Why Canada should be become a republic...

republican
Super Member



Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 193
Location: England

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:34 am

 

---

It seems to me that Canada faces one major problem that hinders any progress and growth. Here we are, a nation, suppositly fully grown and yet we still have an unelected headof state who does not come from nor even live in Canada. This is why I feel, for the sake of Canadian democracy that we should campaign to have a democratically elected head of state.
So, what can we do in the United Kingdom?
Citizens for a Canadian Republic-the largest most popular Canadian republic advocacy group has announced international expansion in the form of three new international chapters- America, Bremuda and one right here in the UK for Canadians living here that still wish to help form the new republic.
If anyone is interested please email
uk_ccr@yahoo.co.uk
also look at the website www.canadian-republic.ca

Membership is only $20 Canadian(thats less than £10 I belive) for a year.
Sincerly
Ben

---

Blue and White Army
Senior Member


Back to Vancouver in March!

Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 110
Location: West Sussex, UK

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:29 am

 

---

Hi republican,

Good on you for sticking up for Canada, and for working toward what you think will benefit the country.

Must say, however, I'm not so sure how being a republic would further the Canuck cause.

We're a country of humbleness and modesty, in my opinion. Would becoming a republic suddenly make our collective characteristics any different?

Perhaps more urgent than ditching the queen would be to stop obsessing about our relationship with the US, much as Kiwis do with Oz, and Koreans do with Japan.

Just my two cents.

Cheers.

---

republican
Super Member



Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 193
Location: England

Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 5:21 am

 

---

Hi Blue and White army,
thank you for your question regaurding CCR UK and republicanism.
To answer your question, on wether or not things will change, I think that some things will and some things wont. In terms of major things no, I mean Canada will not suddenly cease to exist, fall apart or anything likle that.
I do however belive that if Canada becomes a republic,
Canadians attidudes might change. If we had an elected Canadian government that the people would choose, people might take more pride in it. Canadians might be unified more and, if for no other reason, at least our government will not be an unelected person who visits Canada one every 50 years or so.
I reccomend that anyone interested looks at the following webpage:
www.canadian-republic.ca
also CCR has a new chapter in the United Kingdom for Canadians
living here.
The address is uk_ccr@yahoo.co.uk
or you can just PM me
sincerly
republican

---

bambino
Junior Member



Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 18

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:51 am

 

---

I realise this is an ancient 6 mo. old thread-- but I just came across it through a search now.

Thought perhaps another opinion should be added on the Canadian Monarchy issue.

First off, I, like 'Blue and White Army', wonder just how it is that the Crown hinders Canada's progress and growth at all.

Canada is indeed a fully grown and independent country. However, we also have our own fully grown and independent Crown. Keep in mind the important fact that for Canada the Queen reigns as the Queen of Canada, NOT the Queen of Great Britain. There is no connection there aside from the fact that the same person wears two different crowns (and 14 other different crowns as well-- for Australia, New Zealand, Belize, Jamaica, and so on).

Certainly she is not 'democratically' elected. However, leaving the choice of government to election, and the choice of sovereign to birth means that the sovereign can never owe allegiance to a political party, a religious group, an army, a group of voters, or financial donors. A politically elected president cannot remain apolitical-- which is very important when it comes to the checks and balances that must exist between the head of government (Prime Minister) and the head of state (Crown). A head of state must always remain impartial, a non-partisan arbitrator in times of government crisis. It is logically impossible to ask a politically elected president not to take sides-- rather like asking a hockey player to also be the referee. A president will always owe more allegiance to those who voted for them, and to those who pay for their campaign.

A king or queen's only allegiance is to all the people of their country, regardless of political affiliation, religion, or wealth. The Coronation Oath which the Queen took states just that.

Secondly, in regards to the comment "If we had an elected Canadian government that the people would choose, people might take more pride in it," Canada has had an elected government since the country was formed. We vote for our Members of Parliament, and they all form the government, with the Prime Minister as its leader.

There seems to be some confusion between government and Crown. The political government is elected, the apolitical sovereign is born.

However, I don't believe an elected president of Canada would be the creator of any inflated Canadian pride. On the contrary, it would be divisive, as the many regions and peoples of Canada would be divided in voting for who that president should be. Quebec would most likely demand their votes count for more, lest Anglophone Canada outweigh the election. And what of the First Nations? The Inuit?

No, adding another high powered politician in Ottawa is probably the last thing Canadians want. And indeed, why would they? Our politicians are untrusted, dodgy characters, and are mostly white, and mostly men. In Canada we now have the unusual situation of both our heads of state being women, and one a naturalised Chinese refugee. What other country has that?

Canadians should take pride in the Crown-- and its representatives, the Queen and the Governor General. Abolishing the institution and creating a presidency would not make Canadians more proud. Instead of leaving Canadians to forget that the Crown is even there, leading to apathy and ignorance, teaching them about the Crown, its benefits, and what it does probably would increase their pride.

The best source for pro-monarchy info is at http://www.monarchist.ca/
Their annual membership is $24 CAD, or $450 CAD for life membership.
It's a 25,000 member strong organisation of those who believe in Canada and its monarchy.

also: http://www.fact-index.com/c/ca/canadian_monarchy.html

http://www.interlog.com/~rakhshan/

http://www.imagesoft.net/canada/cancrown.html

http://www.crht.ca/index.html

---

Jigglypuff
New Member



Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 9
Location: Vienna, Austria

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:49 am

 

---

I'll also check out the URL when I have time later, but having lived in a recently-formed Republic (Ireland) where the population and economy are much smaller than its neighbours', and seeing how little impact having our own president has in the global scheme of things (she's a figurehead), I too am skeptical of removing QEII's image from Canadian coinage really making an impact in the grander scheme of things, politically or economically.

I could also argue that if the culture had been closer to that of American attitudes Canada would have spurned the British monarchy a long time ago and in the first place.
_________________
-born in Toronto
-lived in Boston (5 yrs) before moving here
-lived in Dublin, Eire from December 2000 - July 2007
-moved to Vienna, Austria in August 2007

---

bambino
Junior Member



Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 18

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 11:08 am

 

---

As I'm sure you picked up from my last post, the issue isn't simply about removing the Queen from Canadian coins, but is a constitutional one whereby the entire governmental and legal structure of Canada would have to be altered.

Perhaps in smaller countries like Ireland it is possible to do. But in a federated country like Canada, getting into the constitutional debates about what to replace the monarchy with, how to choose a president, what representation each province & territory will get, how presidential reps. will work in the provinces (ie. how to replace the Lieutenant Governors), and on and on, would more than likely lead to the disintegration of Canada rather than the creation of a new republic. With Quebec teetering on the edge of separation not that long ago, this issue might just push them over. If not, they'd use the threat of separatism to have the new presidential office lean strongly in their favour. And then, as I said before, what of First Nations people? The Inuit? The western provinces?

A referendum must be passed, all 10 Provincial Legislatures, the House of Commons, and the Senate must unanimously agree on the constitutional changes. Argument and debate, threats, deals, hundreds of millions of dollars.....

And indeed, for what? So Canada will gain more power? More money? The homeless will be housed, and the hungry fed? To have a Canadian head of state, when we already have one?

As for U.S. American culture, it’s certainly true that Canada retained the monarchy at confederation because our culture was simply different to the U.S. Americans, even back then. We did not form our country through war, and believed in good government and peace rather than the right to bear arms.

Canada until 35 years ago was proud of its monarchy. Since then, however, U.S. American culture coming into Canadian homes via television and movies has led Canadians to become more and more United States-ified. They get non-stop CNN-style commentary about the British Queen, and Britain's Queen Elizabeth. They are constantly fed images and information about U.S. style politics, and the United States' attempts to mould 'undemocratic' countries around the world into their superior image. And thus, Canadians are left to believe all high level leaders of the country MUST be elected-- it’s THE democratic way. Combine all this with a government which leaves Canadians uneducated and ignorant of their constitution and Crown, and eventually you have Canadians who feel the monarchy, which they inaccurately believe to be only British and purely ceremonial, doesn't represent them.

In the end you're left with disillusioned republicans who don't know the difference between the Canadian Crown and the Canadian government, who think Canada is hindered in progress and growth because we're not like the United States, and believe removing the Queen will make democracy champion in Canada, allowing us to become the next global superpower.

---

republican
Super Member



Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 193
Location: England

Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:18 pm

 

---

Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 7:08 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect, I have replied, I hope you enjoy reading my thoughts as I have enjoyed reading yours.

As I'm sure you picked up from my last post, the issue isn't simply about removing the Queen from Canadian coins, but is a constitutional one whereby the entire governmental and legal structure of Canada would have to be altered.

Perhaps in smaller countries like Ireland it is possible to do. But in a federated country like Canada, getting into the constitutional debates about what to replace the monarchy with, how to choose a president, what representation each province & territory will get, how presidential reps. will work in the provinces (ie. how to replace the Lieutenant Governors), and on and on, would more than likely lead to the disintegration of Canada rather than the creation of a new republic. With Quebec teetering on the edge of separation not that long ago, this issue might just push them over. If not, they'd use the threat of separatism to have the new presidential office lean strongly in their favour. And then, as I said before, what of First Nations people? The Inuit? The western provinces?

[color=red]Its interesting you mention the Inuit, First Nations ect ect alongside of representation. Tell me, how does the Queen represent them? As for Separtaion, I bet the French Canadians would be happier if their head of State was not a British person whos ancestors ruled Canada and fought wars with their ancestors. If anything, a republic will make us stronger, as a nation and as a people. You're right though, it would push Quebec over, probably to the Federalist side.[/color]


A referendum must be passed, all 10 Provincial Legislatures, the House of Commons, and the Senate must unanimously agree on the constitutional changes. Argument and debate, threats, deals, hundreds of millions of dollars.....
[color=red]Firstly it wont cost too much money and referendums happen in other countries all the time. Heck, the Swiss have had about 400 so far.
And indeed, for what? So Canada will gain more power? More money? The homeless will be housed, and the hungry fed ?No, so that Canada will finally have what all countires should-a democratically elected leader who Canada can call there own. Where is this DEMOCRATIC Canadian head of state? The appointed Govener General who serves the Queen? And speaking of costs what about the thousands of dollars Canadians paid when the Queen came to visit. And for what? Painting the jet to Royal Standards for one.[/color][/color]
To have a Canadian head of state, when we already have one?

[color=red]Oh, shes Canadian? Thats great! Just one thing-what Province is she from because last time I checked Britain is not in Canada. Does she have Canadian parents? Citizenship? Family? Passports? Does she live in Canada? The answer to these are No, No, No No and No. I think on this basis that I am an Austrailian.
As for U.S. American culture, it’s certainly true that Canada retained the monarchy at confederation because our culture was simply different to the U.S. Americans, even back then. We did not form our country through war, and believed in good government and peace rather than the right to bear arms. [/color]
[color=red]I like how Monarchists always fear that becoming a republic will turn us into Americans. Canadians and Americans are different-not ebtter not worse just different. I for one have enough faith in my country to know that regaurdless, our country and culture will be strong.[/color]

Canada until 35 years ago was proud of its monarchy. Since then, however, U.S. American culture coming into Canadian homes via television and movies has led Canadians to become more and more United States-ified

[color=red]Well that and we want our own head of state[/color].


Canadians who feel the monarchy, which they inaccurately believe to be only British and purely ceremonial, doesn't represent them.

[color=red]How does the monarchy represent Canada? The Queen is not Canadian and does not live there. I am from Ontario and have never been to the western provinces, would I be the best choice to speak for Alberta? No, Should I rule Alberta from a far? Certainly not.[/color]

In the end you're left with disillusioned republicans who don't know the difference between the Canadian Crown and the Canadian government,

[color=red]Sure we do, we have a Canadian government and the Canadian crown does not exist.[/color]who think Canada is hindered in progress and growth because we're not like the United States,

[color=red]Actually growth has nothing to do with it and there are more republics than the US. As for becoming more like them because we are next to them, consider France and Germany-two neighboring republics who are not really alike.[/color]
and believe removing the Queen will make democracy champion in Canada, allowing us to become the next global superpower.

[color=red]Again, superpowering has nothing to do with it however, seeing compleat democracy in Canada would be nice.[/color]

republican

---

bambino
Junior Member



Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 18

Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:05 pm

 

---

/---Its interesting you mention the Inuit, First Nations ect ect alongside of representation. Tell me, how does the Queen represent them?---/

The Queen and Governor General represent ALL Canadians, which includes Inuit and First Nations citizens. This is because the Queen is the sovereign of the Canadian Crown, and the Crown is the symbol of the State, which is made up of all the people. The Crown must look out for their rights regardless of ethnicity, religion or economic status.

There is an especially strong bond between many First Nations and the Crown through treaties which have been signed through the centuries. These treaties go beyond the government, which changes over time, and are agreements between the continuous Crown and the First Nations people only.

As Chief Donald Maracle said: "We recall, with great honour, the political and military bond of mutual affection and alliance that has marked the relationship between the Mohawk people and the British and Canadian Crown for the last three centuries."

If you mean, how does a “white woman in Britain” represent First Nations peoples, then you may as well ask how a Chinese born refugee can represent them as Governor General, or how possibly a man of Pakistani descent as Canadian President would represent them?

/---As for Separtaion, I bet the French Canadians would be happier if their head of State was not a British person whos ancestors ruled Canada and fought wars with their ancestors.---/

Why do you lump all "French Canadians" in with separatists? There are many French speaking citizens in Canada who do not live in Quebec, and thus are not under the influence of the Bloc or Parti Quebecois. There are even many in Quebec who don’t wish the province to succeed from Canada.

As for the "wars"-- battles were fought between British and French colonists in North America. But that was 250 years ago, and the present Queen of Canada cannot be blamed for the actions of her ancestors. What is important to remember is that these battles were extensions of wars going on in Europe, and that France eventually just gave away most of its North American territories to the British through treaty.

We also need to remember that it was under the British Crown that citizens of Lower Canada were able to keep their traditions of civil law, Catholicism, and French language. Indeed, French Canadians did not join in the American Revolution (though France was aiding the American rebels), and instead chose to remain where their religion and traditions were protected—with the British Crown. All this yelling of "Anglophone oppression!" comes only from a loud-mouthed few politicians who twist the past to their convenience.

Still, do you honestly believe that a Canadian president would appease Quebec sovereigntists? A slew of Quebecois prime ministers over the past 40 years have not quieted them. After all, the separation issue has never been about what king or queen reigned in Canada, but about money, language and culture—neither of which the Crown has oppressed in the past, or oppresses now.

Indeed, it is the Quebec sovereigntists who would, most likely, take the post of the Canadian president and demand it be filled with Francophone people, and/or that the votes of Quebecois count for more, should Anglophone Canadians outweigh them. If this demand is not met? Separation! And so, the office of Canadian president would only lead to more division.

And most important of all, in 1982 the majority of Canadians, through their elected officials in the 10 Provincial Legislatures, the House of Commons and the (unelected) Senate, agreed to have their Queen sign the Constitution Act which entrenched the Canadian monarchy. The Crown should not be obliterated to appease the sensitivities of an ill-informed few. In Canada a minority should not control the majority.

Anyway, the British Crown is no longer a power in Canada. Since the 1931 Statute of Westminster Canada has had its own Canadian Crown. So, even though our monarch lives in Britain, Quebec sovereigntists can not claim that a British Queen 'rules' over them. As Elizabeth II is also queen of Australia, New Zealand, Belize, Jamaica, Tuvalu, etc., they may as well complain that the Queen of Jamaica “rules” over Canada.

/---Firstly it wont cost too much money and referendums happen in other countries all the time. Heck, the Swiss have had about 400 so far.---/

Australia had a referendum in 1999 to see if Australians wanted to move from being a constitutional monarchy to a republic. The debate went on for more than a decade before that, including numerous commitees of investigation, etc., and then a nation-wide referendum. The total cost was estimated to be in excess of $800 million.

In Canada one federal election alone costs $250 million.

Switzerland may have many referendums, but what is the size and population of that country? Is it as large or diverse a country as Canada? I don’t believe so.

/---Canada will finally have what all countires should-a democratically elected leader who Canada can call there own.---/

Canada has a democratically elected leader-- the prime minister. I don't think he or she 'belongs' to any other countries.

/---Where is this DEMOCRATIC Canadian head of state?---/

Democracy isn't ALL about elections. This just goes to show you too have been brainwashed by too much U.S. television.

Democracy is about having a government chosen by the people to speak for them politically—and Canada has that in our parliament. We elect our members of parliament, and they choose a leader, the prime minister, who then forms a government made up of Ministers of the Queen.

Twice in our history (1867 and 1982) Canadians have chosen the monarch and governor general to hold the executive powers of Canada. Thus they are vested with their positions and powers only because the Canadian constitution, the supreme law of all Canadians, says so. As you know, change the constitution and the Queen is no longer a queen.

Also, though not elected, the Queen, as sovereign of the Crown, and her representative the governor general, are democratic because their duties are outlined in the constitution, both the written document and convention. As members of the Crown they must guarantee and protect the democratic and human rights of Canadians. Elected officials can abuse the powers they are given with their office-- this has been seen time and time again in many countries around the world. The Crown must ensure that this never happens and that the government in Canada is always stable and responsible. Thus it has the executive power to dissolve government, dismiss prime ministers, call elections, etc., should the government or prime minister ever try to abuse their powers or if a governmental crisis arises.

You may ask how it is guaranteed that the sovereign or governor general will never abuse their powers. Well, the governor general can be removed by the sovereign. And the sovereign can be removed by Canadians. Should the king or queen flagrantly abuse their executive powers, they can be removed from the throne by the Canadian governments – by the same method they were installed by the BNA in 1867 and the Constitution Act in 1982.

/---And speaking of costs what about the thousands of dollars Canadians paid when the Queen came to visit. And for what? Painting the jet to Royal Standards for one.---/

Who else should pay for the Canadian sovereign? The Norwegians? Do Bolivians pay for the President of the United States to fly around?

No, when the Queen is asked by her Canadian government to undertake a visit – whether to Canada or internationally – the Canadian government pays for it. This is identical to any other government paying for their sovereign or president to travel.

As for “painting the jet to Royal Standards”… I have no idea what you’re talking about. HM flies as Queen of Canada in the same RCAF jet that most other Canadian dignitaries travel on, and it remains in RCAF colours. It is only the Prime Minister who has his own two luxury Challenger jets.

What are these “Royal Standards” anyway?

/---Shes Canadian? Thats great! Just one thing-what Province is she from because last time I checked Britain is not in Canada. Does she have Canadian parents? Citizenship? Family? Passports? Does she live in Canada? The answer to these are No, No, No No and No.---/

You’re looking at this far too simplisticly. In a pretty xenophobic manner, as well.

I’d like to ask you—does someone have to be born in Canada to be Canadian? Does someone have to have Canadian parents to be Canadian? Does someone have to have Canadian family to be Canadian? Does someone have to live in Canada to be Canadian?

The answers are: No, no, no and no.

Many immigrants are not born in Canada but go there and gain citizenship to become Canadian. None of them have Canadian parents or Canadian family. There are also many around the world who have never set foot on Canadian soil but gained Canadian citizenship because their parents were Canadian citizens.

As for the Queen’s citizenship—you need to understand that a monarch cannot be a citizen of the country for which they are sovereign. In all her realms citizenship and passports are issued by the Crown, and so she cannot swear allegiance to herself or issue herself a passport. So, though she lives for the most part in Britain, she is not a British citizen, and thus does not hold a British passport.

Even though she is not a British citizen and holds no British passport, does anyone doubt her role as Queen of Britain or claim she is not British? No. Then why should anyone doubt her as Queen of Canada and claim she is not Canadian?

It is legally and logically impossible to claim that the sovereign of Canada, as written into the Canadian constitution, the body that issues Canadian citizenship, the symbol of the Canadian State, is not Canadian.

If you still think the Canadian head of state should be a Canadian citizen, you might like to know that Prince Charles is currently a British and Canadian citizen and holds passports for both countries. He will, of course, relinquish these when he becomes king.

/---I like how Monarchists always fear that becoming a republic will turn us into Americans.---/

Please quote me the words I said that implied I fear Canada becoming a republic will make us more like the United States.

/---Canadians and Americans are different-not ebtter not worse just different.---/

Certainly.

I think that retaining the Crown just because it makes Canada different to the U.S. really is a weak argument.

While our monarchy does make us different from the U.S., it is only in that it gives us a different system of government than they have. But I also think the responsible government—the Westminster type of government – we’ve had under the Crown has, in a way, affected Canadian culture. I don’t want to get into generalisations, but I believe that Canadians, for the most part, believe more in diplomacy and negotiation, rather than battle and war. We are (or should be) more unified under our Crown—a continuous institution with people to represent us, whereas U.S. Americans are unified only under their flag or constitution -- inanimate objects which change over time.

Its not that removing the Crown will make Canadians more like U.S. citizens, but that removing the Crown will take away a subtle but entrenched part of Canadian culture. Its been a part of our daily lives for centuries – for the most part in very inconspicuous ways, but there none the less in our laws, judicial system, customs, attitudes, expectations, and so on.

Take it away, and we’ll find ourselves asking, what do we replace it with? How will people adjust to this new way of thinking? Will it really be any better? Is an office of the president suited to the Canadian way of life?

Its not a huge question, or one which drives my argument for the Crown. But, it’s one to be considered, none-the-less.

/---"Canada until 35 years ago was proud of its monarchy. Since then, however, U.S. American culture coming into Canadian homes via television and movies has led Canadians to become more and more United States-ified."
Well that and we want our own head of state.---/

First—who do you mean by “we”? Surely you’re not speaking for all Canadians, or even the majority of them.

Second—Can you then agree that too much U.S. media in Canada, and not enough education, has led a number of Canadians to have a warped knowledge of their government? How then can these people be expected to make well grounded decisions about their government and Crown?

They ignorantly believe the Queen of Britain to reign in Canada, and think the U.S. Presidential system is the only way to go just because U.S. TV constantly feeds the message that they have the ideal democracy and the rest of the world should be re-created in their image.

Too many Canadians need to stop being educated by the television, and start learning how things really are in the country. If they then want to move to a different system, then let them feel that. But they cannot form opinions on misinformation and ignorance.

/---How does the monarchy represent Canada? The Queen is not Canadian and does not live there.---/

I’ve covered this already.

/---I am from Ontario and have never been to the western provinces, would I be the best choice to speak for Alberta? No, Should I rule Alberta from a far? Certainly not.---/

What does geography have to do with it? Does the Federal government in Ottawa have no say in Alberta simply because Ottawa is in Ontario? No. Does the U.N. have no say in other countries because it is in the United States? Does the Pope mean nothing to Catholics around the world because he is in the Vatican?

And you say “I have never been to the western provinces.” Well, the Queen and the Governor General have been to all the provinces and territories in Canada. And they would go more often if the government asked them to do so.

/---“In the end you're left with disillusioned republicans who don't know the difference between the Canadian Crown and the Canadian government.”
Sure we do, we have a Canadian government and the Canadian crown does not exist.---/

I quote you from your post on Dec. 12: “If we had an elected Canadian government that the people would choose, people might take more pride in it.”

As I said, Canada already has an elected government. So, what exactly were you trying to say again?

How do you possibly claim the Canadian Crown does not exist?? Please explain that one.

/---Again, superpowering has nothing to do with it however, seeing compleat democracy in Canada would be nice.---/

Canada and many other countries around the world function perfectly well as constitutional monarchies—indeed, 8 of the top 15 countries to live in the world are constitutional monarchies (6 of the top 10, and 4 of the top 5). Do you feel that Norway, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands, Canada, Japan, Denmark, Britain, or Luxembourg are not democracies? (Well, I know your ideas on Canada.) How about Thailand, New Zealand, Spain, Jamaica, or Belize?

So, tell me how it is that Canada is lacking in democracy, and please don’t say it is simply because we don’t elect a president. Show me how people who live in republics are more secure and happier. Show me how republics are better.

In fact, I realise you don't want us to move to the U.S. system, so then tell me what republic you do want Canada to be. Tell me how you think an appointed president will not be a yes-man to the Prime Minister. Tell me how an elected president will not take sides, wont be bought out with election donations, wont favour those who voted for them over others. As a matter of fact, tell me how a politically elected president can ever remain apolitical in a time of governmental crisis. How can this person, who owes their position either to the prime minister or an electorate ever remain unbiased when they have to act as arbitrators? How will another elected politician in Ottawa make Canadians happy? If politics are so divisive in Canada how will yet another election every four years bring us together?

A lot of questions there, republican. I look forward to your answers.

---