The Federal Republic of Canada

[Michael Bluth]

I've gotta agree with geoffrey on this one:

Traditions be damned, take the Queen off everything. I'm not subject to some heriditary rule. What foolishness.

Time to get rid of that ancient organization.

Completely agreed. I still think it will only happen if it's initiated by the UK

The majority who don't care for the monarchy can't really be arsed to bother leading the charge for a Republic.

But those who like the monarchy like it a lot.

[gc1765]

The majority who don't care for the monarchy can't really be arsed to bother leading the charge for a Republic.

But those who like the monarchy like it a lot.

Agreed as well. I don't care for the monarchy, but getting rid of it is not exactly a top priority for me.

[capricorn]

In my previous posts, I have expressed my feelings on the need to keep national traditions and symbols that in the past have bound us as Canadians. Symbols and traditions alone do not make a country. The willingness and enthusiasm of many to discard these symbols and traditions indicates to me this is a symptom of a much deeper problem.

I will go out on a limb here and state my thoughts on the Canadian Federation as a whole. For some time now, I have felt that Canada, as it is now constituted, is ungovernable. The country is too large and regional interests are too varied to be reconciled. If provinces decided to break away from the Federation, I would not resist.

The entire question of equalization is a case in point. The competition between provinces for federal funding has reached the point of the ridiculous. It is a no-win situation, regardless of which federal party is in power. This same power struggle occurs each time a federal budget is brought forward. In the case of Quebec, well, it has always been a thorn in the side of English Canada. Quebec continues to feel downtrodden by the anglophone majority and this will not change. It's obvious to me an independent Quebec would be welcome by the majority in the rest of Canada.

I am a fairly new member to this forum. Yet, I have felt the intense difference of opinion from posters from one region to another. Don't ask me for examples, most of you are intelligent enough to know what I mean.

We have lost sight of a common national objective. Do we even have one?

I have traveled extensively across this country during my career and exposure to Canadians from different regions has only reinforced the views I express here.

[capricorn]

I forgot to add that our small population over such a large geographic area also mitigates against proper governance. In my view, a most important factor.

[August1991]

I am a fairly new member to this forum. Yet, I have felt the intense difference of opinion from posters from one region to another. Don't ask me for examples, most of you are intelligent enough to know what I mean.

We have lost sight of a common national objective. Do we even have one?

I have traveled extensively across this country during my career and exposure to Canadians from different regions has only reinforced the views I express here.

Regional attachments, not ideology, drive Canadian federal politics.

The only Canadians that all Canadians know are hockey players and federal politicians. Joe Clark is known across Canada, and Jean Béliveau too.

Canada's national objective? To be a civilized space in northern North America. Yugoslavia separated through violent civil war. We Canadians conduct our civil wars by posting on Internet forums.

----

There's another oxymoron. Military intelligence. Civil war.

[Michael Bluth]

In my previous posts, I have expressed my feelings on the need to keep national traditions and symbols that in the past have bound us as Canadians. Symbols and traditions alone do not make a country. The willingness and enthusiasm of many to discard these symbols and traditions indicates to me this is a symptom of a much deeper problem.

I will go out on a limb here and state my thoughts on the Canadian Federation as a whole. For some time now, I have felt that Canada, as it is now constituted, is ungovernable. The country is too large and regional interests are too varied to be reconciled. If provinces decided to break away from the Federation, I would not resist.

The entire question of equalization is a case in point. The competition between provinces for federal funding has reached the point of the ridiculous. It is a no-win situation, regardless of which federal party is in power. This same power struggle occurs each time a federal budget is brought forward. In the case of Quebec, well, it has always been a thorn in the side of English Canada. Quebec continues to feel downtrodden by the anglophone majority and this will not change. It's obvious to me an independent Quebec would be welcome by the majority in the rest of Canada.

I don't really think that the monarchy binds many of us as Canadians.

The majority really don't care and it is a major cause of irritation in Quebec.

Nationalists hate the fact the province has a vice-regal and the Lise Thibault spending scandal has brought those feelings to the fore.

I don't know why our current federation is ungovernable.

It is realistic to expect some disagreements in any democracy.

They are handled peacefully in the vast majority of cases.

I definitely don't agree that the majority of Canadians in the rest of Canada want Quebec to separate.

[Leafless]

I don't really think that the monarchy binds many of us as Canadians.

What a foolish thing to say.

The Queen is the bestower of citizenship for all countries of which she is head of state.

She does not require a passport to enter Canada, as all Canadian passports are issued in the Queen's name.

The Queen of Canada also bestows all "Order of Canada " honours.

In fact you could say the Queen is more Canadian than any of us under our present system of government and deserves the recognition as Canada's historical head of state.

The majority really don't care and it is a major cause of irritation in Quebec.

What a joke.

If the Queen is currently an irritant in Quebec, I can't help to think how Quebec would feel if Canada was a republic, minus all that federal cash.

I don't know why our current federation is ungovernable.

It is realistic to expect some disagreements in any democracy.

Maybe that is the whole problem, a lack of democracy leaving national political parties to 'pig out' any which way they desire, feeding the elements of corruption and borderline treason if not treason relating to Quebec.

I definitely don't agree that the majority of Canadians in the rest of Canada want Quebec to separate.

Interesting question and one that should have been settled years ago (by our cowardly federal government)by presenting Canadians via a referendum, to answer this all important question.

[geoffrey]

I definitely don't agree that the majority of Canadians in the rest of Canada want Quebec to separate.

Interesting question and one that should have been settled years ago (by our cowardly federal government)by presenting Canadians via a referendum, to answer this all important question.

As long as that ballot includes soverignty assocation for each and every province in Canada, the way it always should have been done.

[Michael Bluth]

I don't really think that the monarchy binds many of us as Canadians.

What a foolish thing to say.

The Queen is the bestower of citizenship for all countries of which she is head of state.

She does not require a passport to enter Canada, as all Canadian passports are issued in the Queen's name.

The Queen of Canada also bestows all "Order of Canada " honours.

In fact you could say the Queen is more Canadian than any of us under our present system of government and deserves the recognition as Canada's historical head of state.

So if Canada were a republic we wouldn't be Canadians anymore? And I'm being foolish.

If we took away the symbolism of the Monarchy people would still be Canadians, we would still have passports and the Order of Canada could still exist.

That's the problem with this debate. There is no rational reason to keep the monarchy. All based on emotion. If you dare question the monrachists you are being "foolish".

[g_bambino]

That's easy. The Canadian federal republic will inherit these obligations as embodied in the person of the president. If need be, we could recognize the sovereignty of a provincial president, governor or even governor-general. Holland (a monarchy) and France (a republic) are both subject (in certain areas) to the European parliament. Notably, they both accept to defer to the European Central Bank.

IOW, Ontario could remain a monarchy while Quebec could become a republic. The provincial flag of Ontario has the Union Jack while Quebec uses a symbol of the French royal family.

Easy? Well, that goes to show how little you know about what you hate.

The Crown is a unitary body across the country that operates separately within each of the eleven legal jurisdictions of Canada; meaning sovereignty sits not with the governor general or the federal parliament, but with the Queen. The provinces would not take kindly to their source of sovereignty becoming an agent of the federal cabinet, as a president would be.

Because of the situation of the Crown in Canada, the provinces are not currently like the Australian states; the lieutenant governors represent the Canadian Crown, not an Ontarian crown or Albertan crown as could be argued is the case in Australia. Further, your example of the EU doesn't fit, as the EU is not a federated country nor have Holland and France lost their sovereignty.

Bland like Prince Phillip? Or bland like Prince Harry? And speaking of corporate concepts, are you referring to the corporate chain of Cowboy Bars? Prince Harry's behaviour is as vapid as the behaviour of Paris Hilton - perhaps moreso. She at least has a porno video circulating on the Internet.

Well, that comment was really quite lame.

Frankly, I don't find Philip or Harry bland; they seem to dedicate a lot of their time to serving the people of their countries and I think that's more commendable than anything Paris Hilton does. Unlike you, I don't regard the Royal Family as merely celebrities.

My argument against the monarchy had two sides. First, the monarchy is based on nepotism and in the 21st century

Read: The Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Statute of Westminster.

Second, the British monarchy is offensive (or simply irrelevant) to many Canadians for historical reasons.

Your opinion, not fact. But, don't know why the British Monarchy would concern Canadians, we have our own to concern ourselves with.

The shenanigans and obnoxiousness of this king-in-waiting (as well as the rest of this so-called royal family) just make my argument more glaring.

First they're bland and now they're obnoxious and up to shenanigans? Please, make up your mind. Though, I suggest, with all good intentions, that you base your decision on better sources of information than a gutter tabloid like News of the World. Really, you should be ashamed of reading that trash.

[g_bambino]

I don't really think that the monarchy binds many of us as Canadians.

The majority really don't care and it is a major cause of irritation in Quebec.

Nationalists hate the fact the province has a vice-regal and the Lise Thibault spending scandal has brought those feelings to the fore.

I think it binds in a more subtle way than we may realise, it is one of the few non-political institutions whose symbols are found in every part of the country from coast to coast to coast. It's also rather deeply ingrained in our identity as a nation, even though it may not be as noticeable now that we've adopted more American forms of patriotism: worshipping flags and constitutions (while ironically remaining as anti-American as ever). But when the Queen or a member of the Royal Family in in your neighbourhood, there's always a patriotic display to welcome them.

As for Quebec, what can one expect from decades of propaganda and historical revisionism? Those who like to play the victim there need to blame something, after all. But, really, the Monarchy is a non-issue to them; those who are angry over a vice-regal in their province (nation?) would be just as irked by a governor subject to a federal president. Removing the Crown will do nothing to placate those people.

So if Canada were a republic we wouldn't be Canadians anymore?

We'd be less Canadian.

People would still be Canadian citizens, with passports and the Order of Canada; but, are those things all that really define our culture? By removing the Canadian Crown we'd be all the poorer for the loss of something that links us to our past and has been an undercurrent in our everyday lives since our lives began. Imagine passports without the Royal Arms on the cover, the Order of Canada without the crown on the insignia, citizenship oaths to a flag or "Canada" instead of the Queen; all historically detached, without link to anything beyond government and bureaucracy.

That's the problem with this debate. There is no rational reason to keep the monarchy. All based on emotion.

Emotion plays a part, perhaps a large part, and perhaps rightly so. But there are logistical reasons for this country to remain a kingdom as it is; quite a few of them.

[Leafless]

So if Canada were a republic we wouldn't be Canadians anymore? And I'm being foolish.

Certainly we would still be Canadian but the president would not have the powers the prime ministers currently have. Powers that have to potentially to destroy Canada or possibly already did.

That's the problem with this debate. There is no rational reason to keep the monarchy. All based on emotion. If you dare question the monrachists you are being "foolish".

I see nothing wrong with the monarchy outside of being badly abused by power hungry prime ministers and because of this abuse, Canada could have no other alternative than to become a republic to save the country, a move I support but not for the same reasons as yours but purely out of desperation.

[Leafless]

I definitely don't agree that the majority of Canadians in the rest of Canada want Quebec to separate.

Interesting question and one that should have been settled years ago (by our cowardly federal government)by presenting Canadians via a referendum, to answer this all important question.

As long as that ballot includes soverignty assocation for each and every province in Canada, the way it always should have been done.

Currently sovereignty association only applies to Quebec and has no clear definition as the term as never been defined to what it really means.

I think Canada would do fine as a republic with a constitution similar to the U.S.

[g_bambino]

I think Canada would do fine as a republic with a constitution similar to the U.S.

Oh, god. An undemocratically elected monarch more powerful that our current constitutionally chosen Monarch of Canada. Good luck with that.

[Leafless]

I think Canada would do fine as a republic with a constitution similar to the U.S.

Oh, god. An undemocratically elected monarch more powerful that our current constitutionally chosen Monarch of Canada. Good luck with that.

You mean 'undemocratically president', don't you.

Obviously the transition to a republic would be a complicated process and would have to be done in stages.

[Leafless]

EDIT:

The first sentence should read: "undemocratically elected president".

[Michael Bluth]

Oh, god. An undemocratically elected monarch more powerful that our current constitutionally chosen Monarch of Canada. Good luck with that.

You mean 'undemocratically president', don't you.

Obviously the transition to a republic would be a complicated process and would have to be done in stages.

In practice, but not necessarily constitutinally.

The Queen has pretty vast powers. She rarely, and wisely, chooses to use those powers.

[geoffrey]

People just hate the American way because it's American.

Let's look at the French system then. Essientially the same deal. With alot less resistence because it's a socialist country with medicare so it must be good!

[g_bambino]

People just hate the American way because it's American.

Let's look at the French system then. Essientially the same deal. With alot less resistence because it's a socialist country with medicare so it must be good!

I can't speak for other people, but I hate the American system because it sucks - in every country it's used. The French system, with its own inherent problems, is not the same as the American; it is a semi-presidential format, not presidential.

I imagine, though, you'd face quite a lot of resistance against the implimentation of a French semi-presidential system onto Canada. The provinces, again, will most likely not support any constitutional changes that vest executive authority in a federal agent.

[Remiel]

Personally, I think some of Harry's attitude problems can be attributed to being restricted as if he were a king-in-waiting, when in reality he will likely never actually be the king.

After taking a look at Wikipedia, it appears that his Uncle, Prince Andrew, was the subject of the same apprehension when he went aboard the HMS Invincible to fight in the Falklands War, but was allowed to go at the behest of the Queen. At the time, he was 2nd in the Line of Succession. Harry is currently 3rd in Line.

( As a side note, Wikipedia currently lists 1278 people in the Line of Succession. I guess the royalty is nothing if not thorough, hehehe... )

[August1991]

( As a side note, Wikipedia currently lists 1278 people in the Line of Succession. I guess the royalty is nothing if not thorough, hehehe... )

It's a status thing. Like British license plates.

[geoffrey]

I imagine, though, you'd face quite a lot of resistance against the implimentation of a French semi-presidential system onto Canada. The provinces, again, will most likely not support any constitutional changes that vest executive authority in a federal agent.

No reason why we can't have the current division of powers in a semi-presidential system.

[geoffrey]

It's a status thing. Like British license plates.

Do explain.

[g_bambino]

I imagine, though, you'd face quite a lot of resistance against the implimentation of a French semi-presidential system onto Canada. The provinces, again, will most likely not support any constitutional changes that vest executive authority in a federal agent.

No reason why we can't have the current division of powers in a semi-presidential system.

Currenlty the Crown is a unitary umbrella over the entire country, operating within the eleven legal jurisdictions but belonging to no one in particular. Hence, the provinces have power against the federal government because the source of their sovereignty - the Crown - is not within control of the feds. The provinces objected strongly to a proposal in the 70s that would make the GG head of state because they did not want executive authority vested in someone who would be an agent of the federal government. How do you suggest the same thing could occur with a semi-presidential system?

[August1991]

Well, bambino, whaddya think of this?

More than half of Canadians want to cut ties with the British monarchy and scrap the constitutional system under which Queen Elizabeth is Canada's head of state, according to an online opinion poll released on Monday.

The survey by Angus Reid Strategies found that 53 percent wanted Canada to drop the monarchy.

Support for severing ties was highest among men, and among French speakers, while women, and those earning more than C$50,000 ($50,418) a year, were most likely to support the current system, the survey of 1,032 adults found.

"These are the lowest results for the monarchy that I've ever seen," said Tom Freda, national director of Citizens for a Canadian Republic, noting that support was similarly low shortly after the death of Princess Diana.

...

Support for cutting ties to the monarchy increases to 55 percent if Prince Charles were to become king -- a common thread in Commonwealth countries, said Mario Cansenco, director of global studies at Angus Reid.

Reuters

53% or 55% - no big difference. It matters not who occupies the position. Our head of state should not be a foreigner and should not be decided by birth.

Do explain.

Link Edited October 2, 2007 by August1991