Why Canada should be become a republic...

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

/---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 Britainâ€

If you mean, how does a “white woman in Britainâ€

/--- “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?â€