The Federal Republic of Canada

[g_bambino]

Point of information: Trudeau did not wear a Nazi costume. He actually dressed up as a 19th century Prussian officer.

You're quite right. Though, I never insinuated he wore a Nazi costume, but I was led to believe he wore a Nazi helmet.

But my argument about his behavior still stands.

From the Calgary Sun:

But Trudeau decided the war was not for him. He opted out, even tore around Montreal on a motorcycle in a German helmet, razzing those who did not opt out. If enough young men of his age had adopted his attitude, the Holocaust would have become a world-wide event, and every Jew you and I know would not be alive today. That's if we were alive ourselves to know it.

Still, this stupid kid went on to become what many would call Canada's greatest Prime Minsiter (though, I know many would call him other things...)

Thus, can we really so harshly judge Prince Harry over his childish mistakes?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear g_bambino,

Still, this stupid kid went on to become what many would call Canada's greatest Prime Minsiter (though, I know many would call him other things...)

Thus, can we really so harshly judge Prince Harry over his childish mistakes?

Indeed, Poor Prince Harry is being persecuted more for the sales of the tabloids than for the silly action he committed. Heck, what if he went around in the most popular costume of all time, 'The Devil'? He would have been Hitler, Stalin and Ghengis Khan all in one, the 'greatest evil-doer' fathomable!.

If Harry had, say, denied the Holocaust, or claimed "Hitler had the right ideas", then I could see how he could be in big trouble, but not for wearing a costume, especially as a 'foolish kid'.

[Guest eureka]

Most youngsters would go to a fancy dress occasion dressed in a Nazi uniform if they could. Most would dress as Napoleon or Genghis or Atilla if they could.

This is a tempest in a teapot and only newsworthy because the Nazis are closer historically than other villains.

Trudeau,BTW, was never a Nazi symphatizer: quite the opposite. I remember when some opponents of his tried to make an issue of his jaunt on the motorcycle in Montreal - I was one. It went over like a lead balloon. Nobody cared about a youthful prank.

[August1991]

This thread is all over the map, and my pawprints are all over this thread. But I think it deserves to be raised to the top because I think Canada should be a Federal Republic (and it's the 24 June, one week before 1 July).

You can flip through this thread and read why I think that until we are a republic, we'll be immature and incomplete. IMV, symbols matter. And nowadays, this question is more acute than 100 years ago when English-Canadians at least considered themselves part of an Empire. Nowadays, no Canadian is part of anything.

Or, you can skip all the previous posts and simply consider my following proposal:

Harper should replace the Face of the Queen on our $20 bill with Jeanne Mance or Marguerite Bourgeois. Harper has the authority to make this change, and Queen Elizabeth's crowned silhouette (or Charles') would still be on the coins.

[Riverwind]

This thread is all over the map, and my pawprints are all over this thread. But I think it deserves to be raised to the top because I think Canada should be a Federal Republic (and it's the 24 June, one week before 1 July).

Canada has many polarizing issues that it has to deal with (senate reform, equalization, quebec's unique identity, etc). Dealing with the monarchy is very low priority because it is largely a symbolic issue. The status quo does not really hurt but trying to change it will lead to a fractious and divisive debate.

[geoffrey]

It would probably prove unpopular in Ontario, and overwelmingly popular in Quebec and the West. Depends if Harper wants to go down that path. I don't know his person views on the topic, but I've never heard him speak out against the monarchy, unlike his Austrialian counterpart.

But it's time we grew up as a nation and lost the Queen and GG as our figureheads and moved to a real productive political system.

[Rue]

It would genuinely be interesting if Canada held a referendum on becoming a republic how the majority would vote. That said, there is one interesting legal point if we did go republican. The native peoples have treaties as to land rights and use that date back to King John and the Magna Carta Act. The mechanics of dealing with native rights if the crown is abolished would be interesting. Would Canada as a republic recognize these treaties that were entered into with the crown or simply rip them up?

I myself am neutral on the topic. The Queen and monarchy does not bother me. One figure head is the same as another to me. Whether you call the person a queen or a President they are still ceremonial. While I think the Queen married an idiot and has idiot children I have no problems with her or her corgi dogs. Chuck I have a problem with. The man and his spouse appropriately named Bowels make me puke.

One could make a solid arguement for tradition and monarchy and suprisingly do it in a progressive way. the monarchy seems spent and old but it actually is a lot more creative then having a boring President.

Besides most of the political apppointments in this country are queens anyways.

[Charles Anthony]

Dealing with the monarchy is very low priority because it is largely a symbolic issue.

I strongly agree. Between:

1) more de-centralization and less federal waste

2) getting rid of the monarchy and becoming a republic

Which would help Canada the most?

I will go for #1) in a heart-beat and I would gladly kiss both the Queen's and her son Charles' and Camilla's asses every Victoria Day and twice on Canada Day for the rest of my life in exchange for more de-centralization.

[cybercoma]

I'm in favour. Any monarchists on the bench? I'll argue, and happily explain why you're wrong.

I say, let's run our own affairs our own way, and let's be upfront about it. Why the heck is that foreign face on our money anyway?

I think symbols matter, and English Canadians cannot imagine the effect it would have among French Canadians.

So, is Canada a "real" country?

I admit, I didn't take the time to read this thread, so I apologize if it has already been said; Canada would be more united if we were a federal republic. Having such deep roots to the monarchy alienates the french and native Canadians. If we want to all work together and be one country "strong and free" we need to step away from the monarchy of the United Kingdom and work together as a diverse country on our own.

[Clopin]

I took the time to read the thread... skimmed over Charles farming and such.

Not much has been said about the matter of world perception. I don't think we should overlook how other nations' perception of Canada affects how we feel about our national identity.

Ask the average world citizen: Who is Elizabeth II? and what will they say? Queen of England. Be it an accurate description or not, that will be the most common answer. And to most, when they hear that the 'Queen of England' is also Canada's head of State, that brings with it the stigma of Canada not being fully autonomous. Even if we actually are. Preach all you want about education, the simpler notion will prevail.

It's about emotion and symbolism... how we feel about the issue as opposed to a rational deduction as to which option is healthier for the country.

Albeit, Monarchists make valid arguments... such as the political neutrality of our head of state, I still agree we will remain immature as a nation until we cut the royal umbilical cord.

[cybercoma]

I took the time to read the thread... skimmed over Charles farming and such.

Not much has been said about the matter of world perception. I don't think we should overlook how other nations' perception of Canada affects how we feel about our national identity.

Ask the average world citizen: Who is Elizabeth II? and what will they say? Queen of England. Be it an accurate description or not, that will be the most common answer. And to most, when they hear that the 'Queen of England' is also Canada's head of State, that brings with it the stigma of Canada not being fully autonomous. Even if we actually are. Preach all you want about education, the simpler notion will prevail.

It's about emotion and symbolism... how we feel about the issue as opposed to a rational deduction as to which option is healthier for the country.

Albeit, Monarchists make valid arguments... such as the political neutrality of our head of state, I still agree we will remain immature as a nation until we cut the royal umbilical cord.

I wonder how those with French heritage feel about having the Queen of England as our head of state?

[BHS]

I wonder how those with French heritage feel about having the Queen of England as our head of state?

If eureka wasn't banned he'd be freaking out on you right now. There is no "Queen of England". She's the Queen of Britain.

Further, why should the feelings of those of French heritage matter any more than those of Norwegian heritage? Wolfe won the war. Canada has been a British dominion for a long time. Any lasting French sentiment to the contrary is irrelevant.

[Topaz]

Isn't the US a republic?? No thanks I like being the "Dominion of Canada". I still don't understand how a political party can be a member of the Canadian govt and want to have its own country? I don't understand, how Quebec can have the Bloc , Libs and Cons, represent it in govt? Why don't we open it up to everyone the separatist and the First Nation too? Now , wouldn't you like to see how the First Nation debate in "question period" to the other parties? If ANYONE is unhappy with this country than go and seek other countries to live in and then you'll come back and say this isn't so bad after all! Canada is Canada and anyone is welcome as long as you don't mistreat this country and will stay Canada! The Maple Leaf forever!!!

[August1991]

I still don't understand how a political party can be a member of the Canadian govt and want to have its own country? I don't understand, how Quebec can have the Bloc , Libs and Cons, represent it in govt? Why don't we open it up to everyone the separatist and the First Nation too?

First of all there is something called "Canada" - rocks, trees, lakes, mountains and people with various talents. Then there is something called the federal parliament. And then there is the federal government. The federal parliament and federal government are entirely distinct from Canada. Never confuse a country and its government. The wars of the last century had a similar confusion.

Isn't the US a republic?? No thanks I like being the "Dominion of Canada".

Simply because the US does one thing, is that reason for us to to do the opposite? Americans and English Canadians both speak English, roughly with the same accent. Should English Canadians learn another language to be different?

[mcqueen625]

What benifits would we reap as being a republic?

EDIT:

And couldn't we still elect our lieutennant-governors, governor general, and well we are at, the members of the senate......well still not becoming a republic?

Point is we don't need a Governor or Lieutenant's, or the Senate for that matter. They are simply outdated trappings of bygone times, and expensive one's at that. Think of the tax-money that would be saved if we done away with those useless positions and all of the bureaucracy surrounding each.

[g_bambino]

I don't know his person views on the topic, but I've never heard him speak out against the monarchy, unlike his Austrialian counterpart.

In the opening sentences of his first speech to the House as Prime Minister, Harper said:

"I would like to pay tribute to our Head of State, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, whose lifelong dedication to duty and self-sacrifice have been a source of inspiration and encouragement to the many countries that make up the Commonwealth, and to the people of Canada."

Further, his Australian counterpart, John Howard, is an avowed monarchist.

When the Australian Prime Minister visited, Harper said in his introductory speech:

"Despite the geographic distance between our countries, we are so strikingly similar in so many respects... Politically, we share an enduring affinity to the crown."

So, don't count on Harper to be the one to undermine Canada's constitutional structure by removing the Crown.

But it's time we grew up as a nation and lost the Queen and GG as our figureheads and moved to a real productive political system.

Such as?

[g_bambino]

Canada would be more united if we were a federal republic. Having such deep roots to the monarchy alienates the french and native Canadians.

Quebec Sovereigntists only care about one thing: getting Quebec out from under federal authority. It wouldn't make one shred of difference if that authority was republican or monarchical.

Besides, if Canada were to become a republic, how would the president be chosen to ensure that Quebec was always equally represented? Wouldn't the president almost always come from, and almost always be elected by English Canada, or at least the representatives of? In fact, politicizing the post of Head of State would cause more fracture in a country already fractured by geography, language and culture.

Arguing that a Canadian republic will unite the country is fallacious.

As for First Nations, they have no beef against the Monarchy - in fact, they still hold their treaties, which are between them and the Sovereign directly, not between them and the government, in very high regard. I'd expect a large fight from them against any move to a presidential system.

If we want to all work together and be one country "strong and free" we need to step away from the monarchy of the United Kingdom and work together as a diverse country on our own.

The monarchy is no longer solely of the UK - it's an institution shared equally, and symmetrically by sixteen countries. In Canada we concern ourselves with the Canadian Monarchy - the Crown as it fits into our constitution, formed and guided by our laws only. Stepping away from the Crown will make us no more strong and free than we already are.

[g_bambino]

It's about emotion and symbolism... how we feel about the issue as opposed to a rational deduction as to which option is healthier for the country.

Hardly - why would one move to a less effective, potentially unstable form of government all in the name of simple symbolism?

Albeit, Monarchists make valid arguments... such as the political neutrality of our head of state, I still agree we will remain immature as a nation until we cut the royal umbilical cord.

There's no umbilical cord left to cut. With the patriation of the Constituton in '82 Canada is now in charge of what is in essence a Monarchy that belongs to us, but which we also share. All the laws and conventions that direct the Crown's place in our system, which lay out the line of succession, etc. are now ours. With the need for independence taken away, and the argument of international perception being one based on childish insecurity rather than mature reason, the monarchy vs. republic debate comes down again to which is the better form of government for Canada.

[g_bambino]

If eureka wasn't banned he'd be freaking out on you right now. There is no "Queen of England". She's the Queen of Britain.

Well, she is now the Queen of the UK, yes, but the Canadian Head of State is the Queen of Canada - totally different, though it is the same person.

Further, why should the feelings of those of French heritage matter any more than those of Norwegian heritage? Wolfe won the war. Canada has been a British dominion for a long time. Any lasting French sentiment to the contrary is irrelevant.

While I agree that one ethnicity should not be considered of greater importance than another, I suppose I'd just make it clear that Canada is no longer a British dominion - or, to put it another way, a dominion of the British Crown. The country is now the dominion of the Canadian Crown.

What would be interesting is if the Turks and Caicos islands came under Canadian jurisdiction - they'd be the first Canadian Crown dependencies, and would become one of two dominions of the Queen of Canada (rather like how New Zealand, the Cook Islands and Niue are dominions of the Queen of New Zealand).

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I suppose I'd just make it clear that Canada is no longer a British dominion

From my personal experiences, having taught English in South East Asia, many of those over there don't associate Canada with Britain at all. In fact often I had to argue that Canada was independent from the U.S.A.. They thought that since we are in North America we are therefore Americans, and if we are Americans, then we must belong to the U.S.A..

This usually led to a bit of a discussion about our Canadian history, the U.S.A's independance, the war of 1812, and our independance... but they didn't really care... to them we are not so much different than the yankees or the British - and with their untrained ears they can barely hear a difference in the accents, unless of course the Brit is a Cockney.

[BHS]

If eureka wasn't banned he'd be freaking out on you right now. There is no "Queen of England". She's the Queen of Britain.

Well, she is now the Queen of the UK, yes, but the Canadian Head of State is the Queen of Canada - totally different, though it is the same person.

Further, why should the feelings of those of French heritage matter any more than those of Norwegian heritage? Wolfe won the war. Canada has been a British dominion for a long time. Any lasting French sentiment to the contrary is irrelevant.

While I agree that one ethnicity should not be considered of greater importance than another, I suppose I'd just make it clear that Canada is no longer a British dominion - or, to put it another way, a dominion of the British Crown. The country is now the dominion of the Canadian Crown.

What would be interesting is if the Turks and Caicos islands came under Canadian jurisdiction - they'd be the first Canadian Crown dependencies, and would become one of two dominions of the Queen of Canada (rather like how New Zealand, the Cook Islands and Niue are dominions of the Queen of New Zealand).

This answers a number of questions I've had about the Canadian monarchy, but I'm still a little puzzled as to when the change occurred between Dominion of the British Crown and Dominion of the Canadian Crown. Is there a specific piece of legislation in either Canada or Britain where this happens? I haven't read the Charter through, but it's not clear to me that that is the turning point.

[g_bambino]

BHS-

Canada's change from a dominion of the British Crown to one of the Canadian Crown (becoming, essentially, a kingdom in its own right) was an ongoing process between 1867 and 1982. It parallels, really, Canada's path to full independence.

When looking for a specific moment, however, most people seem to pin it at the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Though the King's title had already been changed in 1927 to reflect that he was now King of each dominion separately (rather than being King of the UK in each dominion), the 1931 Statute made the concept (first put forward in the Balfour Declaration of 1926) that each Dominion of the British Crown was equal in status to the UK a legal reality. Consequently, it also ended the UK's ability to legislate for the other realms.

With each realm parliament now being legislatively independent, all on an equal footing with the parliament at Westminster, and the King's title altered accordingly, it was pretty much regarded from then on that each country was now a separate kingdom, bound only by the fact that they shared the same person as their monarch. Though their constitutions remained in the UK, it became convention that the UK parliament would not alter them without being instructed to do so by the dominion parliament in question.

This new status was reflected in the Abdication Crisis of 1936, when each country had to pass their own legislation allowing for the stepping down of Edward VIII, and accession of George VI. Because Ireland was a day late in doing so, for 24 hours Ireland was headed by King Edward, while Canada, the UK, et. all, were under King George. Three years later, King George and Queen Elizabeth visited the United States from Canada, and were accompanied by Prime Minister Mackenzie King, not a British minister, thereby affirming that the Royal couple were present in the US as King and Queen of Canada, not King and Queen of the UK. (Later, Queen Elizabeth II would do the same thing, hosting the return dinner for President Eisenhower at the Canadian embassy in Washington).

When the Constitution was patriated in 1982, every and all legal ties between the UK and Canada were severed, making Canada a fully and absolutely sovereign constitutional monarchy, with all the patriated laws outlining the Monarchy deeming the House of Windsor as its dynastic line. With Canada now an independent nation, its sovereignty can be embodied only its own Crown, operating solely within Canadian legal jurisdiction.

So, it's really somewhat of a choice as to when the status changed from that of British dominion to Canadian dominion. I can see how the argument in favour of 1931 works, and tend to agree with it, but regard 1982 as being the final moment when all doubts about the matter finally ceased.

[Argus]

This thread is all over the map, and my pawprints are all over this thread. But I think it deserves to be raised to the top because I think Canada should be a Federal Republic (and it's the 24 June, one week before 1 July).

Quebecers and their allies in English Canada have been doing their best to destroy Canada for the last half century. This would probably drive a stake through her heart and be done with it.

Let's start with the practical. If Harper supported such a thing the heart and core of conservatives would abandon the Tories completely. He wouldn't even be re-elected in his own riding, and the Tories would be slaughtered everywhere outside Quebec. They couldn't survive another such beating and it would be the end of them as a political entity of any kind.

This is the kind of thing which causes a big shrug among a lot of middle of the roaders, and perhaps a shrug of approval from the left. But it's not going to gain anything for anyone. Even the Liberals understand this. There is no reward in it, and only lifelong enmity from monarchists. You think they are a small percentage of the population? But they will HATE you, you will utterly enrage them, and they will never forgive you. And even if that's ten percent (and it's likely higher), that's still 3 million people, almost all of whom used to vote Conservative. It will also be turned into a huge anti-Quebec backlash so that even those who aren't necessarily monarchists will resent the move and see it as yet more kowtowing to Quebec. They will react reflexively by either not voting for Harper again or simply not voting. Either will cost him dearly.

As for the country, the cry from monarchists and their supporters will be "throw out those F*cking" frogs before you abandon the Queen. And a huge undercurrent of English Canada would rise up to support that cry, frustrated and bitter over years of sucking up to Quebec. Quebecers will be angry in turn, and you'll see absolutely NO gain there in their attachment to Canada.

You think this wouldn't happen? How little you understand the undercurrents in English Canada. Take a look at the thread I mentioned, and the article printed on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen on July 1. Can you sense the bitterness there at the loss of a much smaller symbol - Dominon Day? And imagine why those at the paper decided to print this on the front page on July 1. You think there isn't still more of that bitterness out there? That's a puddle compared to the bitterness eliminating the monarchy would raise.

It is an absurdly stupid idea on every possible level. Disastrous politically and possibly worse in terms of national unity.

IMV, symbols matter. And nowadays, this question is more acute than 100 years ago when English-Canadians at least considered themselves part of an Empire. Nowadays, no Canadian is part of anything.

It's funny you would even include this. You've mused before about the lack of identity among English Canadians. In the thread on "Canada Day" I pointed out a few things in that regard. Among them is that Quebec, and the elitists in English Canada have been busily erasing all traces of English Canada's history and traditions over the past few decades, in large measure to please Quebec (which hasn't worked at all) and in doing so have robbed us of that unity of shared history we used to have. We've gotten rid of our old flag, our old anthem, even the name of our old holiday (Dominion Day) as well as the royal crests, and other political symbols (who calls ministries ministries any more?), and milltary symbols (the Royal Canadian Navy?), played down past historical triumphs which involved military victories, and played up past injustices and failures.

Now you want to get rid of the monarchy, just about the last strong symbol of our past which reminds Canadians of their shared history. All to please Quebec, which will ignore it utterly, as it has the other gestures. For all the self-efacing, apologetic erasing of our own history Quebecois still want to leave, just as they did twenty five years ago. If you had a referendum in Quebec now the majority of Quebecois, minus the Anglos and immigrants, would once again vote to leave Canada. The intellectual cowardice and patronizing apeasement of the intellectually castrated liberal elitists is shown again as hollow, pointless and stupid.

And when Quebec leaves - as its arrogant, self-absorbed fixaton on its culture and idiotic language will inevitably lead it to do, there will be nothing remaining of English Canada's traditions and history to keep us together, nothing to keep us from drifting into the American orbit and, despite the inevitable shrieking and whining of the leftist elitists who led us there, becoming Americans.

[August1991]

Just when I was getting tired of the nonsense posted on this forum, and beginning to look for better ways to express myself (do my own blog? phone friends?), Argus comes along and posts his usual, even above it - enticing me back into the fray.

Let's start with the practical. If Harper supported such a thing the heart and core of conservatives would abandon the Tories completely....

To be practical, I tend to agree with Riverview above. There are other more pressing issues than making Canada a republic. In addition, any constitutional change would require approval of all 10 provincial governments. The last time that was attempted, a provincial premier reneged and an Indian MLA decided to grandstand. Canada's Constitution is like Poland's interbellum parliament - frozen by unanimity.

Any attempt to make Canada a republic would plunge the country into a year-long debate. I'm not sure any politician would want to let such a topic dominate the stage. I did suggest that Harper could make one change - he has the authority - to remove the Queen from our $20 but my suggestion avoids the question.

Argus, you imply that republicanism is a losing proposition to Harper. I disagree. First, politics is often the judicious art of the cross-over. Tony Blair can defend free trade and Bush Jnr can promote education. The trick, admittedly, is to keep traditional supporters while gaining a few fence-sitters. This is possible if the issue is chosen wisely. I can see Harper doing something like this. After all, Diefenbaker put French on federal cheques and introduced simultaneous translation to the House. (Such was Canada in 1958 that bilingual cheques mattered. Argus, your paens to the Canada of yore have a whiff of Empire Lost.)

If Harper adopted a republican stance, would it be popular? You tell me:

2002 – Ipsos-Reid/Globe and Mail/CTV poll results in February determine that nearly half of Canadians (48%) would prefer a republican system of government with an elected head of state and two-thirds (65%) believe the royals are merely celebrities and should not have any formal role in Canada. Oddly, the same poll determines that 79% agree with the statement: "I support a constitutional monarchy as Canada’s form of government where we elect governments whose leader becomes the Prime Minister".

Go figure.

----

This is the kind of thing which causes a big shrug among a lot of middle of the roaders, and perhaps a shrug of approval from the left. But it's not going to gain anything for anyone. Even the Liberals understand this. There is no reward in it, and only lifelong enmity from monarchists. You think they are a small percentage of the population? But they will HATE you, you will utterly enrage them, and they will never forgive you. And even if that's ten percent (and it's likely higher), that's still 3 million people, almost all of whom used to vote Conservative.

Point made, Argus. Politics, like any good collective decision, is often not majority rule but rather avoidance of trouble. We saw something similar with gay marriage.

It will also be turned into a huge anti-Quebec backlash so that even those who aren't necessarily monarchists will resent the move and see it as yet more kowtowing to Quebec. They will react reflexively by either not voting for Harper again or simply not voting. Either will cost him dearly.

As much as I would prefer the republican question be considered on it own merits - Australia held a referendum - in Canada, the question is inextricably mixed up in English/French issues and with a dose of English-Canadian anti-Americanism thrown into the brew for good measure. That's unfortunate and I envy the Australians their ability to treat the question of a republic purely on its merits.

IMV, symbols matter. And nowadays, this question is more acute than 100 years ago when English-Canadians at least considered themselves part of an Empire. Nowadays, no Canadian is part of anything.

It's funny you would even include this. You've mused before about the lack of identity among English Canadians. In the thread on "Canada Day" I pointed out a few things in that regard. Among them is that Quebec, and the elitists in English Canada have been busily erasing all traces of English Canada's history and traditions over the past few decades, in large measure to please Quebec (which hasn't worked at all) and in doing so have robbed us of that unity of shared history we used to have.

A complete response deserves a new thread, since it concerns Canadian symbols - and specifically the symbols of English Canada.

Sometimes I suspect that many English Canadians are orphans, and your rant above supports my suspicion. Argus, you can blame Trudeau for taking away your parents but in fact it's modern life that committed regicide. Despite what bambino posts here, Canada (English Canada included) for all intents is not a monarchy. Even in English Canada, the Queen is as relevant as a 1938 Eaton's catalogue.

Canada (English Canada included) must grow up and decide what it is. Becoming a federal republic would be an honest step in the right direction.

[g_bambino]

There is no reward in it, and only lifelong enmity from monarchists. You think they are a small percentage of the population? But they will HATE you, you will utterly enrage them, and they will never forgive you. And even if that's ten percent (and it's likely higher), that's still 3 million people, almost all of whom used to vote Conservative. It will also be turned into a huge anti-Quebec backlash so that even those who aren't necessarily monarchists will resent the move and see it as yet more kowtowing to Quebec. They will react reflexively by either not voting for Harper again or simply not voting. Either will cost him dearly.

I'm not sure what percentage of the population are true monarchists - but then again, monarchists are monarchists for different reasons, so there may be more than I think.

I know a good number of provinces have a strong loyalty - which seems to be demonstrated mostly via the government. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island spring immediately to mind. But, beyond that, a survey of provincial premiers done in 1999, after it was leaked that Chretien's office had a "Millennium Project" of making Canada a republic in 2000, showed that eight were against it, one didn't care (Quebec), and one for it (Newfoundland). So, it seems that any move to republicanize Canada would be met with opposition from most provincial governments, let alone from the general population.

As for the country, the cry from monarchists and their supporters will be "throw out those F*cking" frogs before you abandon the Queen.

Um, I'd like to think that monarchists are a little more intelligent than that.

You think this wouldn't happen? How little you understand the undercurrents in English Canada. Take a look at the thread I mentioned, and the article printed on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen on July 1. Can you sense the bitterness there at the loss of a much smaller symbol - Dominon Day? And imagine why those at the paper decided to print this on the front page on July 1. You think there isn't still more of that bitterness out there? That's a puddle compared to the bitterness eliminating the monarchy would raise.

It's true that more may be waking up to the fact that English Canada has been gutted of a central locus of nationality, and Quebec left to look narcissistically in on itself. I too was surprised on Canada Day at the number of attacks on the "institutions" the Liberals developed to replace that which was deemed too offensive to sensitive Francophones - history, the Crown, our military, traditions - with multiculturalism, peacekeeping, political correctness, uber-tolerance, "Canadian values", etc. Some of the latter are good policies, and could potentially help the nation. But, foundations on which a nation can be built? Certainly not - and it's showing.

If people are starting to no longer buy the BS that's been fed to them over the past 40 years, then most likely they won't buy whatever BS that republicans and the political elite would probably spew about the Monarchy making Canada look like a colony, offending French Canadians, being undemocratic, against our "Canadian values" (what, exactly, are those damn values anyway?). and other politically correct garbage, no matter whether it's endorsed by celebrities and the media (all for money) or not - as happened in Australia. And if it's wrapped up and presented to English Canadians as something good for the nation, when in reality it's really being done for the good of Quebec (and thus, for the the good of politicians), then there most probably will be a huge backlash, especially when sovereigntist Quebecers don't give a rat's ass about what we Anglos do with the Monarchy! They hate federal power, no matter whether republican or monarchical.

It is an absurdly stupid idea on every possible level. Disastrous politically and possibly worse in terms of national unity.

I couldn't agree more.