Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

The Federal Republic of Canada

Canada as a federal republic  

110 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Canada need a new political structure for the new century.

What does the century in which we live have to do with the relevance of constitutional monarchy?

Republics have been around for almost as long as monarchies. Should we therefore call for an end to republicanism because it is over 3000 years old, and thus, out of date?

A Republic because its a symbol of democracy.

Please demonstrate how a republic (and be specific about what kind of republic... certainly not the old Republic of Iraq, or the Peoples' Republic of China, I hope) is more democratic than a constitutional monarchy.

And then in its political structure Canada need to be decentralize.

This I will somewhat agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do we need to be a republic to have a new political structure? IMHO, a triple-E senate would be a start, but that doesn't mean we need to boot the crown and become a republic.

Precisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, India (for example) is a republic but still a member of the Commonwealth. So, that's not the issue.

Quite true.

Second, Canada's nominal Head of State is determined solely and completely by birth.

Not true. See my above post for the explination as to why.

In Canada, we wisely and usually don't fill positions in such a snobbish fashion. For a position such as Head of State, we certainly shouldn't. After all, the position is primarily symbolic.

Then, do you feel all positions in Canada should be filled by election?

Also, are you arguing against the Constitution when you say the position is largely symbolic? Perhaps you need to refresh your knowledge of this important document so that you may remember that all executive authority in this country is vested in our queen.

Hardly symbolic.

Third, as much as I disagreed with what Trudeau did in 1982, I have to admit that it is a good thing that we in Canada now have a Constitution Act, not a British North America Act, and we don't have to go to the UK for amendments.

About 90% of the Constitution Act is the BNA, just renamed and with a Charter attached to it.

But I agree that it was a worthy step for Canada to take in giving ourselves full and absolute control over our own affairs.

Fourth, the so-called "Queen of Canada" is obviously not Canadian.

How so? She is sovereign of the Canadian Crown, and as such is vested with the executive powers of Canada, and in whose name citizenship and passports are granted. She is sovereign of the Order of Canada, Commander in Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, and knows more about the Canadian constitution and government than most politicians.

If, by law and logic she is a Canadian, how do you presume to say she is not?

To many people living in Canada, her status as Head of State is perceived at best as completely meaningless and at worst as a reminder of who really controls things.

The sad fact is, most do not even know she is one of our heads of state, and the sovereign of Canada. However, this is an indisputable sign that Canadians have been left ignorant by their government and schools as to just how things in this country work.

The Liberal governments since Trudeau have inherited from him a need to re-invent Canada with every new year, bulldozing and obliterating history in the process. But since then, they have also developed a god-complex whereby they feel they are the supreme power in Canada. Keeping people ignorant of the existence and purpose of the Crown serves that complex very, very well.

That addresses the issue of Canadians finding the monarchy "meaningless", but what can you possibly mean by "a reminder of who really controls things"??

I sincerely believe that if Canada became a Federal Republic, there would be less friction between Canadians of all origins.

I believe you've said this before, but I fail to remember you ever giving concrete proof of this.

Would you care to explain it again?

Look, in the US, Schwarzenegger made Governor of California but the President has to be American born. These simple rules matter.

From this I gather that you are implying the 'president of Canada' must be Canadian born.

I hope others, besides myself, see the xenophobia hidden in this opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modern Quebec owes its existence to the fact that for about six or seven generations, each woman gave birth to about 20 children. This growth rate is unparalleled in history.

Without meaning offence, that has got to be the most simplistic, narrow minded view of history I have ever heard.

The complex story of the history of Quebec can be summed up to this: They screwed. Alot.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

I posted elsewhere about the number of times Quebec had the choice to leave the protection of the Crown, and each time they opted to stay.

The British intention, Crown or otherwise, was to rid itself of this backward, papist minority.

Not all British can be seen to speak for the Crown. Not all actions the Crown authorised can be seen as against Quebec or French-Canadian culture.

Again, lets not be so simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bakunin, Bambino's postings already contain adequate refutation of the "Presidential ideas suggested.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canada’s head of state should be a Canadian citizen and not be above our laws. Presently, the Act of Settlement of 1701 constitutionally binds Canada to only heads of state who are members of The Church of England, thereby legislatively preventing Roman Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Muslims or anyone not a member of that Protestant denomination from becoming Canada’s head of state. Section 15(1) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability".

Funny, looks like racism, this mean a french person couldnt be GG except if he or she become a member of the england church ? its just another thing that make's it an "english only" symbol

The Act of Settlement is indeed now a part of Canada's constitution, inherited from Britain when the constitution was patriated in 1982.

Republicans love to slobber all over this piece of legislation because it excludes a certain group of people from the line of succession to the Canadian throne, and in our politically correct world its a real gem to use against monarchy.

However, what republicans don't mention is that this law wasn't created by monarchs themselves to protect their religious purity. It was created by the British parliament-- the democratically elected representatives of the British people!

What republicans also conveniently omit is that the Act of Settlement is over 300 years old, and has remained hidden and unthought of for the precise reason that the world has not been so politically correct until today!

And they fail to mention that it has recenlty (in the past decades) been brought up in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Britain itself, that this act should be altered or removed all toghether. Even the Queen has stated that she sees no reason not to have it changed, and would be happy to see the eldest child, regardless of sex, be the first in line for the throne.

However, it is more difficult than simply striking the law from the books. The Statute of Westminster says that any changes to the line of succession, which the Act of Settlement lays out, must be agreed to by every nation in the Queen's Commonwealth. Combine that with the fact that there are more pressing issues for everyone to deal with, and right now nobody immediately in line for the throne is a Catholic or married to one, and nobody is rushing to make any changes.

So, in the end, the Act of Settlement is not an argument for republicanism, and not an example of any bias on the part of the monarchy.

As for the GG-- no law stipulates who may or may not be chosen to be governor general. The Act of Settlement does not apply to that office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, looks like racism, this mean a french person couldnt be GG except if he or she become a member of the england church ? its just another thing that make's it an "english only" symbol

That is not racism; it is how the roots of our country were formed. It was no big secret when anyone immigrated to this country could not know. I am getting a little tired of giving up all our English customs to pacify everyone else. I think it is ridiculous that we are told we should say happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas. Why should we deny our customs. I wish my Jewish friends a happy hanuka and my Chinese friends gung hay fat choy; none of them take offense; I have no problem if they wish me greetings of their own. geesh. I am fed up to the teeth with political correct bs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eureka

Bakunin! You should read Rousseau or, more properly, read about Roussesu. Whatever noble ideals were behind his thinking, the consequence was violence, mobs, and, eventually, Fascism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised that this thread is receiving so much attention. I am with Sweal on this one, low priority.

If given a choice, I say keep it 'cuz I am also getting tired of this politically correct crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eureka

I agree that it has low priority but it is important. It has been an underlying current in Canadian affairs for generations. It is also one of the things that the Contiinentalists have pushed covertly and overtly and still do.

I recall long ago a discussion with a Political Science professor at U of T. who gave his first year students every year an essay on the Monarchy. He told me that he was always surprised that they came back about 4 to 1 in favour of Monarchy. He had, at first, expected the opposite since all conversations produced seeming opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, i just think this is a concept where the french and the English (british and canadian) doesn't share in common for historic purpose.

In france they fighted to get rid of monarchy and it ended in a blood bath. They got rid of the monarchy to instaurate a democratic system called a republic. It took time to instaurate but it was clearly better than monarchy. It was symbolic.

In england, the monarchy slowly gave the power to a parliament style of government. Monarchy stayed an heritage symbol.

-----------------------------------

I guess its alright if the english community keep a GG and stay subject of the queen but i don't see the point why we the french should stay subject of the queen, I mean we lost alot in 1760 but this ends one day or another... just like colony got there independance back, if we want to live in a democracy then one day or another we should get to choose our own destiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Govenor General is a figurehead only. When was the last time someone feared 'the almighty hand' of Adrienne Clarkson? The best PMs we've had in my lifetime were all French, the Anglos were all boobs. (actually, they all were) Nobody claims Canada has been 'hard done by' because of the ethnicity of the PM. (Unlike other countries) Canada could and should be proud that ethnic diversity and background is not the foremost judge of one's character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess its alright if the english community keep a GG and stay subject of the queen but i don't see the point why we the french should stay subject of the queen,
Bien dit, tout dit.
The Govenor General is a figurehead only. When was the last time someone feared 'the almighty hand' of Adrienne Clarkson?
She spent 41 million last year. A buck 30 from each of us.

I couldn't give a good God damn if Brittany Spears got my buck 30. But let us do it here, our own way. Les Cowboys would do it for 78 cents, certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know theloniusfleabag but its not that simple, having a multicultural country based on 2 founding culture mean a lot of sacrifice. Honeslty if we want it to work i think that we need to separate stuff between our two culture because sometime it can be quite frustrating. As for the pm of canada, i hate the french pm from the liberals. its time to get an english one... The only liberal i can tolerate is jean lapierre :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eureka

The French of Canada lost nothing in 1760. They were huge gainers. They gained a measure of personal frredom they had never known: they gained economically; they gained in switching their allegiance from a corrupt institution to one that had long rid itself of absolutism. The gains have been permanent in that they have since then been part of a stable, democratic society.

Frankly, I am sick of the racism that is implicit in your every post. The French of Quebec are part of the French Canadian society. They are not some separate people. They are the most pampered minority in the world. In every other country, the onus for preservation of a minority culture and language lies with the minority itself. In Canada, the minority is protected; its culture and language is promoted; these are paid for by the majority culture,

When you can rid yourself of your irrational hatred of the English, then you may be able to see things with a proper perspective. You sound to me like a throwback to Quebec who pretended to be saddened by the "need" to promulgate oppressive laws. He never talked of how as a youngster in New Carlisle, he used to throw stones at the English kids from a safe distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eureka you will never understand quebecers.

First your interpretation of history is often ridiculous and you never have document that proof what you say, you know why ? because what you read are personal opinion not fact...

And you simply never took the time to read my post, you just take evrything as personal attack and im tired of posting back to you to try to explain how you should interpret it. If you can't well its your problem, i wont reexplain my point of vue again because i know you simply can't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is time togive the Royal Family and her redundant representatives the old heave-ho, especially since these representatives are appointed by the PM, not by the Royal Family, consequently they are puppets of those who appointed them to Office.

I have another bone to pick with our Federal Heritage Minister when she suggests that Quebec represent Canadians at International functions on several issues.

Federal Heritage Minister Liza Frulla suggested Quebec could speak for Canada at some international meetings, especially when cultural issues are up for discussion.

But Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Lucienne Robillard later rejected her cabinet colleague's idea, saying only Canada speaks for Canada.

Still, the federal government and Quebec are in talks to give Quebec a seat at such international bodies as UNESCO (news - web sites) - the United Nations (news - web sites) Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Quebecer's do not speak for the vast majority of Canadian's on any issue, including culturally, that is why we elect Federal Politician's so that they can represent us in International Forums. Quebec would simply use this soap box to pass themselves off as a country, and further alianate us from our largest trading partner. The fact is that Quebec is only one of the have-not Provinces within Canada, and speak a language foreign even to most parts of Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
french and the English (british and canadian) doesn't share in common for historic purpose.

But, if you are Francophone Canadian, then the Canadian Crown is indeed a part of your history. I believe I and a few others here have pointed out that the history of French-speaking Canadians does go hand in hand with the history of the Crown.

Many may view it as an imposition of British power over French colonists 245 years ago. As I said, maybe it was, then, but it was mostly due to the French government handing over the majority of their North American holdings to Britain with the Treaty of Paris.

Since then there were indeed attempts to erase Franco-Canadian culture, but, as was also pointed out earlier, many of the recommendations were never followed. Indeed, for the most part, Franco-Canadian culture was protected by the Canadian governments under the British Crown.

I pointed out the number of times Quebec has had the opportunity to sever any ties with the Crown, both the British or the Canadian, but, to this day the province remains with Elizabeth II as the Queen in right of Quebec.

Both the British Crown, and later the Canadian Crown, have been functioning parts of the Quebec government since the formation of the province. The Crown has evolved with the country, becoming purely Canadian, becoming bilingual, and always seeing Franco-Canadians and Anglo-Canadians equally. With those indisputable facts in mind, how can anyone claim that Francophone Canadians cannot view the Crown as a part of their history?

In france they fighted to get rid of monarchy and it ended in a blood bath

True enough.

They got rid of the monarchy to instaurate a democratic system called a republic. It took time to instaurate but it was clearly better than monarchy. It was symbolic.

After the formation of the First Republic in 1792, France flip-flopped between republic and monarchy, going through no less than four monarchies, and five republics.

It is hardly the country to use as an example of a model republic.

In england, the monarchy slowly gave the power to a parliament style of government. Monarchy stayed an heritage symbol.

The British Crown, and thus the British monarch, are far more than simply 'heritage symbols'. The same goes for the Canadian Crown and Canadian monarch. Please understand the more complex nature of the governments and the constitutions of both countries.

I guess its alright if the english community keep a GG and stay subject of the queen but i don't see the point why we the french should stay subject of the queen.

As long as Francophone Canadians live in Canada there can never be a distinction where the 'English community' (whatever that means) remains loyal to the Crown of Canada while Franco-Canadians do not. The Crown is the foundation of the country, and the provinces-- their laws, their governments, their public services, and the military. All Canadians, no matter what language they speak, are served by these institutions, and are thus served by the Crown. Therefore, for Franco-Canadians to continue to live under Canadian laws, under Canadian government, to be protected by Canadian police, and the Canadian military, as they have done for the past 137 years, then they must remain with the Canadian Crown.

, I mean we lost alot in 1760 but this ends one day or another...

What ends?

if we want to live in a democracy then one day or another we should get to choose our own destiny.

A number of times I believe you have implied in your words that there are some 'others' who control the destiny of Canadians.

Can you please tell us who these mind-controlling, subjugating, overlord 'others' are?

Also, a number of times you have been asked to explain what exactly makes Canada a dictatorship or absolute monarchy. Perhaps it is part of the mysterious ‘others’ theory. Can you explain this as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The French of Canada lost nothing in 1760. They were huge gainers. They gained a measure of personal frredom they had never known: they gained economically; they gained in switching their allegiance from a corrupt institution to one that had long rid itself of absolutism. The gains have been permanent in that they have since then been part of a stable, democratic society.

Bakunin, I'm not sure how you find eureka's words "ridiculous".

Franco-Canadians may not have gained all the benefits they have today immediately after they became subjects of the British Crown, but as country and Crown have evolved over the centuries, Franco-Canadians have indeed reaped the same benefits that all Canadians have.

Though not truly democratic by our views today, the British Crown in the late 1700s was already, as eureka pointed out, a non-absolute one, unlike the French Crown under which the French Canadian colonies had existed. Certainly, at the start, the Governors of the French colonies were British, and appointed by Britain, but colonial governments were still set up where citizens, both Franco and Anglo, could elect representatives.

There were certainly times when Franco-Canadians had to fight for their rights. But remember, Anglo-Canadians had to fight for more democracy as well-- for example, against the Family Compact of Upper Canada who ruled the colony essentially as an oligarchy. But the Crown was never totalitarian in its reactions, calling for a violent stop to any of the Canadian colonies' demands. Compromise always led to an, obviously, satisfactory end.

It is precisely this flexibility that the Crown possesses which allowed it to evolve right along with Canada. Eventually the colony became a country, a constitution was written, a federal government and provincial governments were formed, Anglo and Franco Canada united under the British Crown-- and all by the free choice of Franco and Anglo Canadians.

As more years passed, the British Crown ceased to exist in Canada, and a purely Canadian Crown appeared. Governors were no longer British appointees, there to represent the British Crown, but became representatives of the Canadian Crown on a national and provincial level. Lieutenant Governors all came from their respective province, the position of Governor General became one filled by Canadians, shared between Francophones and Anglophones, yet always bilingual.

And through all this change and evolution, Quebec has been along for the ride. Now it is a strong province, where its language, religion, and culture are allowed to freely exist and develop. It is democratic, wealthy, and distinct.

Where, in all of that history, has the Crown really ever hindered the free and democratic life that Franco-Canadians have enjoyed for at least the past 137 years, if not for a half-century longer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Prince of Wales is angry that his son is being pilloried for what he regards as a silly but harmless prank and wants to shelter him from further bad publicity. But the outrage over 20-year-old Harry's decision to attend a party in a German soldier's uniform with a swastika armband continues to reverberate around the world.
UK News Report

A snob like Trudeau showing up at a country home in a Nazi helmut is one thing but this is another. Bush Jnr's daughters wouldn't do this, and even if they did, their dad can only be Prez for 8 years.

These jerks are going to be on our money for life. Let's get rid of them.

Canada should grow up, and become a Federal Republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then some of the provinces would become third world countries. LOL. But seriously the provinces should not be independent countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A snob like Trudeau showing up at a country home in a Nazi helmut is one thing but this is another

Is it?

Trudeau did more than just show up at a country home in a nazi helmet, he wore it often while riding around Montreal on his motorcycle!

And this man still became the leader of the Liberal party, and became Prime Minister -- one of Canada's greatest, some might argue.

Trudeau and Prince Harry are similar in that both performed idiotic acts when young men. Harry's mistake is more serious in that he is already a figure in the public eye, whereas Pierre was still a nobody when he was young. But, today no one judges Trudeau for wearing a Nazi helmet around Montreal in his younger years -- he grew up and stopped such nonsense. I think Harry should be treated in the same manner in the future.

I'm not defending Harry's actions -- it was a serious error, committed without thought, and I can't fathom how he got out of the house dressed like that! But in no way do I believe it makes him a Nazi, or incapable of being a mature and decent man -- when he finally grows up.

I can't see how this is a reason to rid Canada of the Crown. The likely-hood of Harry being our king, and on our money, is very slim. Even if he did, you're already judging the man by the boy he currently is -- how stupid!

Also, it seems that, as usual, August, you've failed to see that the continuation of the Canadian Crown is actually more important than who is sovereign of it, and thus sovereigns, or those in line to be, are not immune from judgement or removal should they prove themselves to be incapable of the job. Look to history to see a number of examples.

So, should Prince Harry grow up and actually shave his head and become a neo-Nazi, you can rest assured the governments of the Commonwealth Realms would remove him from the line of succession. This in no way would affect the Canadian Crown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...