will still be called Canada, the capital will still be Ottawa and the Leafs will still loose in the play offs against the Flyers (hopefully that will change!)

Still, this does not mean that the Crown can’t exercise the powers without or against ministerial advice—but this would only be in very extreme circumstances such as when a government has violated the Constitution, has failed to perform its duties such as providing a budget or refusing to summon Parliament, or won an election through corruption or fraud.

Not that it matters but when a PM cannot get a budget passed there is usually a vote of no confidence (see Joe Clark). This vote has nothing to do with the Queen, rather it is started by an MP(in Clark's case I belive it was Bob Rae).
On the subject of corruption and fraude I again ask where the Queen was during the sponsership scandle? Or where was she when Gagliano got sent away to Denmark? Infact where was she during the entire Mulroony/Chretian/Martin regime?

As I said, the Governor General cannot exercise Royal Perogative against ministerial advice unless it is a crisis. So far, as terrible as the Sponsorship Scandal is, it has never proven to be a threat to our government, constitution, human rights, or safety.

Yes but what it the Queen doing? Why doesn't she come back to "her" troubled nation and deal with Martin? Well, if you did I would be outraged. An unelected foreigner should not have more power than an elected Canadian. I propose making the GG elected but separate from the government.

Republican, I never once said the Crown has no power.

And that right there is my argument against the monarchy. The Queen has the power. Whats the point in having elections if we cannot elect the ones with any power?

Changing to a republic is a tough sell. The problem is that understanding a system does not make it better. I understand that its easier to tread down the road thats travled but look down the line. Under a republic we will have true accountabilty of our government and maybe even more confidence in our nation.

/--- Anything can have an emotional cost, the question is, is it worth it. ---/

Precisely.

And this is what I’ve been asking you all along—is it worth it?

I’ve pointed out only a fraction of the struggles and challenges Canadians will face in opening up the constitution in the attempt to remove the Canadian Crown. Yet, you haven’t pointed to one benefit we would gain from such an act, aside from the fact we’d be able to elect a president.

Sorry, but in the grand scheme of things electing a president will do nothing to improve Canada. Even as you said, “becoming a republic will not change everyday life.â€

I am glad you admit that there is an emotional cost for everything. That said thiongs still need to be done. Moving has an emotional cost, heck for some people changing supermarkets can gave an emotion costs but change happens, its called progress and is usually worth it.

I’ve pointed out only a fraction of the struggles and challenges Canadians will face in opening up the constitution in the attempt to remove the Canadian Crown. Yet, you haven’t pointed to one benefit we would gain from such an act, aside from the fact we’d be able to elect a president.

Here are the gains of becoming a repuiblic as I see them:

Unity:
FINALLY Canadians will have a head of state to call our own. As a Germanic Canadian I personally dislike the head of my country being British then being told it is "my herritage."

Demmocratic accountability:

Canadians will have a head of state that we can choose and is accountable to us. After the Queen dies Charles will become our next King-and we get no say in it! I promise if we were a third world country people would think us a colony.



A president wouldn’t “deal with Martinâ€

A republican referendum would fail. Easily.

Such a vote failed in Australia, a country that feels much more pro-republic than we in Canada do.

/--- Unity:
FINALLY Canadians will have a head of state to call our own. As a Germanic Canadian I personally dislike the head of my country being British then being told it is "my herritage." ---/

Unity? Really? Well what do you say then to the fact that elections in Canada are always very divisive affairs? How do you tell the Canadian who 'voted for the other guy' that the new president really represents them too?

The truth is that no elected leader ever truly represents everyone. Do Canadians feel united under our prime minister, who is 'chosen' by our representatives? Do all U.S. citizens feel united under President Bush? I think you know the answer is no.

While elected political representatives are important for running a country in a democratic fashion, when it comes to a head of state this is not preferred. Elected politicians will ONLY represent those who cast a vote for them, and the donors (corporate and personal) that funded their campaign. Everyone else can be damned. In a time of crisis, where someone must be an arbitrary mediator or must make an important decision, having a politician with a bias is not who you want to be doing this job. Like I said before—would you want a hockey player to also be the referee of his own game?

I've said this over and over again, and it seems you choose to ignore it.

You also ignore my comments that the Queen is not just British. You've called her British probably a hundred times, but have failed to convince me why it is she is not also Canadian. Yes, there have be vague words of where she feels most at home, where she was born, etc. But, the fact remains, as someone written into OUR constitution, she can't NOT be a Canadian.

And besides, republican, it seems you share more heritage with the Queen than you think. You should know that the House of Windsor was once the House of Hanover—making our queen of German descent. Britons could accept a monarch from Germany sitting on their British throne-- and they were never doubted as being both British and German. Why, again, can't the Queen be British and Canadian?

It is true that saying Elizabeth II should remain Queen of Canada simply because it is part of our British heritage really is a stupid thing to say. Those types of Anglophile monarchists do more damage than good to the Canadian Crown’s image.

/--- Demmocratic accountability:
Canadians will have a head of state that we can choose and is accountable to us. After the Queen dies Charles will become our next King-and we get no say in it! I promise if we were a third world country people would think us a colony. ---/

I told you already, Canadians, through their elected representatives, chose that a monarch would hold executive power in Canada. It is ONLY because of our democratic constitution that Charles will become King of Canada.

I've also told you already that the Queen and governor general ARE accountable to us. Canadians are not happy with the governor general? We tell our sovereign to remove him (as happened in Australia). Canadians are not happy with the Queen? We tell our governments to remove her. Done.

If you don't like Charles becoming King of Canada, then tell the government. If enough people don't want Charles to be king, and they tell the government, then the government must listen. Canada does have the right to say who sits on our throne-- it actually doesn't HAVE to be the same sovereign as in Great Britain. But, I think you'll find that Charles has done nothing to offend Canadians to the point where they don't see him fit to be king.

And if, because we have a constitutional monarchy, people think Canada is a colony, then that is due to nothing more than severe ignorance. I don't believe any country should be forced to change its constitutional structure simply because some stupid people just don't get it.

/--- "A president wouldn’t “deal with Martinâ€

/--- A republican referendum would fail. Easily.

Such a vote failed in Australia, a country that feels much more pro-republic than we in Canada do. ---/

Blue and White Army, I couldn't agree with you more.

The Australian flirt with republicanism, which sadly still continues, was nothing more than an immense waste of tax dollars.

It did, however, show just how 'democratic' republicans can be. The call for an Australian republic came not from the people but only from a select few politicians in the Australian government. These politicians were not elected on a platform of republicanism, were not asked by their constituents to push for a republic, but only brought the proposal for change out of their own personal goals and ideals. Thus, it was an elite minority speaking not for the people they represented, but for themselves only.

Doesn't sound very democratic to me.

They then took a populace uneducated in their constitutional reality and filled their heads with republican spun propaganda of the "British Queen", "democracy" and the need for an "Australian head of state", and then asked them to vote. They never really educated the public about their current system, or made it a real option for them to choose. It was all, and continues to be, very one sided and biased towards republicanism.

Again, not very democratic.

In the end it made republicans look like what they were—schemeing, manipulative, and lying politicians. Nothing was for the benefit of Australians, but only for the benefit of politicians.

At the time of their referendum a slim majority of Australians realised that the republicans really didn't know what they were doing. They could not agree on a model of republic which would be better than their constitutional monarchy, fought amongst themselves, and then, rather like the Bloc Quebecois after their failed referendum on sovereignty, blamed everybody but themselves for the collapse of their dream.

They try still for a republic, but more and more Australians are realising that this is not for the benefit of them, the people, but for the political elite only.

Hopefully Canadians can learn a lesson from that.

I'm afraid Bambino you have yet to really outline how the monarchy is democratic.
To say she has the consent of the Canadian people through our representatives is simply untrue for the following reasons:
A: No one has ever asked our MPs AND Sennators
B:It is their opinion, they cannot possibly represent every view of their people because most likely they have different views.

A referendum will allow every Canadian to have a say, why do monarchists fear this so much?
As for Austrailia, the problem was no one could decide which model of republicanism to go on, the reason why republicanism is still strong is becausemost Austrailians want the Queen out.

I'm glad you agree that the Queen does not represent all heritages, neother does the PM come to that, however the Cabinet and Parliament does, surely they should have the power.

The GG would become the head of state after an independent election. The GG would be seprate from the government but accountable to the people and most importantly not above the law like the Queen. Take the Burral incedent-the Queen withheald vital evidence, if she was any other person that would have been a trial but the Queen as sovereign is above the law. To use your metephore not only is she the hockey player and the referee-shes the NHL Commisioner as well!


I never said Canada is undemocratic, rather the head of state lacks democratic accountibility.I am glad that in Canada we have free speach-more so then many republics and monarchies. That said I still fail to see how the Queen can claim she is our head of state.

BTW Iceland was nice but not cool-very very hot!