God save the Queen

[Black Dog]

So, you want someone who is politically partisan calling the shots in a constitutional crisis? Interesting... Exactly why republics are so vulnerable to instability and disunity.

In case you've been napping for the past, oh, 136 years, stability and unity haven't exactly been hallmarks of Confederation under the British Crown.

The fact that you believe the Queen's capabilities to be limited only to choosing nice hats shows you know nothing of the topic you're speaking about.

And, though the Queen is kept well up to date on Canadian affairs, she designates a Governor General for a purpose -- that person watches over Canadian politics and exercises the Queen's powers on her behalf

You seem to be labouring in some fantasy world where it is impossible for an elected head of state to be neutral, but a political appointee like the G.G. will always be. Get real.

Noted (not too hard, since I wrote it). Now, what about it?

We're a democracy. Submitting to the authority (even in a ceremonial way) to an unelected ruler of a foreign country is antithetical to the principles of democracy.

[Leafless]

Black dog

You wrote- " Were a democracy. Submitting to the authority (even in a ceremonial way) to an unelected ruler of a foreign country is antithetical to the principles of a democracy."

It should be noted the Queen holds no citizenship, British or Canadian.

She cannot be a British citizen or Canadian as her Majesty is the bestower of citizenship for ALL countries she is head of state.

It's her democracy, she is more Canadian than you are. She granted you Canadian citizenship- I presume you are Canadian.

[BHS]

Black dog

You wrote- " Were a democracy. Submitting to the authority (even in a ceremonial way) to an unelected ruler of a foreign country is antithetical to the principles of a democracy."

It should be noted the Queen holds no citizenship, British or Canadian.

She cannot be a British citizen or Canadian as her Majesty is the bestower of citizenship for ALL countries she is head of state.

It's her democracy, she is more Canadian than you are. She granted you Canadian citizenship- I presume you are Canadian.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which makes the whole situtation that much sadder: the most Canadian of Canadians has almost no interest whatsover in how the Canadian government carries out it's business. The last thing I remember the Queen saying that related to Canadian politics in any way (keeping in mind that I don't read the Royal website on a weekly basis or anything) was that she approved of Tommy Thompson. After the Supreme Court had ruled that Quebec's public healthcare scheme was unconstitutional. Way to stay relevant, Your Majesty.

[Guest eureka]

Would you expect her to comment publicly on a SCC decision? Is that your definitionof relevance?

I would suggest you read more of Bambino's posts to discover how the monarchy fits into the system

[BHS]

bambino:

Your fire-extinguisher analogy is telling. True, fire extinguishers aren't meant to be used on a day to day basis. But they still have to be tested periodically, to ensure they work properly. Your stated conjecture is that an appointed representative would be more effective in a "constitutional crisis" (civil war perhaps?) than an elected and politically involved head of state. But in our current circumstances we have no way of knowing that, do we? How can we be sure that the fire extinguisher still works? How can we be sure that a CBC talking head, with no political experience, will take action to exercise her constitutional authority in a time of crisis? How can we be sure that she wouldn't wait it out until it was too late? How can we be sure that anyone would pay attention if she did take action in time, or that if they paid attention it wouldn't just enrage and alienate them further? You haven't addressed any of this, preferring that we just accept that because it is written, it is so. How distressingly weak.

[g_bambino]

In case you've been napping for the past, oh, 136 years, stability and unity haven't exactly been hallmarks of Confederation under the British Crown.

In fact, in comparison to many countries, they have. When's the last time we had a rebellion, an overthrow of the government, a dictator, or even a constitutional crisis? Of the rebellions we have had, how many have there been? By no means are we perfect, no country is, but our constitution remains relatively unchanged since its inception in 1867 -- that makes us one of the oldest continuous democracies on Earth.

If you seriously believe a president will make the current situation any better, will somehow, because they're elected, bring Quebecois and westerners into the fold, then you're a real dreamer.

Oh, and in case you've been napping for the past, oh, 23 years, it's the Canadian Crown now.

You seem to be labouring in some fantasy world where it is impossible for an elected head of state to be neutral, but a political appointee like the G.G. will always be. Get real.

It is impossible for an elected head of state to remain neutral. Perhaps you don't understand the nature of politics, but a president will always be biased one way or another -- their allegiance can never be to all the people, regardless of their political leanings, but only to those who supported them and helped them attain the office, everyone else be damned. No matter which way you set it up, elected by parliament or general election, you end up with a number of potential conflicts of interest at the time when you want one the least - a constitutional crisis. As well, an elected president is symbolically less unifying -- they'll always alienate those who didn't vote for them, causing a national rift between those who support the president and those that don't (there are plenty of countries to choose from where we can find examples of that poor trait).

Because the Queen is chosen by our Constitution she needs not worry about political supporters, having to appeal to voters (whether MPs or citizens), or owing favours to financial donors, etc., and so she's in a far better position to be a non-partisan referee in a time of crisis. As well, for the same reasons, she is more able to appeal to everyone; her apolitical nature does not alienate any one political faction, including republicans.

For the Queen's representative the appointment process certainly does need work -- it has been politicised by successive governments since Trudeau. But even so, no matter how it's been abused, it still remains better than the republican alternative.

We're a democracy. Submitting to the authority (even in a ceremonial way) to an unelected ruler of a foreign country is antithetical to the principles of democracy.

Um, no. We're a democracy that through our democratic Constitution grants authority to an unelected (hence non-partisan) monarch of our country. This is hardly antithetical to the principals of democracy as it is said constitutional monarch that is constitutionally bound to protect the democratic functioning of our government.

Really, you've got to shake your head free of the republican brainwashing.

[Black Dog]

In fact, in comparison to many countries, they have. When's the last time we had a rebellion, an overthrow of the government, a dictator, or even a constitutional crisis? Of the rebellions we have had, how many have there been? By no means are we perfect, no country is, but our constitution remains relatively unchanged since its inception in 1867 -- that makes us one of the oldest continuous democracies on Earth.

Last rebellion: 1885. See also: 1970.

Overthrow of the government: Monday

A dictator: Uhh...Monday.

Constitutional crisis: 1980, 1987, 1995.

Which is all well and good, but not really a testament to the value of the monarchy.

If you seriously believe a president will make the current situation any better, will somehow, because they're elected, bring Quebecois and westerners into the fold, then you're a real dreamer.

I'd rather take my chances.

Oh, and in case you've been napping for the past, oh, 23 years, it's the Canadian Crown now.

Whatever.

It is impossible for an elected head of state to remain neutral. Perhaps you don't understand the nature of politics, but a president will always be biased one way or another -- their allegiance can never be to all the people, regardless of their political leanings, but only to those who supported them and helped them attain the office, everyone else be damned. No matter which way you set it up, elected by parliament or general election, you end up with a number of potential conflicts of interest at the time when you want one the least - a constitutional crisis. As well, an elected president is symbolically less unifying -- they'll always alienate those who didn't vote for them, causing a national rift between those who support the president and those that don't (there are plenty of countries to choose from where we can find examples of that poor trait).

Such one-way cynicism.

Personally I don't see nonpartisanship as a requirement. Rather, I see the republican alternative as a check on the power of the prime minister, and a means of creating a greater separation of political powers.

To borrow your analogy, a president would be less a fire extinguisher as a smoke alarm.

Because the Queen is chosen by our Constitution she needs not worry about political supporters, having to appeal to voters (whether MPs or citizens), or owing favours to financial donors, etc., and so she's in a far better position to be a non-partisan referee in a time of crisis. As well, for the same reasons, she is more able to appeal to everyone; her apolitical nature does not alienate any one political faction, including republicans.

Bollocks. The Queen is a dilletante, an outsider. Non-partisan or not, I don't trust her to have the knowledge required to make important decisions for this country. In fact, in order to make those decisions, she would doubtless be forced to rely on advice from thiose close to the situation who would inevitably have partisan leanings. So I doubt there's any way she can escape partisan politics.

[g_bambino]

The most Canadian of Canadians has almost no interest whatsover in how the Canadian government carries out it's business.

Do you have proof to turn this conjecture into fact?

The last thing I remember the Queen saying that related to Canadian politics in any way was that she approved of Tommy Thompson. After the Supreme Court had ruled that Quebec's public healthcare scheme was unconstitutional.

Your point is what, exactly?

True, fire extinguishers aren't meant to be used on a day to day basis. But they still have to be tested periodically, to ensure they work properly.

So, you're suggesting we invoke a constitutional crisis just to see if the system works? Rather, I'd say that the fact we haven't had a constitutional crisis in 80 years shows the system works pretty damn well.

Your stated conjecture is that an appointed representative would be more effective in a "constitutional crisis" (civil war perhaps?) than an elected and politically involved head of state.

It's a comment based on precedent, and comparison to other countries with presidential systems.

But in our current circumstances we have no way of knowing that, do we? How can we be sure that the fire extinguisher still works? How can we be sure that a CBC talking head, with no political experience, will take action to exercise her constitutional authority in a time of crisis? How can we be sure that she wouldn't wait it out until it was too late? How can we be sure that anyone would pay attention if she did take action in time, or that if they paid attention it wouldn't just enrage and alienate them further?

The woman does not sit alone in a vacuum, she has expert constitutional advisors like any president would, including the Queen, as any president would not.

Since Westminster parliamentary republics have simply tried to emulate the original British system, only replacing monarch with president, they operate in a very similar manner to their monarchical counterparts. So, indeed, every one of your questions and concerns could be equally applied to a president, and a president may well be a CBC talking head, former sports star, or entertainer, only elected instead of appointed. And, if Citizens for a Canadian Republic get their way, then that is most likely what we'll have.

But, when it comes down to it, the main difference between a president and a governor general is this: one is politically partisan, the other is not. The simplicity of that statement belies the inherent complexity that lies beneath.

How distressingly weak.

I'm sorry you find it so distressing. I certainly hope you don't loose any sleep over the matter.

[g_bambino]

Last rebellion: 1885. See also: 1970.

Overthrow of the government: Monday 

A dictator: Uhh...Monday. 

Constitutional crisis: 1980, 1987, 1995.

Which is all well and good, but not really a testament to the value of the monarchy.

Two rebellions, one 120 years ago. Yea, real instability there.

Dissolution of parliament is not an overthrow of the government. The government’s still there, in case you hadn’t noticed.

A dictator on Monday? Really? Where's Hitler? Where's Pol Pot? Where's Mugabe? Where's Pinochet? Where's Stalin? Oh, right, it's Paul Martin, the dictator wanna be.

And people democratically voting on the future of their province does not a constitutional crisis make.

The long lasting stability of this country is a testament to our system of constitutional monarchy. Get back to me when we have more examples of republics that have lasted for more than 50 years.

Personally I don't see nonpartisanship as a requirement. Rather, I see the republican alternative as a check on the power of the prime minister, and a means of creating a greater separation of political powers.

What republican alternative? You've given none.

You can put (replace) checks on the PM’s power without having to go through the constitutional wrangling of becoming a republic.

Bollocks. The Queen is a dilletante, an outsider. Non-partisan or not, I don't trust her to have the knowledge required to make important decisions for this country. In fact, in order to make those decisions, she would doubtless be forced to rely on advice from thiose close to the situation who would inevitably have partisan leanings. So I doubt there's any way she can escape partisan politics.

Any proof from you to turn the conjecture that she's an ignorant outsider into fact? She's updated on Canadian affairs regularly, and has been the head of state for 32 countries over 53 years. If you think that makes her a dilettante, then you're sadly mistaken.

For a Canadian crisis she would indeed have advisors, but a) they would not come only from one political group if they were political at all, and she's not bound to follow instructions under such circumstances. She would be embroiled in politics in such a situation, but her decision would be based more on keeping governmental stability for the benefit of all Canadians, rather than giving one party power for the benefit of she, them, or both. It would also more be up to the Governor General to resolve the crisis, though most likely in consultation with the Queen and her staff.

Look to the King/Byng affair in our history, and the Whitlam/Kerr situation in Australia, to see how non-partisan vice-regals solve constitutional crises. Then look to a number of republics to see how successfully they work things out.

Whatever.

And that pretty much sums up your arguments.

[Black Dog]

Two rebellions, one 120 years ago. Yea, real instability there.

Dissolution of parliament is not an overthrow of the government. The government’s still there, in case you hadn’t noticed.

A dictator on Monday? Really? Where's Hitler? Where's Pol Pot? Where's Mugabe? Where's Pinochet? Where's Stalin? Oh, right, it's Paul Martin, the dictator wanna be.

And people democratically voting on the future of their province does not a constitutional crisis make.

Wow. Get a sense of humour.

The long lasting stability of this country is a testament to our system of constitutional monarchy. Get back to me when we have more examples of republics that have lasted for more than 50 years.

Correlation does not equal causation. As for enduring republics, how about that U.S.A.

What republican alternative? You've given none.

Here's some alternatives discussed by Australia during its bid to dump the monarchy: Links.

Personally, I like the Irish Republican model.

You can put (replace) checks on the PM’s power without having to go through the constitutional wrangling of becoming a republic.[/

I know. But ditching the Queen is a two birds with one stone scenario.

Any proof from you to turn the conjecture that she's an ignorant outsider into fact? She's updated on Canadian affairs regularly, and has been the head of state for 32 countries over 53 years. If you think that makes her a dilettante, then you're sadly mistaken.

Any proof to turn the conjecture that she's so well informed of the political goings on in those 32 countries she rules in name? I wonder when these updates take place: between ribbon cuttings?

As you say, in a crisis, it would be up to the G.G. (a political appointee).

Which leads me to the notion that "every one of your questions and concerns could be equally applied to a president, and a president may well be a CBC talking head, former sports star, or entertainer, only elected instead of appointed."

Which, to me, as much of an indictment of the current system as it is of a republican system: an admission of the political nature of the G.G. So under the current system, the vice regent is a political office with the added bonus of perpetuating a archaic and antidemocratic system of hereditary privilege.

[g_bambino]

Wow. Get a sense of humour

Your snide attitude gives me little to laugh at.

Correlation does not equal causation.

In this case it does. Perhaps you don't want to admit it, but constitutional monarchies really are more stable and enduring than republics, and hence they are consistently included as the majority of the top ten best countries in the world in which to live (6 of 10 at last count). There has usually been less incitement for the overthrow of monarchs than there has been for presidents, and where they have fallen, it has usually been through military coup or foreign invasion. Almost always they've been replaced with a string of dictatorships and other repressive regimes.

As for enduring republics, how about that U.S.A.

I didn't say there were no enduring republics, I said there were few. And, while we're talking about it, how about the unity in that country? Yep, US Americans sure are united by their political head of state!

Here's some alternatives discussed by Australia during its bid to dump the monarchy...

I know all about them, thanks. They still don't provide the security of a non-partisan head of state.

There's a reason why the republican campaign in that country failed: they couldn't find a republican system better than the constitutional monarchy they have.

Personally, I like the Irish Republican model.

The Republic of Ireland is a unitary state with a population of 4 and a half million people only. It may work for them, but I'd be interested to hear how you'd apply a system like that to a confederated country like Canada -- maybe the federal government would jump all over it, but the provinces would most likely reject it outright. A popularly elected president in this country would mean someone consistently chosen by Quebec and Ontario, and without a Crown, what would the provincial governments base their sovereignty on? As the Queen is now Queen in Right of Manitoba as equally as she is Queen in Right of Canada, would the president of Canada also be the president of Manitoba? Would provincial legislation suddenly be passed in the name of the president? This would undermine the principal that "the Monarchy gives each law-making authority its authority, making them of equal legal significance," and would tip the balance in favour of the federal government in a dispute between Ottawa and the provinces. I don't think they'd like that very much at all.

Nah, the president is still divisive due to her political nature, and though that division may be tolerable in a country that can look to common language, religion and culture as other unifiers, it won't work in a country like Canada where those things already divide us on top of politics. The Queen isn't political, she doesn't represent a state church, or a party, or one language, culture or people over another -- she's Queen of Canada over all Canadians equally. The current system works so much better on so many different levels.

Any proof to turn the conjecture that she's so well informed of the political goings on in those 32 countries she rules in name?

Simple, and right from the source: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page345.asp: "The Queen maintains direct contact with the Governor-Generals..."

Which, to me, as much of an indictment of the current system as it is of a republican system: an admission of the political nature of the G.G. So under the current system, the vice regent is a political office with the added bonus of perpetuating a archaic and antidemocratic system of hereditary privilege.

No, you're misconstruing my words (and purposefully, I imagine); where did I ever admit to the governor general having a political nature? What I said was a governor general depends on constitutional advisors as much as a president would. They are no different in that respect.

I said the key point on which they do differ is that the GG is beholden to nobody but the Queen, who is beholden to nobody but all Canadians, hence apolitical. A president is beholden to his supporters, thus favouring one party (whether MPs or citizens) over another, hence political. Advisors aside, who can we really count on to make an impartial decision which is in the best interests of all of us, not a group of politicians or business magnates only?

As I also said, I think the appointment process for the Governor General has been abused over the past 30 years so as to now appear more like a political move on the part of the government, and this needs to be addressed. But, no matter the PM's motivation behind the recommendation to HM, once in office the GG remains above, and thus immune to, political manipulation. A president, who is inherently part of the partisan political process, and who strives for partisan goals and personal success, would not.

I think you're really just someone who has a personal and illogical contempt for something you don't even fully understand -- the lack of concrete evidence supporting the claim that a republican Canada will be better, and that constitutional monarchy is undemocratic, demonstrates this. In fact, you go so far as to dismiss pertinent and substantiated information from a number of people so that you can maintain this ignorant disdain.

It's kind of typical of republicans, though. Never a viable proposal for a republican system that would work for Canada let alone make it better, never a real explanation as to why constitutional monarchy is "anti-democratic," never proof of how a president will be more unifying than a monarch, never a concrete reason to become a republic. Very convincing.

[Black Dog]

Your snide attitude gives me little to laugh at.

Snide? Please, you've got the market cornered on stick-up-the-ass priggishness.

In this case it does. Perhaps you don't want to admit it, but constitutional monarchies really are more stable and enduring than republics, and hence they are consistently included as the majority of the top ten best countries in the world in which to live (6 of 10 at last count). There has usually been less incitement for the overthrow of monarchs than there has been for presidents, and where they have fallen, it has usually been through military coup or foreign invasion. Almost always they've been replaced with a string of dictatorships and other repressive regimes.

Now that's a laugh. "It is so because I say it is so." If I refuse to admit it it is because the case you present is weak. It's one thing to point out that constitutional monarchies are nice places to live, quite another to ascribe that to the monarchy. For instance, many of the same countries are also liberal democracies with strong socialist tendancies. I expect those things have a far greater affect on the political landscape than any figurehead.

There's a reason why the republican campaign in that country failed: they couldn't find a republican system better than the constitutional monarchy they have.

You mean they couldn't agree on one. Which is a different thing altogether.

The Republic of Ireland is a unitary state with a population of 4 and a half million people only. It may work for them, but I'd be interested to hear how you'd apply a system like that to a confederated country like Canada -- maybe the federal government would jump all over it, but the provinces would most likely reject it outright. A popularly elected president in this country would mean someone consistently chosen by Quebec and Ontario, and without a Crown, what would the provincial governments base their sovereignty on? As the Queen is now Queen in Right of Manitoba as equally as she is Queen in Right of Canada, would the president of Canada also be the president of Manitoba? Would provincial legislation suddenly be passed in the name of the president? This would undermine the principal that "the Monarchy gives each law-making authority its authority, making them of equal legal significance," and would tip the balance in favour of the federal government in a dispute between Ottawa and the provinces. I don't think they'd like that very much at all.

Popular election is only one option for determing the President.

Nah, the president is still divisive due to her political nature, and though that division may be tolerable in a country that can look to common language, religion and culture as other unifiers, it won't work in a country like Canada where those things already divide us on top of politics. The Queen isn't political, she doesn't represent a state church, or a party, or one language, culture or people over another -- she's Queen of Canada over all Canadians equally. The current system works so much better on so many different levels.

The Queen isn't divisive? Quebec would beg to differ, I'm sure. Also, in a country that is increasingly culturally heterogeneous, I'd rather we look to homegrown unifying symbols than foreigners.

I said the key point on which they do differ is that the GG is beholden to nobody but the Queen, who is beholden to nobody but all Canadians, hence apolitical. A president is beholden to his supporters, thus favouring one party (whether MPs or citizens) over another, hence political. Advisors aside, who can we really count on to make an impartial decision which is in the best interests of all of us, not a group of politicians or business magnates only?

The Queen isn't beholden to anyone at all. It's not like anyone can vote her out. But I maintain she and the GG is just as prone to influence as an elected figurehead would be (look at the events around the passage of the GST).

I think you're really just someone who has a personal and illogical contempt for something you don't even fully understand -- the lack of concrete evidence supporting the claim that a republican Canada will be better, and that constitutional monarchy is undemocratic, demonstrates this. In fact, you go so far as to dismiss pertinent and substantiated information from a number of people so that you can maintain this ignorant disdain.

A republican Canada with a president in place of the GG, wouldn't be much different. See, you're vastly overstating the worth and value of the monarchy, its unifying effects (a better term would be apathy: most people just don't care one way or another) and using the lack of consensus on an alternative as an endorsement of the status quo.

It's kind of typical of republicans, though. Never a viable proposal for a republican system that would work for Canada let alone make it better, never a real explanation as to why constitutional monarchy is "anti-democratic," never proof of how a president will be more unifying than a monarch, never a concrete reason to become a republic. Very convincing.

Far be it from me to try and convince a diehard royalist of anything. Like most normal Canadians, this isn't a subject I care all that deeply about. To me the argument is prety basic: its hypocritical for a society that espouses values of equality to cling to a symbol of hereditary privildge.

"It embodies the triumph of inheritance over merit, of blood over brains, of mindless ritual over innovation. The monarchy reminds us to defer to authority and remember our place." -Marget Wente

[g_bambino]

Snide? Please, you've got the market cornered on stick-up-the-ass priggishness.

Maybe so, but at least being priggish isn’t being insulting, derogatory and condescending.

It's one thing to point out that constitutional monarchies are nice places to live, quite another to ascribe that to the monarchy. For instance, many of the same countries are also liberal democracies with strong socialist tendancies. I expect those things have a far greater affect on the political landscape than any figurehead.

And what is it that fosters that liberal democracy with socialist tendencies? Could it maybe be the stability that constitutional monarchy provides? Could it be a head of state that allows for all peoples to express themselves, and not just a majority? Could it be a greater feeling of inclusiveness under an office that is completely non-partisan? Could it be the flexibility of constitutional monarchy through social and political change? The fact that the 6 out of 10 best countries are long-standing constitutional monarchies is not a coincidence. Only two of the four republics are greater than 60 years old, the youngest constitutional monarchy has been around for over a century, and was still run under a constitutional monarchy for 150 years before independence.

As Anthony Carr said in Australia:

When you examine this list, some very interesting facts emerge.

• The top six countries in the index are all constitutional monarchies, without exception.

• Seven out of the top ten countries are constitutional monarchies.

• Twelve or fully 60% of the top twenty countries are constitutional monarchies.

So, before we commit regicide, shouldn’t we ask ourselves why this is so? Of course, correlation does not necessarily imply causality. But that’s a bit of a two-edged sword. Even if it cannot be argued that the monarchy has itself necessarily caused higher human development in the countries concerned, it is reasonable to assert that the factors that have led people to prefer this constitutional structure may also be the same or at least closely related to the factors that have led to these countries generally achieving higher human development in the first place. In any case, it cannot be asserted on the evidence that abolishing the monarchy will necessarily promote Australia’s human development. Indeed, it may be the case that the attitudes of mind that lead people to support this change are antipathetic to our human development.

You mean they couldn't agree on one. Which is a different thing altogether.

No, only republican politicians and activists couldn't agree on which republic, even though the republican model presented was the one proposed by the republican movement, and supported by the majority of republican delegates at the 1988 constitutional convention. When the Yes side lost in every state, and overall 72% of the voters cast a No ballot, there's more at work than simply a disagreement over which republic.

To add to that, support for constitutional change is at a low in Australia now, and sinking further. The republican push in Australia was nothing more than "a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"; and an expensive one at that.

Popular election is only one option for determing the President

It is. But, you stated you preferred the Irish model, which has a popularly elected president.

The Queen isn't divisive? Quebec would beg to differ, I'm sure. Also, in a country that is increasingly culturally heterogeneous, I'd rather we look to homegrown unifying symbols than foreigners.

Do you call all those who weren't born in Canada, our permanent residents, or Canadians who live abroad, ie. those who make up our heterogeneous nature, "foreigners" as well? Or is that a specific label applied, ludicrously, only to our Monarch? You need to look beyond the limited scope of citizenship and understand that nationality is more flexible than that.

Anyway, I don't think you can lump an entire population of a province under one banner like that. Some Quebecois view the monarchy as a divisive issue, yes, but I'd imagine its because most see it either as a symbol of the Anglophone Canada from which they want to distance themselves, or as a symbol of federal authority from which they want to separate -- completely failing to understand that it is the Crown that has protected their minority for over 200 years, the Crown in Right of Quebec that gives them their stable government, and the non-partisan Crown that allows them to exercise their right to separate should they wish. The point remains that the Queen is a problem to only about 5-10% of the population. Could a president claim the same? I doubt it. Would he be any more welcome in Quebec than the Queen? Even if he were Quebecois, I highly doubt it (a Quebecois PM isn’t even viewed favourably in the province). So, if we take the point that a president would still represent Ottawa to Quebecois, and add onto that the country-wide division caused by partisan politics, it remains relatively obvious that the Queen is less divisive than a political president.

And besides, what's more homegrown and unifying than the Canadian Crown? 500+ years in the making, and now a fully integrated, central, apolitical part of Canadian government and culture, separate from the British Crown. I don't think a presidential office can live up to that.

The Queen isn't beholden to anyone at all. It's not like anyone can vote her out. But I maintain she and the GG is just as prone to influence as an elected figurehead would be (look at the events around the passage of the GST).

Look to the amending formula of our Constitution -- I believe there is a clause in there that spells out how to alter or remove the Monarchy.

Also, read the Queen's Coronation Oath.

And lastly, if she was some omnipotent being beholden to nobody, CCR would be organising a bloody rebellion against her instead of just lobbying politicians in Ottawa.

The Queen and GG aren't "prone to influence," it's called following advice, which is a central part of the functioning of a constitutional monarchy (and on that note, the passing of the GST was not a constitutional crisis, but instead a political act of government). A president would most likely do the same. But, what I've been talking about all along is the point in time when a head of state cannot follow the advice of their political ministers, but must act as a referee or intervene in a crisis -- who can be trusted to be as impartial as they should be? An apolitical monarch? Or a political president? Who is far more likely to have partisan goals and personal aspirations? The answer seems obvious, and the results in other countries pretty much backs it up.

A republican Canada with a president in place of the GG, wouldn't be much different. See, you're vastly overstating the worth and value of the monarchy, its unifying effects (a better term would be apathy: most people just don't care one way or another) and using the lack of consensus on an alternative as an endorsement of the status quo.

A lack of consensus on an alternative may not be an endorsement for the status quo, but with no reason to move away from the status quo an alternative isn’t even necessary. And arguing for change simply for the sake of change is irresponsible and reckless, something you don't want to be when dealing with a country's constitution. Without any concrete reason for change, that's all you're doing, as is anyone who wants any republic at any cost.

This attitude makes me see that you’re vastly underestimating the worth and value of the Monarchy. This country is literally united under the Canadian Crown, it is the constitutional centre pin of our confederation, giving sovereignty to all eleven of our governments, putting all provinces on an equal level with Ottawa, as well as symbolically unifying the country – the Crown, like our flag, is found in every province from coast to coast. It’s said over and over again by republicans that Canadians are apathetic towards it, but it’s hard to say that when Canadians turn out in the multiple tens of thousands to see the Queen, with Canadian flags in hand, not Union Jacks. And, though they may be fairly oblivious to the crowns all around them, from police crests, to military badges, to court buildings and legislatures, replace them with a presidential seal and I think people would start to notice something had been lost.

People being apathetic towards something doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with it, and generally Canadians are apathetic towards a lot of things that aren’t blasted in their face every day on TV; that is, until it seems like we’re going to loose it. Take the military, for example. Over two decades the Armed Forces have been stripped down and gutted, but who commented? Only when it came to the point that the military was so weak it was almost doomed to disappear did anybody start to really speak up against the actions of the government. There are enough people out there who value the governmental and symbolic role of the Crown enough to wake Canadians up should it ever be under threat – Provincial premieres, Senators, First Nations leaders, defense staff, business magnates, newspaper editors; not all monarchists are little old ladies with Queen Mother tea pots.

When a country is divided already by geography, language, politics, and culture, replacing that one apolitical, non-partisan part of our government with something that is inherently political is just another wedge driven into the fissures that fracture this nation – it won’t be the cause of separation, but it will only help fuel it, not stop it. Likewise the Queen cannot stop it, but at least when Canadians see her they do not see partisanship, bias or self-interest.

Far be it from me to try and convince a diehard royalist of anything. Like most normal Canadians, this isn't a subject I care all that deeply about. To me the argument is prety basic: its hypocritical for a society that espouses values of equality to cling to a symbol of hereditary privildge.

No, please, convince me. But you'll need actual, logical argument to do it. Repeating over and over how undemocratic constitutional monarchies are doesn't make it so, and doesn't convince me of anything.

But, far from your claim that this isn't a subject you care deeply about, you appear, both from your lengthy postings, and points which are taken almost verbatim from the Citizens for a Canadian Republic website, that you're an ardent republican. That's fine, but without a concrete reason for why Canada needs to change so drastically, your argument is very weak.

"Impartiality and continuity are important aspects of government, and it is doubtful whether any form of democratic government yet discovered provides these to any greater extent than does constitutional monarchy."

Sydney D Bailey, British Parliamentary Democracy, Harrap, 1959

"The public are sick and tired of politics, they are sick and tired of the machinations of elected office in a media age, and I think it’s quite good having a Head of State that’s completely to one side of that."

Simon Upton, New Zealand Environment Minister, March 1994

"I notice that the constitutional monarchies are the most democratic countries of Europe. I can’t understand how there could be any debate about it."

Jack Lang, French Minister of Culture, October 1993

"Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians."

Baroness Thatcher, November 1995

"Canadians should realise when they are well off under the Monarchy. For the vast majority of Canadians, being a Monarchy is probably the only form of government acceptable to them. I have always been for parliamentary democracy and I think the institution of Monarchy with the Queen heading it all has served Canada well."

Pierre Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, 1973

"Monarchy is the one system of government where power is exercised for the good of all."

Aristotle, 322-384 BC