Canadians cut link to monarchy

Telegraph

By Fred Langan in Montreal
(Filed: 31/12/2004)

Canada severed another link with the monarchy yesterday when it announced that diplomats presenting their credentials to the government in Ottawa should no longer address their letters to the Queen.

Instead, they will formally introduce themselves to the governor-general, the Queen's representative.

The prime minister, Paul Martin, said the change was made "to reflect Canada's status as a fully independent nation".

His spokesman, Melanie Gruer, said: "This was done with the consent of the Queen."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/31/wcanada31.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/31/ixworld.html

OFF with their heads!

And if they don't want to pay the tax on foreign goods they bring into their country, will they still be required to surrender said goods "to the Crown"?

We are, at the end of the day, an ironic country.

that made me laugh too - but not as much as that picture does.

:hi:

She was probably like, "What? Are you still doing that?"

Now if only we could do more to sever our links with King George.

God Save The Queen!

I just assumed that was a smart-ass remark, as if they really asked for her permission.

Let's hope so.

Abolishing the Queens representative would leave a vacuum in political power that would need to be filled.
The Gov Gen is the symbolic head of state.
The PM is the head of government.
This 'separation of power' has created a firewall of sorts that has functioned with varying degrees of success. All in all I'd say it's been beneficial.
In the absence of a figurative head-of-state, what new figure-head would we create?
Who would assume their existing constitutional role?
Would we merge the two roles (head of state & head of government)into the office of the PM?
At it's inception, the USA decided to invest both those roles in one person, the President.
The wisdom of that is debatable.
I'm not sure if abolishment of Canada's current head of state is a path that's been fully explored by critics of the status quo.

As you say, the GG is a symbol. So what's the problem?

Seems like I'm missing something. If there's more to it than that, her role is NOT merely symbolic, but that's what I've always believed.

I think the separation is a good thing. It's not for love of the monarchy that I think the GG should be retained, but to retain the spirit of parliamentary democracy and stave off a de facto "executive branch."

The GG is truly now more of a Canadian institution anyway, than, as it was, an imposition of the UK.

I would like to see a GG appointment based more on exceptional merit, as though it were the highest order of the Order of Canada. And for a shorter term.

Governor General Leonard Cohen, for starters?

... many, if not most, countries have figurehead presidents; Israel, Ireland, India, Iceland come to mind immediately. These are full fledged parliamentary democracies, yeah republics.

It is about time Canada and Australia joined the real new world and get rid of that old bags and her parasitic family.

I agree with you. :)

The tie to the monarchy is irrelevant. All that is important to me is that the Head of State remain a ceremonial figurehead.

We don't need an officail head of state. The Pm will do.

to form the government in a minority situation? I don't think so.

The GG has several important functions in our govt, and that is one of them.

I have ever seen from that office is from the empty space between the ears and behind the eyes.

Let's keep it historical.

as we here in the US are working hard to build up our Aristocracy and class structures higher and higher.

;)

I wonder if he's given up the title. (Queens Council)

considering the savings in blood....

(Canada is our good big sister)

Canadians will never take the British monarch off their money. Canadians are always looking for something to distinguish themselves from Americans, as evidence of a "Canadian identity." The monarchy is one. Bilingualism is another. In reality, there's a common culture on both sides of the border. Michigan and Ontario have more in common with each other than either has with Tennessee or Quebec. Only a historical accident made us separate nations.

We don't need crutches like a Queen on our currency for evidence of a "Canadian identity." After four years of Bush and the evidence of diverging values (militarism, social justice), we know who we are, and who we aren't.

live in the FREE country to our north.

Envious greetings :hi: from BushAmerica.

Only a historical accident made us separate nations.
Do you mean the war of 1812?
<wink>

Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys were that close to taking Quebec. I wish they'd succeeded in driving the British out of North America altogether. With 27 million more Northerners in the fold, the United States wouldn't be the right-wing menace it is today. You'd tip the balance against the conservative Southerners running this country. With an extra 55 or so Canadian electoral votes, there would have been no President Bush. That wouldn't just benefit us, it would benefit the entire world. When America has bad leadership, it isn't just our problem, it's everyone's problem. That's why I don't agree with the people who think running to Canada is the solution. The solution is bringing Canada into the Union. Don't be afraid! We speak English, we have Tim Horton's, and we're just as upset about the NHL lockout as you are (at least in Detroit.) As a side benefit, you won't have to listen to Barenaked Ladies all the time just to meet your Canadian content rules, and Toronto can actually keep its funniest comedians, instead of being stuck with drips like Mike Bullard.

Solution? To what?
It's a nice gesture and all, but I'm good thanks.

You can keep bush, the neocons, the religious fundies, the crap media, etc, etc, etc. We will stay uniquely Canadian and, on top of that, we won't burn down your White House, again.

Unfortunately, that's not going to stay south of the 49th parallel. Might be nice to have an American government willing to do something about the problem. It won't happen as long as we're being run by right wingers from Dixie. At least when your Arctic melts, you'll still be Canadian!

But unfortunately, even Americans don't have credible representative government anymore. I can't see how adding 30 or so million Canadians to the Union would be permitted to change that.

The US has invaded Canada 5 times, and never once been successful...or even close to it.

When America has bad leadership, it's your problem. Everyone else simply operates around you.

We'll stay separate.

Interesting argument, TedsGarage, but clearly you don't understand Canadians very well. We may seem similar, but it's an example of American self-importance to overstate those similarities. We haven't spent the last 200 years resisting "Manifest Destiny" just to preserve our doughnut shops.

Besides, considering the widespread speculation that the last presidential election was rigged, what guarantee is there that "an extra 55 or so Canadian electoral votes" would have actually made any difference?

In other words: talk to the hand, Yank.
:eyes:

Pierre, you misunderstand the structure of the United States. We're not all marching behind one great leader in quest of empire. Plenty of surveys have shown that New England and the Great Lakes states (i.e., the Blue States) have more in common ideologically with Canada than with the American South. If you'll notice, we don't use the death penalty, we have strong environmental laws, strong labor unions, well-developed social welfare systems, anti-war senators, and very few fundamentalist churches. The real cultural divide on this continent isn't the US-Canadian border, but the Mason-Dixon line. Unfortunately, people have been moving to the Sun Belt, so we no longer have the clout to dominate the country.

Something has to be done to cripple the Southern war machine, either politically or economically. The South is our Prussia. They love going to war to prove their "honor." Better hope something happens before they decide a liberal country on our northern border is a threat to our "national security." And better hope those thirsty Southwestern states don't run a pipeline from Lake Michigan to Arizona. (As a Chicagoan, I worry about that all the time. Bush mentioned doing something to that effect during the campaign, before reversing himself on a campaign stop in Michigan.)

By the way, don't lecture us about Manifest Destiny. You have even more land than we do, and I have a hunch it wasn't all a Victoria Day present from the Micmac.

Canada doesn't keep the Queen on the money for that reason...we do it because it's a tradition.

because she is our head of state.

I figure that arguing about the monarchy in Canada is an irrelevant distraction about an irrelevant distraction. There are more important matters.