g_bambino

Bakunin, I'm not sure how you find eureka's words "ridiculous". Franco-Canadians may not have gained all the benefits they have today immediately after they became subjects of the British Crown, but as country and Crown have evolved over the centuries, Franco-Canadians have indeed reaped the same benefits that all Canadians have. Though not truly democratic by our views today, the British Crown in the late 1700s was already, as eureka pointed out, a non-absolute one, unlike the French Crown under which the French Canadian colonies had existed. Certainly, at the start, the Governors of the French colonies were British, and appointed by Britain, but colonial governments were still set up where citizens, both Franco and Anglo, could elect representatives. There were certainly times when Franco-Canadians had to fight for their rights. But remember, Anglo-Canadians had to fight for more democracy as well-- for example, against the Family Compact of Upper Canada who ruled the colony essentially as an oligarchy. But the Crown was never totalitarian in its reactions, calling for a violent stop to any of the Canadian colonies' demands. Compromise always led to an, obviously, satisfactory end. It is precisely this flexibility that the Crown possesses which allowed it to evolve right along with Canada. Eventually the colony became a country, a constitution was written, a federal government and provincial governments were formed, Anglo and Franco Canada united under the British Crown-- and all by the free choice of Franco and Anglo Canadians. As more years passed, the British Crown ceased to exist in Canada, and a purely Canadian Crown appeared. Governors were no longer British appointees, there to represent the British Crown, but became representatives of the Canadian Crown on a national and provincial level. Lieutenant Governors all came from their respective province, the position of Governor General became one filled by Canadians, shared between Francophones and Anglophones, yet always bilingual. And through all this change and evolution, Quebec has been along for the ride. Now it is a strong province, where its language, religion, and culture are allowed to freely exist and develop. It is democratic, wealthy, and distinct. Where, in all of that history, has the Crown really ever hindered the free and democratic life that Franco-Canadians have enjoyed for at least the past 137 years, if not for a half-century longer?

But, if you are Francophone Canadian, then the Canadian Crown is indeed a part of your history. I believe I and a few others here have pointed out that the history of French-speaking Canadians does go hand in hand with the history of the Crown. Many may view it as an imposition of British power over French colonists 245 years ago. As I said, maybe it was, then, but it was mostly due to the French government handing over the majority of their North American holdings to Britain with the Treaty of Paris. Since then there were indeed attempts to erase Franco-Canadian culture, but, as was also pointed out earlier, many of the recommendations were never followed. Indeed, for the most part, Franco-Canadian culture was protected by the Canadian governments under the British Crown. I pointed out the number of times Quebec has had the opportunity to sever any ties with the Crown, both the British or the Canadian, but, to this day the province remains with Elizabeth II as the Queen in right of Quebec. Both the British Crown, and later the Canadian Crown, have been functioning parts of the Quebec government since the formation of the province. The Crown has evolved with the country, becoming purely Canadian, becoming bilingual, and always seeing Franco-Canadians and Anglo-Canadians equally. With those indisputable facts in mind, how can anyone claim that Francophone Canadians cannot view the Crown as a part of their history? True enough. After the formation of the First Republic in 1792, France flip-flopped between republic and monarchy, going through no less than four monarchies, and five republics. It is hardly the country to use as an example of a model republic. The British Crown, and thus the British monarch, are far more than simply 'heritage symbols'. The same goes for the Canadian Crown and Canadian monarch. Please understand the more complex nature of the governments and the constitutions of both countries. As long as Francophone Canadians live in Canada there can never be a distinction where the 'English community' (whatever that means) remains loyal to the Crown of Canada while Franco-Canadians do not. The Crown is the foundation of the country, and the provinces-- their laws, their governments, their public services, and the military. All Canadians, no matter what language they speak, are served by these institutions, and are thus served by the Crown. Therefore, for Franco-Canadians to continue to live under Canadian laws, under Canadian government, to be protected by Canadian police, and the Canadian military, as they have done for the past 137 years, then they must remain with the Canadian Crown. What ends? A number of times I believe you have implied in your words that there are some 'others' who control the destiny of Canadians. Can you please tell us who these mind-controlling, subjugating, overlord 'others' are? Also, a number of times you have been asked to explain what exactly makes Canada a dictatorship or absolute monarchy. Perhaps it is part of the mysterious ‘others’ theory. Can you explain this as well?

Funny, looks like racism, this mean a french person couldnt be GG except if he or she become a member of the england church ? its just another thing that make's it an "english only" symbol The Act of Settlement is indeed now a part of Canada's constitution, inherited from Britain when the constitution was patriated in 1982. Republicans love to slobber all over this piece of legislation because it excludes a certain group of people from the line of succession to the Canadian throne, and in our politically correct world its a real gem to use against monarchy. However, what republicans don't mention is that this law wasn't created by monarchs themselves to protect their religious purity. It was created by the British parliament-- the democratically elected representatives of the British people! What republicans also conveniently omit is that the Act of Settlement is over 300 years old, and has remained hidden and unthought of for the precise reason that the world has not been so politically correct until today! And they fail to mention that it has recenlty (in the past decades) been brought up in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Britain itself, that this act should be altered or removed all toghether. Even the Queen has stated that she sees no reason not to have it changed, and would be happy to see the eldest child, regardless of sex, be the first in line for the throne. However, it is more difficult than simply striking the law from the books. The Statute of Westminster says that any changes to the line of succession, which the Act of Settlement lays out, must be agreed to by every nation in the Queen's Commonwealth. Combine that with the fact that there are more pressing issues for everyone to deal with, and right now nobody immediately in line for the throne is a Catholic or married to one, and nobody is rushing to make any changes. So, in the end, the Act of Settlement is not an argument for republicanism, and not an example of any bias on the part of the monarchy. As for the GG-- no law stipulates who may or may not be chosen to be governor general. The Act of Settlement does not apply to that office.

eureka-- thank you for saving me the effort of having to re-type all that in reply to bakunin's republican drivel copied from one of my favorite republican propoganda websites! (Favorite to laugh at, that is.)

Without meaning offence, that has got to be the most simplistic, narrow minded view of history I have ever heard. The complex story of the history of Quebec can be summed up to this: They screwed. Alot. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. I posted elsewhere about the number of times Quebec had the choice to leave the protection of the Crown, and each time they opted to stay. Not all British can be seen to speak for the Crown. Not all actions the Crown authorised can be seen as against Quebec or French-Canadian culture. Again, lets not be so simple.

Quite true. Not true. See my above post for the explination as to why. Then, do you feel all positions in Canada should be filled by election? Also, are you arguing against the Constitution when you say the position is largely symbolic? Perhaps you need to refresh your knowledge of this important document so that you may remember that all executive authority in this country is vested in our queen. Hardly symbolic. About 90% of the Constitution Act is the BNA, just renamed and with a Charter attached to it. But I agree that it was a worthy step for Canada to take in giving ourselves full and absolute control over our own affairs. How so? She is sovereign of the Canadian Crown, and as such is vested with the executive powers of Canada, and in whose name citizenship and passports are granted. She is sovereign of the Order of Canada, Commander in Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, and knows more about the Canadian constitution and government than most politicians. If, by law and logic she is a Canadian, how do you presume to say she is not? The sad fact is, most do not even know she is one of our heads of state, and the sovereign of Canada. However, this is an indisputable sign that Canadians have been left ignorant by their government and schools as to just how things in this country work. The Liberal governments since Trudeau have inherited from him a need to re-invent Canada with every new year, bulldozing and obliterating history in the process. But since then, they have also developed a god-complex whereby they feel they are the supreme power in Canada. Keeping people ignorant of the existence and purpose of the Crown serves that complex very, very well. That addresses the issue of Canadians finding the monarchy "meaningless", but what can you possibly mean by "a reminder of who really controls things"?? I believe you've said this before, but I fail to remember you ever giving concrete proof of this. Would you care to explain it again? From this I gather that you are implying the 'president of Canada' must be Canadian born. I hope others, besides myself, see the xenophobia hidden in this opinion.

Precisely.

What does the century in which we live have to do with the relevance of constitutional monarchy? Republics have been around for almost as long as monarchies. Should we therefore call for an end to republicanism because it is over 3000 years old, and thus, out of date? Please demonstrate how a republic (and be specific about what kind of republic... certainly not the old Republic of Iraq, or the Peoples' Republic of China, I hope) is more democratic than a constitutional monarchy. This I will somewhat agree with.

Thank you, August1991, for breathing new life into this thread. I'm also pleased you noticed that I am a monarchist. The neanderthal part, however, serves nicely to show the level of decency and manners you possess. No, I'm afraid I don't believe someone should become sovereign of a country solely by accident of birth. That would make them an absolute monarch, and unaccountable to their subjects. I appreciate the Canadian system because who our monarch is, and who will be, is laid out in Canadian constitutional law; law which was created by governments who were, and are, the elected representatives of the people. This makes monarchs accountable to Canadians, for if they are not happy with whomever is in the sovereign's position (or even in line for the position) they may freely voice their opinions on the matter. Their opinions may be strong enough that they will call for the laws which govern succession to the throne to be removed or altered by their government to either depose the monarchy all together, or call for another to take the throne. Examples of how the people can affect their monarch can be seen in the abdication of King Edward in 1936, or the Queen's recent moves following the death or Diana, Princess of Wales.

You could. But proposing that change brings up a slew of difficult issues and questions. How will this person be elected? If it is in a general election that makes the president political and their impartiality is impaired. If it is by the government then the president’s impartiality is impaired. No elected person can remain unbiased in a time where they must choose between one group and another. The lack of impartiality leads to the issue of representation. As seen in the President of the United States, or even our prime minister, an elected official, whether directly or indirectly elected, cannot represent everyone. They will only represent those who voted for them. Thus, because of their political nature, when Bush or Martin travel abroad, they cannot, and do not, represent every Canadian or U.S. American. The apolitical Crown, including the Queen and governor general, can represent every Canadian because the Crown does not distinguish between political beliefs, financial status, language, race, or religion. And the most important question would be—why? What benefit would Canadians have to wake up to the morning after Canada becoming a republic? Stronger unity? A stronger economy? A better place in the global community? I doubt it. Though its only my opinion, I think this would be an extremely divisive debate on a national and provincial level. And should, by some unfathomable feat, Canada become a republic, the division would continue with the added arguments and debates over who should be President of Canada every five years or so. Look to the debates in Australia regarding their flirt with republicanism to see just how difficult this change is. And that's precisely the problem-- you didn't talk about constitutional monarchy. You claimed that a monarch (which would include our Queen) is a dictator. As Canada is a constitutional monarchy where the sovereign is bound by the Canadian constitution, the monarch is not a dictator. The difference between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy is an important one which you failed to address. I'm afraid, bakunin, that you are the one who is not understanding. The French monarchy was an absolute one. The Canadian monarchy is a constitutional one. The two cannot be compared. Where the Kings of France claimed that they were kings by the divine right of God, the Queen of Canada is not chosen by any religious means. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say our kings and queens are to be chosen by God. The line of succession to the Canadian Throne is actually laid out in the Act of Settlement-- an act passed by British parliament in 1701, but which Canada inherited with the patriation of the constitution in 1982. This is currently the law which states who will be King or Queen of Canada. However, it is also the law which shows that birth alone does not a monarch make. The Act of Settlement stipulates that any Catholics, or any member of the Royal Family who marry Catholics, cannot take the Throne of Canada. Thus, though Prince Charles is the heir to the throne by birth, if he were to marry a Catholic, or become Catholic himself, then he would be removed from the line of succession regardless of his 'royal blood'. Yes, this is an extremely outdated, and an extremely biased law, and is one of the flaws of the system. But, it is only an unfortunate accident of history that we are stuck with it today. There has been much debate in Canada, Australia, Britain, etc. about changing this law, but, since there are other issues to worry about, and no person immediately in line for the throne is currently a Catholic, there isn’t a great push for change. There is also the fact that, by the Statute of Westminster, it would take the agreement of all 16 nations in the Queen’s Commonwealth to change it. But, my point is that God, or the accident (or miracle, whichever way you want to see it) of birth alone does not say who will be our sovereign. Actually, though 245 years ago the French colony of Quebec fell to the British, most francophones in the Americas became subjects of the British Crown because the French gave the lands on which they lived to the British in the Treaty of Paris. An imposition of the British Crown on them maybe, but by the hands of their own French colonial masters! Since then, however, francophone Canadians have had numerous opportunities to separate themselves from the British and then Canadian Crown. There was the American Revolution. Francophone Canadians chose to remain where they were because the Crown protected their rights to maintain their French language, Catholic religion, and Civil laws. The U.S. Americans, though backed by the French (from France), did not offer those protections. During Confederation Quebec was present at the discussions for creating the country of Canada. All agreed that the country should federate under the Crown of the United Kingdom. Even during the discussions when Trudeau was working to patriate the Constitution from Britain, Lesveque's main issues were with Quebec's distinct society and language being protected within the Constitution. He never complained about Quebec being somehow oppressed by the Canadian Crown. And during the Quebec sovereignty debates, there was no mention of the Crown as being a reason for separation. So, nobody can complain about the Crown being a symbol of defeat thrust in the faces of francophones. To say that it is would be uttering nothing more than myths. It is, in fact, an institution which has grown and adapted as Canada has grown and adapted, and has done francophones no ill in the process. As for the polls August1991 posted, I’ve already commented on how these results cannot be taken as anywhere near accurate, and so have no place in any debate about the Canadian monarchy.

Maplesyrup-- you're absolutely right. This is what I meant by the Liberals loving the media trashing of the Crown and governor general. It is a deliberate attempt to leave Canadians ignorant about the constitutional structure of their own country, and about the role of the Crown. Take that ignorance, add to it baseless scandalous accusations, and you construct a negative opinion of our constitutional monarchy. Another point about the polls that August1991 brought up is the question asked. Most of the polls on the monarhcy I have read asked if Canadians wished to end ties with the 'British monarhcy', or replace the Queen of Britain as Canada's head of state. This shows a disgusting lack of knowledge on the part of the pollsters as they have completely misunderstood the constitutional structure of Canada, and its place within the Queen's Commonwealth. They seem to not know about the existence of the Statute of Westminster, or indeed about the Constitution Act itself! They then go out to ask an ill informed public to answer an ignorant question! And we're supposed to take these polls as an accurate reading of the feelings of Canadians!?

It has not happened in Canada in my lifetime-- except for when Clarkson refused Martin's request that the swearing-in ceremony for the new Cabinet be held on Parliament Hill. But, that was not a political affair. The two instances I know of were the King/Byng affair in Canada in 1926, and the Whitlam/Sir Kerr affair in Australia in 1975. My point is, these powers are real. Just because they are not used often does not mean they do not exist and are not important. After all, I'm sure you rarely use your fire extinguisher, but it is very important you keep it there just in case. Well im a democrate... i think we should elect people who has state responsibility. I believe you're trying to say you're someone who believes in democracy. Canada, as a constitutional monarchy, is a democracy. Nobody has ever said differently. The election of a head of state is not what creates a democracy. For the most part, it is a country's constitution which makes a country democratic. Canada's constitution is democratic, and thereby Canada is a democracy. Not true. In a constitutional monarchy the monarch has no right to dictate. At their coronation they take an oath by which they swear to govern by the rules and laws of the country, just as Canadians do (implied at birth, or spoken verbally when becoming a citizen). So, Canadian monarchs are bound by the Constitution of Canada as much as Canadian citizens are. This means that the sovereign will follow the advice of the people through their elected representatives. They will break with that convention only when the elected representatives are abusing the powers given to them by going against the constitution or democratic process. And, the monarch is not given this 'right' simply because of their blood, or religion. The Queen of Canada is queen purely because our constitution says that the executive powers of Canada are vested in the Queen, and her heirs and successors. Who those heirs and successors are is laid out in the Act of Settlement, which is also part of Canadian constitutional law. So-- Canadian monarchs are only in that position because Canadian law says so. She's Canada's sovereign. Of course we pay for her to travel as Queen of Canada, who else would? The Canadian Crown is exactly that -- Canadian. It sees no difference between french-speaking or english-speaking Canadians, as they are all Canadian. So, as long as french-speaking Canadians remain in Canada, the Crown will be as much theirs as it is anglophones'.

Maplesyrup-- thank you. I'm not sure the media is driven by racism or sexism in regards to the Governor Genereal. Some media outlets may be, but I believe it is mostly driven by a co-operation between the government and the media. The government doubly benefits. Firstly because it takes the attention off of them. Notice how the circumpolar trip 'scandal' was all over the media around the same time AdScam was surfacing. The circus of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (where one Bloc MP felt it was appropriate to say the Governor General made him feel as if he were going to vomit), and the false accusations of money squandering by the GG, was a nice distraction from all the true Liberal financial mis-management which was then coming to light. Secondly, the Liberals are notorious republicans, beginning with Trudeau and extending through to today. Anything they can do to diminish the presence and role of the Crown, they will do. I mean, why would Liberal politicians want the Canadian people to understand that the Constitution vests not transiant politicians with power, but the ever-present Crown? Liberal polititcians are the heroes-- there for the every-day Canadian. The Crown is a wasteful colonial left-over. Using the media to taint the Crown serves thier interests nicely. And, of course, we all know the media wins by making money off of another 'scandal' which Canadians can bitch about over their morning coffee.

The governor general holds very real power. The Constitution of Canada vests the Crown with executive power. Through Letters Patent the Canadian monarch has allowed the governor general to exercise all the sovereign’s powers in Canada. Thus, the governor general holds the power, on behalf of the Queen, to call and dissolve parliament, appoint and dismiss prime ministers, call elections, is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and so on. By convention the GG may normally exercise the executive powers on the advice of the prime minister, but this does not mean he or she must. There have been occasions in the past in Canada and Australia where the PM’s advice was not appropriate or would not resolve a crisis, and so the GG went against this advice. How do you suppose an elected Head of State will aid Canada? Where is the dictatorship? What religious symbol? The governor general ceased to be the representative of the British Crown in 1931 with the passing of the Statute of Westminster. Since then the governor general has been the representative of The Crown acting in its Canadian jurisdiction as the Crown of Canada. As long as Quebec remains in the Canadian federation you will not pay any taxes to the British Crown (there is no 'English' monarchy), only to the Canadian.

Its absolute fact that the media in Canada slobbers all over any 'bad news' they can get -- even if they have to invent it! Clarkson has been a victim of this ever since she took over as Governor General. The truth of the matter is that since she took office, there has been every effort to improve the office itself. Under her vice-regal reign she has not sequestered herself away in the luxury of Rideau Hall, but gone out and traveled the country, to big cities and remote villages, in an effort to speak to Canadians from all walks of life -- the affluent to the impoverished, the urban to the rural, the Scottish, the Ukranian, the Ugandan, the Chinese, the Innuit, and so on. The benefit is two-fold. Firstly, she takes these experiences back to Ottawa where she can use her position as governor general to aid the push for improvement, or tell what is working well, and where. And secondly, it enables her to better represent all Canadians, which is precisely what the Crown is meant to do. She has seen Rideau Hall renovated and restored, making it again an appropriate place to receive and entertain visiting Heads of State from other countries, and opened it to Canadian and international tourists. Jean Sauve closed the gates of Rideau Hall to visitors, making it her own private castle. Clarkson has opened them and improved visitor facilities, allowing people once again to walk the grounds and tour the house-- because Clarkson realises Rideau Hall belongs not to her, but to the Canadians who pay for it. She has moved award ceremonies out of Rideau Hall, and taken them to larger venues across the country to allow the friends and families of award recipients to attend the event. She has shown a deep respect for the Canadian Armed Forces, spending Christmases and New Years with them in the field, and speaking eloquently at military memorials and ceremonies both in Canada and abroad. But, does the media report even a tenth of all of this? Nope. They focus on the cost. Certainly the budget has increased, but the media (and politicians who like the attention of the media) react as though all these things which improve and ennoble the office of Governor General should come for free. Beyond that, they twist the facts to make it seem as though Clarkson has a gold filled vault in the basement of Rideau Hall in which she swims like Scrooge McDuck every night. Take the Circumpolar trip, which everyone loves to bring up. The media went on and on about this Clarkson inspired, Clarkson ordered, and Clarkson-friend populated 'junkett' which cost $5 million. Only months later was it grudgingly reported correctly that Chretien and the Department of Foreign Affairs asked Clarkson to head the trip, and funded it to boot! Clarkson, who, as GG should never have to publicly defend herself, came forward and explained that she knew but 5 of the people on the trip as a personal friend. But, by then, the damage was done. Then there was the plane trips to the cottage. The newspapers and evening news screamed bloody murder at the outrage of Clarkson flying to her cottage in a luxurious jet with a chilled bottle of Veuve at her side. Nobody mentioned the GG is never 'on holiday' from the job-- even when she is at the cottage she is still the GG and may have to return to Ottawa in an emergency (ie, if the PM should die). It was, however, eventually revealed that the RCMP fly both our head of government (the PM) and our heads of state (the Queen and GG) in private planes for security reasons-- they can no longer fly commercially. It was said the GG's plane was a twin prop- not a jet. And it was also quietly mentioned that it was cheaper to take the GG on a secure 1 hr plane ride than to take her 6 hrs by car to her cottage (a small un-insulated building, without electricity and running water, by the way). But again, the true facts were played down, and by that point the damage was done. Now it’s her visit to the impoverished East Side of Vancouver—a case where the media had their scandalous reports all ready to go the night before she even arrived! They ignored her break away from security and media to go and experience the neighbourhood for herself, and only the Globe and Mail printed a quote by Clarkson about the affair: “’It's a free country,’ she said, her smile intact. ‘I was a journalist for years and I was involved in lots of things, where people swung baseball bats and did all sorts of things, and I think people are legitimately concerned with poverty. ‘They're legitimately concerned with housing. They're legitimately concerned with their needs, and if it sometimes takes the form of this kind of anger, well so be it. That's the way it is. And that's what the whole thing means is that we should be basically looking at how to make a change that will reduce that anger.’ Words like that do not fit into the scandalous scene the media wished to create. I'm not saying the woman or the office are without their faults. But the media's treatment of Clarkson since she became governor general has done nothing but reveal their greed-driven need to slander, and bring someone who works mostly for good and benefit down to a shameful end. Clarkson isn't the only one they've done this to, but in the past few years she has been the most prominent. The even sadder result is that so many Canadians across the country now have zero respect for the governor general, and zero understanding of what the governor general is for. A number of posts in this thread, and elsewhere on this board, demonstrate this perfectly. The media has misinformed and ill educated the people all in the name of making a buck off of invented scandal. It’s a sad and despicable affair.

Definitely constitutional monarchy. Its a far better system where the head of state remains impartial and out of the political arena. A republic means a politician president, and Canada definitely does not need another high powered politician in Ottawa. The British monarchy has nothing to do with Canada any more. The 1931 Statute of Westminster seperated the one British Crown over its dominions into distinct crowns for each country. So, though Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Belize, etc., share the same woman as queen, she acts distinctly as Queen of Canada for Canadian affairs, distinctly as Queen of the UK for British affairs, Queen of Australia for Australian affairs, and so on. If you want to talk against constitutional monarchy in Canada you will have to speak only of the Canadian monarchy. Well, actually, no. Its not. Elizabeth II is as much Queen of Canada for francophones as she is for anglophones. As sovereign of the Canadian Crown (and even Quebec Crown) she is the public servant and representative of all Canadians regardless of their race, religion, economic status, political views, or language. You will never hear her identify herself with only anglophones, but with all Canadians. I'm not sure I'd use the word 'saviour', but otherwise this is absolutely correct. The then British Crown protected French Canada during the U.S. invasions. Indeed, French Canada chose to stay under the British Crown during the U.S. revolution, even though France backed it. The Crown protected their civil law, Catholic church, and language. I somehow doubt North American French culture would have been so protected under Washington's rule. Its amazing how Quebec politicians have twisted the past to suit thier nationalistic goals, coveniently omitting many facts, and overplaying others. I don't believe anyone was asking you to kiss feet or feel inferior. I think the main issue is that you have chosen to forget certain protections the British Crown offered your ancestors, and have believed the xenophobic, anti-anglo hype of Quebec sovereigntists. The Canadian Crown has its roots in the British Crown, but that does not make it solely a part of english history. The province of Quebec existed, actually was formed, under the British Crown as much as the rest of Canada up until 1931. Comparing the Crown to Hitler is ludicrous! I don't remember Queen Victoria ordering francophones be gassed and burned in ovens. And, you may as well then argue for the abolishment of the Catholic church because it opressed and assimilated Native Peoples in Canada. Or better yet, fight for the dissolution of the Parti Quebecois which promotes pure laine, fracno purity by squashing other cultures in Quebec. But, no. You choose to ignore the good that came to Quebec under the British and Canadian Crown, and play up the mistakes to further enforce your percieved Quebec victimization. I mean, why realise the British conquered Quebec not to erradicate french culture, but simply to obtain more territory, regardless of what culture people there held? Why acknowledge that if the French had been more successful in battles they would have done the same thing? Why realise that most French territory was not invaded, but given away with the Treaty of Paris? Why remember the Quebec Act which legally accepted the French Catholic Church, granted a dual judiciary system (English criminal law; French civil law) and allowed the French to keep their language and social institutions? Why admit that confederation provided distinct powers to the provinces to maintain cultural, economic and political features? No, we must be blinkered and focus only on the Acadian deportations, Clifford Sifton, and the uprisings of the 1830s. Looking back from today's perspective, there were indeed some deplorable times. But, the equation cannot be so one sided, and the good must be looked at as well. Overall I think you'll find that under the British and then Canadian Crown, francophone Canadians have lived with more benefit than loss. Absolutely. That's pretty ignorant. Do people laugh at St. Jean Baptiste celebrations? Or laugh at a Ukranian festival? Just because these people are celebrating their British/Canadian past its somehow ok to laugh? You've just revealed the bigotry some Quebecois hold while simultaneously crying that they are the victims of bigotry themselves.

It depends on the set up of the government. In most monarchies these days the king or queen is bound by a constitution. This is the case in Canada where the Queen's powers are laid out in the constitution (both in written form and convention). She is only the Queen of Canada because the Canadian constitution makes her. Should the king or queen abuse these powers then the government can remove the monarch. The Emperor of Japan is in a similar situation, though the constitution Japan 'adopted' after the end of WWII reduced the emperor's powers to basicly nothing. So, a constitutional monarch or emperor cannot automatically be seen as a 'dictator'. However, an absolute monarch, which I believe Morocco has, has no limit to their powers, and so could be compared to a dictator. Iraq had a monarch before, and there is no reason why they could not set up a new constitutional monarchy. I believe there are still decendents of the assasinated king out there somewhere.... But, as I said before, I doubt the U.S. would let that happen.

Sorry KrustyKidd-- I didn't mean to sound like I was trying to shout you down. I was just trying to make some facts clear. I'm going to try and state some facts about this too. Firstly, Elizabeth II never 'supports' anything due to her own personal opinion. She is the symbol of the state, and therefore will always 'support' whatever the state wants. She does this normally by following the advice of her ministers-- the elected reps. of the populace. So-- contrary to what you wrote, Canada's head of state did not 'support' the Iraq war. The Queen of Canada's Governor General followed her Canadian ministers' advice and did not sign a declaration of war against Iraq. Britain's head of state did 'support' the Iraq war. The Queen of Great Britain followed her British ministers' advice and did sign a declaration of war against Iraq. New Zealand's head of state did not 'support' the Iraq war. The Queen of New Zealand's Governor General followed her New Zealand ministers' advice and did not sign a declaration of war against Iraq. Australia's head of state did 'support' the Iraq war. The Queen of Australia's Governor general followed her Australian ministers' advice and signed a declaration of war against Iraq. And so on. Thus, there was no contradiction by her wishing, as Queen of the UK, her British troops godspeed in Iraq while having her Canadian troops sit this one out. The woman may be the same, but the Crowns of which she is sovereign are not. Hope this tunes you in a little more. As for Jean Chretien-- nobody can ever be more tuned out than him.

Well, its not me who says it. It's the constitution that makes Canada a kingdom. Absolutely. The PM is our head of government. The Queen, and Governor General as her rep., are our heads of state. The PM governs. The Queen and GG hold executive power. I prefer this to the U.S. system where the head of gov. and head of state are the same person. Again, absolutely. Canada is a constitutional monarchy formed from a confederation of nation/provinces under a federal parliament. Well-- I guess that means we recognise the constituion is the law which, among many other things, makes the Queen the Queen of Canada; and that god is above us all, Elizabeth II included. Can we be a theocracy when no specific god is mentioned as the supreme power over Canada?

Perhaps this isn't the thread to get into a debate on Canada's system of government, but.... Canada is a monarchy. Our constitution (still in effect, as far as I know) states: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." This is from the Constitution Act, signed by Elizabeth II and Trudeau in 1982.(http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html Section III.9) We have a monarch bound by a constitution-- this makes us a constitutional monarchy. As for our voting system, the near-dicatorial powers of the government, and the unproportional representation that comes with it-- I couldn't agree more. However more than 1/2 the U.S. doesn't back George Bush either. I sure hope Iraqis will get a better handle on democracy than the majority of us in North America seem to have.

Just to clarify something from an earlier post: KrustyKidd wrote: Well, Canada is a monarchy. How can you claim to like the Canadian system over the U.S. system, yet also say you prefer a U.S. republic over a monarchy? A little contradictory. Iraq was a monarchy until the king was assasinated in 1958. I've heard some debate on whether they will ever return to that system, but personally, I have my doubts.

Big Blue Machine-- The Governor General has no limit to his or her term. They are in office at the pleasure of the Queen, though she most always follows her Prime Minister’s advice as to when and whom to appoint. Traditionally the person holding the post changes every 5 years, but numerous times the same person has remained in office for longer. For example: Vincent Massey (1952-59, 7 years & 7 months) Georges Vanier (1959-67, 7 years & 7 months, died in office) Roland Michener (1957-74, 6 years & 9 months) Jeanne Sauve (5 years & 8 months) With Canada now under a minority government, it is unlikely (thought not impossible) that Mme. Clarkson will be replaced any time soon. As for your claim that she spends too much money, please explain how you came to this conclusion? She has an annual budget, approved by and given to her by the government, to which her office must stick. This is used to pay for staff, and the running of Rideau Hall. Any additional spending on State Visits, etc. is purely the responsibility of Foreign Affairs. Spending on the overall maintenance of Rideau Hall and grounds is the responsibility of the National Capital Commission. Her security costs belong to the RCMP. So, does Mme Clarkson spend too much? Or do the ancillary departments spend too much? There’s more on this issue here: http://www.monarchist.ca/menu/ggstatement.html udawg: The historical role of the Governor General is pretty much the same as the present role of the GG. Firstly, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and so we have a head of state (the Crown with Queen and GG) and a head of government (the Prime Minister). The Canadian Constitution states that in the absence of the Canadian monarch, the Governor General is to act as their representative. Since the Letters Patent issued by King George VI in 1947 (read here: http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/...tersPatent.html ), giving almost all the sovereign’s powers to their representative, the GG has performed all the diplomatic, ceremonial, and constitutional duties the monarch would do when in Canada. In essence, the GG is the Canadian Counsellor of State. The duties of the Governor General as a representative of the Crown include: - Ensuring there is always a stable and responsible government, which means there must always be a Prime Minister (why it’s important the GG is there during a minority government). - Giving Royal Assent to bills passed by the House of Commons and the Senate (this final act must be performed before the bill becomes law). - Signing declarations of war. - Resolving parliamentary stalemates or crises – which may involve exercising the Royal Perogative without or against ministerial advice. - Issuing passports and citizenship. - Dissolving parliament and calling elections. - Opening a new session of parliament with the Throne Speech. - Receiving foreign dignitaries and diplomats. - Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces - Awarding medals and honours. - Traveling on State Visits. Most of these powers and duties are exercised on the advice of Ministers of the Crown (the cabinet), but, as mentioned, on rare but important occasions the Queen or GG can use these powers against or without advice. However, it must be an extreme circumstance for either of them to do this, for example 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. Otherwise it would be a breach of the Queen’s coronation oath, and the GG’s investiture oath. The GG and Queen also have a symbolic role to play, which includes promoting national identity and unity. This task falls to them because they are representatives of the Crown, an apolitical body, rather than a politician who is a part of the divisive political arena. Thus, the GG and Queen can represent all Canadians regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation, whereas politicians only represent a group of voters. The role of the GG and Crown can be read here: http://www.gg.ca/governor_general/role_e.asp http://www.interlog.com/~rakhshan/proles.html

Caesar was correct-- the Governor General was to attend. The Reagan funeral was a State Funeral, and thus it is more appropriate to send one of our Canadian heads of state rather than simply our head of government. As the current election is showing us, Paul Martin does not represent all Canadians. The Crown, however, is the symbol of the Canadian state. So, contrary to Argus' comment about her being a "political hack", sending the Governor General is almost the greatest respect Canada could show, short of sending the Queen herself. But, she does not attend any foreign funerals (and thus Prince Charles went to represent Great Brtiain). As for former PM Brian Mulroney-- he was there as a personal friend of the Reagans, not as an official representative of Canada.

Canada can't be classified as a nation. We have nothing in common. This can be seen in our social values. This country will probably seperate by 2020. ..... Alot of the American's that I have talked to said their is no difference between America and Canada. I find it pretty pathetic that we can only find pride in our blatant anti-Americanism. Was this a mistake? Why was this posted here?

I don't think the occupant of the job of head of state should be determined by birth, or "that method", as you say. I understand that you don’t feel the Canadian head of state should be determined by birth—you’ve made that very clear. However, what remains unclear is just how you would determine who our head of state should be. If we maintain our parliamentary system of government, we need a president. If we move to a system similar to the United States we need a president. So, how is that president to be placed in office? There are two choices—elections, or appointments. If the president is elected, they become a politician. Firstly, given the corruption which is rampant amongst our politicians, do you honestly believe Canadians wish to see yet another politician in a high Canadian office? And secondly, if a president is elected he or she can only represent those who voted for them, not to mention those who contributed financially to their campaign. Thus, they will never work for the interests of every Canadian, but only those interests which will attract the most votes and the most money. And how is it that a politically elected head of state can have the power to dismiss the politically elected head of government? How can a head of state, who must remain politically impartial, be so when they are elected in a political fashion? It’s an oxymoron. If the president is appointed by the government, then there is no guarantee that he or she will remain politically impartial. They rely on the government for their job, and so would most likely remain a ‘Yes Man’ to the PMO and Privy Council. In a time of governmental crisis how could we rely on this person to dismiss the government, when the government could simply dismiss them? These are the very questions that plagued the Australian republican movement, and they obviously found no viable, acceptable answer. Think of what "that method" symbolizes for all the other jobs to be filled in a society. There is no other job in Canada like being the head of state. “Anyway, I hope you’re not implying a link between Quebec sovereignty and the Crown.” Yes I am. I have always wondered what would happen to the Canadian "psyche" if our passports and money said "République fédérale du Canada". What connection is there between the Crown and Quebec sovereignty? I can’t see how the Crown plays into the issue at all. Can you clarify this for me? Do you truly believe that Canada will be a more unified country under a president rather than a monarch? I think it would take more than the “République fédérale du Canada” on our passports to solve the issues of the seperatists, or to solve any issue in Canada right now. Heck you're right. It's absurdly irrelevant at this stage. The notion of removing the monarchy is, yes.