I know this always keeps coming up, but should Canada become a republic?


Adriatik
No Party Affiliation
#1
Hello everyone,

I know this question pops up every 25 years about whether Canada should be a republic or not...

I feel that serious changes should be made to the constitution to change Canada into a Federal Presidential Republic.

Here are the main motivations:

-Canada's federal is way too centralized
-Canada is divided and has been since at least the 1960s due to disagreements over more autonomy for certain provinces.
-Having the Queen (represented by the Governor-General) as head of state is only symbolic and has no clear impact on Canadian politics. Also, it only reminds Canadians of a British colonial past without autonomy as a nation
-Our election system is needs serious improvement that republicanism can provide

How republicanism can resolve these issues:

-A republican system in Canada would permit us to reform the system to decentralize the federal government and provide equal autonomy to provinces regarding language laws, the justice system, social programs, culture, health care and other jurisdictions
-Making Canada a republic would unite the country in the sense that granting more autonomy to provinces in an equal fashion would settle most differences and issues provinces have with our current confederation
-Replacing the Queen and Governor-General with a president as head of state would add more effectiveness to legislation-making and completely end our ties to the British Monarchy, thus recreating our identity as a nation
-Having a republican system in Canada would allow us to reform the electoral system to better represent citizens and decrease the number of political parties to add effeciency to the federal government.

It is important to understand that having this type of system would not make us like the USA since we would create our own brand of republicanism.

I think that our country as a whole would become more united and stronger as a republic, allowing us to become even more competitive economically and to better govern our country.

I only wonder if most Canadians would agree with this type of change.

What do you think?
 
Scott Free
Free Thinker
#2
Like hell!

Look south for the reasons why not.

Why would you bring this up now? We weren't hit by the financial crises hard enough for you?
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Adriatik View Post

Hello everyone,

I know this question pops up every 25 years about whether Canada should be a republic or not...

I feel that serious changes should be made to the constitution to change Canada into a Federal Presidential Republic.

Here are the main motivations:

-Canada's federal is way too centralized
-Canada is divided and has been since at least the 1960s due to disagreements over more autonomy for certain provinces.
-Having the Queen (represented by the Governor-General) as head of state is only symbolic and has no clear impact on Canadian politics. Also, it only reminds Canadians of a British colonial past without autonomy as a nation
-Our election system is needs serious improvement that republicanism can provide

How republicanism can resolve these issues:

-A republican system in Canada would permit us to reform the system to decentralize the federal government and provide equal autonomy to provinces regarding language laws, the justice system, social programs, culture, health care and other jurisdictions
-Making Canada a republic would unite the country in the sense that granting more autonomy to provinces in an equal fashion would settle most differences and issues provinces have with our current confederation
-Replacing the Queen and Governor-General with a president as head of state would add more effectiveness to legislation-making and completely end our ties to the British Monarchy, thus recreating our identity as a nation
-Having a republican system in Canada would allow us to reform the electoral system to better represent citizens and decrease the number of political parties to add effeciency to the federal government.

It is important to understand that having this type of system would not make us like the USA since we would create our own brand of republicanism.

I think that our country as a whole would become more united and stronger as a republic, allowing us to become even more competitive economically and to better govern our country.

I only wonder if most Canadians would agree with this type of change.

What do you think?

Economic competitivness has zip to do with better governance and everything to do with corporate governance which has proven a complete expensive inefficient deadly mistake, todays successful corporations do not compete they crush. We are already strong and united enough. The republic of the United States of America is a shambles a complete wreck. Would you have us copy failure?
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Adriatik View Post

-Canada's federal is way too centralized

examples?

Quote:

-Canada is divided and has been since at least the 1960s due to disagreements over more autonomy for certain provinces.

that's why the provinces should create their respected nationhood.

Quote:

-Having the Queen (represented by the Governor-General) as head of state is only symbolic and has no clear impact on Canadian politics. Also, it only reminds Canadians of a British colonial past without autonomy as a nation

How dare you say that about her majesty!!!

Quote:

-Replacing the Queen and Governor-General with a president as head of state would add more effectiveness to legislation-making and completely end our ties to the British Monarchy, thus recreating our identity as a nation

That's it! Meet me at the steel cage! If you can find it!

Quote:

What do you think?

I think this is the worst possible time to think about changing an entire form of government for the whole nation. Either we stay a federation-monarchy, or let each province go it alone. There's some small government for ya!
 
Scott Free
Free Thinker
#5
I find it hysterical that people would suggest that we would have a smaller government under a republic. Look to the USA for an argument against that. They are the single largest socialist country on the planet (but shhhhh don't tell them).
 
Adriatik
No Party Affiliation
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Economic competitiveness has zip to do with better governance and everything to do with corporate governance which has proven a complete expensive inefficient deadly mistake, today's successful corporations do not compete they crush. We are already strong and united enough. The republic of the United States of America is a shambles a complete wreck. Would you have us copy failure?

First of all, I didn't say we would copy the US system, I said we could create our own republican system based on our needs and values. Many other countries have republican systems that work like Germany, Italy, and Finland. Finland actually has one of the best republican systems in the world and provides an average per capita annual salary of almost 50 000$(higher than Canada's 43 000$) and free post-secondary education.

Second of all, the country is clearly divided judging by the way people voted in our last election. The vote was definitely divided regionally. Also, even though the sovereignty movement is dead in Quebec, there are still clashes with the rest of the country regarding equalization payments and language. Then, Alberta feels that it's paying for the rest of the country's way and is growing more and more annoyed. Please don't call this a united confederacy... We can't even give a clear mandate to a government...

In addition, concerning the economic troubles we are facing. Recessions come and go. There will be more economic growth in a near future. Within 2 years we will be back on our feet. Anyway, my idea is definitely not in the plans for the near future. I am simply bringing it up because there is a lack of new constructive ideas in this country. Too much of "Same Old Same Old". What we need is progress, not a political climate that has been stagnant for over 30 years.
 
Adriatik
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

I find it hysterical that people would suggest that we would have a smaller government under a republic. Look to the USA for an argument against that. They are the single largest socialist country on the planet (but shhhhh don't tell them).

I see your point but again we cannot simply associate the republican system with only the USA since the it is not the only type of republican system out there. Let's take our North America "hats" off for a second and look for examples outside our continent. the USA is a bad example to follow yes I agree. Like I said to someone else who posted, Germany, Itaky and Finland have great republican systems.

Regarding your comment that it's impossible to have a smaller federal government: the US federal government is so large due to the large population in that country. In Canada, is it possible to have a smaller federal government, we are only 32 million people next to the USA's 300 million...
 
Scott Free
Free Thinker
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Adriatik View Post

I see your point but again we cannot simply associate the republican system with only the USA since the it is not the only type of republican system out there. Let's take our North America "hats" off for a second and look for examples outside our continent. the USA is a bad example to follow yes I agree. Like I said to someone else who posted, Germany, Itaky and Finland have great republican systems.

Regarding your comment that it's impossible to have a smaller federal government: the US federal government is so large due to the large population in that country. In Canada, is it possible to have a smaller federal government, we are only 32 million people next to the USA's 300 million...

I'm all for tiny government. The smaller the better. Non at all would be best.

However I do not see any reason for Canada to change and I do not think a republic is any better than what we have now.

I think we only need to wait until the USA annexes us. Why rush things?
 
Adriatik
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayz View Post

examples?



that's why the provinces should create their respected nationhood.



How dare you say that about her majesty!!!



That's it! Meet me at the steel cage! If you can find it!



I think this is the worst possible time to think about changing an entire form of government for the whole nation. Either we stay a federation-monarchy, or let each province go it alone. There's some small government for ya!


Examples of the Federal government being too centralized:

Well let's say that the only legislative powers a federal government should have are:
-Militia National defense
-Banking and Currency
-Foreign Affairs
-Weights, measures and patents
-Naturalization
-Federal taxation
-Penitentiaries
and joint powers with the provinces for:
-Immigration
-Criminal law
-Health care

All the other powers should be transfered to the provinces.

Ottawa currently has way more power than what I listed above. My list has half the powers currently handled by Ottawa.

Regarding your comments about provinces establishing their nationhood:
If that happens, Canada will no longer be a country, we will have 13 countries.

Regarding your comments about my lack of respect towards her Majesty:
I have never pledged my allegiance to her and never will... She plays no role in my life and my country neither. I completely reject any form of monarchy. The colonialism and elitism that monarchies represent leave a bitter taste and my mouth. A republican system brings the power closer to the citizens...

There are many alternatives to Federal constitutional monarchies and I for one believe that there are more options for Canada than keeping our old, broken-down system..
 
gerryh
#10
A flat no!
 
china
Conservative
#11
The Citizen of Canada ,china ,says a flat YES !
 
scratch
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

Like hell!

Look south for the reasons why not.

Why would you bring this up now? We weren't hit by the financial crises hard enough for you?

Very well put S.F.
Canada is just fine the way that it is.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Adriatik View Post

First of all, I didn't say we would copy the US system, I said we could create our own republican system based on our needs and values. Many other countries have republican systems that work like Germany, Italy, and Finland. Finland actually has one of the best republican systems in the world and provides an average per capita annual salary of almost 50 000$(higher than Canada's 43 000$) and free post-secondary education.

Second of all, the country is clearly divided judging by the way people voted in our last election. The vote was definitely divided regionally. Also, even though the sovereignty movement is dead in Quebec, there are still clashes with the rest of the country regarding equalization payments and language. Then, Alberta feels that it's paying for the rest of the country's way and is growing more and more annoyed. Please don't call this a united confederacy... We can't even give a clear mandate to a government...

In addition, concerning the economic troubles we are facing. Recessions come and go. There will be more economic growth in a near future. Within 2 years we will be back on our feet. Anyway, my idea is definitely not in the plans for the near future. I am simply bringing it up because there is a lack of new constructive ideas in this country. Too much of "Same Old Same Old". What we need is progress, not a political climate that has been stagnant for over 30 years.

In two years we will clearly be in the grip of the worst economic depression the world has ever known. Economic growth is not necessary economic redistribution is. You have not defined progress except as economic growth. The reason we do not have free post secondary education is to make sure that we make no political progress to socialism and offer no threat to the ruling class. So my position is that nothing will help build a stronger more comprehensive Canada like destroying our capitalists and corporatists and making sure they stay destroyed.Without that level of revolutionary change there will be no clearly definable social progress only more and more useless adjustments to the ruling paradigm designed to pacify rather than elevate. Look at global wealth distribution and the gap between rich and poor that in of itself points clearly to the first step in any meaningfull attempt to change.
Last edited by darkbeaver; Nov 8th, 2008 at 10:05 AM..
 
Adriatik
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

In two years we will clearly be in the grip of the worst economic depression the world has ever known. Economic growth is not necessary economic redistribution is. You have not defined progress except as economic growth. The reason we do not have free post secondary education is to make sure that we make no political progress to socialism and offer no threat to the ruling class. So my position is that nothing will help build a stronger more comprehensive Canada like destroying our capitalists and corporatists and making sure they stay destroyed.Without that level of revolutionary change there will be no clearly definable social progress only more and more useless adjustments to the ruling paradigm designed to pacify rather than elevate. Look at global wealth distribution and the gap between rich and poor that in of itself points clearly to the first step in any meaningfull attempt to change.

I am sorry but I do not believe that we will be in the worst economic depression the world has seen in 2 years..

We will not see economic despair like that of the Great Depression because we have since developed economic organizations and monetary policies designed to counter the effects of economic despair. In the 1930s, governments had no such systems, that's why the world was hit so hard by the Great Depression. Now that we have central banks and control interest rates, we are able to sway the economy in the direction we want and accelerate growth. This system will definitively put us back on our feet in the next 2 years.

Now for your comments about the struggle of the social classes, I agree that the classes are unfair but in this country, our lower class is still able to have a relatively decent life due to our social programs. Ideally however, more money is needed for these social programs but in the form of job creation. There are too many people in this country that are healthy enough to work but do not and I find that deplorable. I believe that our government should have a program that finds jobs for the unemployed ad if they refuse the job the government should cut their welfare. There are plenty of jobs out there for the healthy unemployed.

Those who are disabled, ill, single-parents, or mentally challenged deserve welfare payments but the bottom line is that those who are healthy and choose not to work are draining money from the system and this needs to stop. Even if it means working at minimum wage, these healthy unemployed people have a RESPONSIBILITY towards the country to contribute. However, the government should tax the richer classes and corporations to have better social programs for those who cannot work and increase living standards for those working minimum wage and for the middle-class.

As for what goes on on a global stage, it is simply irrelevant to the changes needed in Canada. We need to concentrate on helping Canadians, then once our country's wealth is better distributed, we can help other nations. Until then, we need to keep our money here at home...
 
scratch
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Adriatik View Post

I am sorry but I do not believe that we will be in the worst economic depression the world has seen in 2 years..

We will not see economic despair like that of the Great Depression because we have since developed economic organizations and monetary policies designed to counter the effects of economic despair. In the 1930s, governments had no such systems, that's why the world was hit so hard by the Great Depression. Now that we have central banks and control interest rates, we are able to sway the economy in the direction we want and accelerate growth. This system will definitively put us back on our feet in the next 2 years.

Now for your comments about the struggle of the social classes, I agree that the classes are unfair but in this country, our lower class is still able to have a relatively decent life due to our social programs. Ideally however, more money is needed for these social programs but in the form of job creation. There are too many people in this country that are healthy enough to work but do not and I find that deplorable. I believe that our government should have a program that finds jobs for the unemployed ad if they refuse the job the government should cut their welfare. There are plenty of jobs out there for the healthy unemployed.

Those who are disabled, ill, single-parents, or mentally challenged deserve welfare payments but the bottom line is that those who are healthy and choose not to work are draining money from the system and this needs to stop. Even if it means working at minimum wage, these healthy unemployed people have a RESPONSIBILITY towards the country to contribute. However, the government should tax the richer classes and corporations to have better social programs for those who cannot work and increase living standards for those working minimum wage and for the middle-class.

As for what goes on on a global stage, it is simply irrelevant to the changes needed in Canada. We need to concentrate on helping Canadians, then once our country's wealth is better distributed, we can help other nations. Until then, we need to keep our money here at home...

You make a good case. Unfortunately this is not today's reality.
 
Adriatik
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by scratch View Post

You make a good case. Unfortunately this is not today's reality.

You are right... Today's reality is that too many people are synical. Synicism is change's worst enemy. I for one am optimistic for the future if we are able to bring about the necessary changes. I guess we don't see the same reality.

Most young people are optimistic but do not feel concerned by politics because they know that their voices will be overruled by the older generations because they are a larger population of the country.

As a young man in my 20s, I see exactly what is happening.

I don't only see an inequality between social classes but also between age groups.
I see baby-boomers controlling politics in the country, making legislation based on their values and priorities. Did they ever think about the priorities of younger generations? Did they ever think about the environment or the difficulties we face in paying for post-secondary education? Did they think that younger generations are going to have a hard time supporting the aging population? No they didn't! It's sure going to be hard for us to finance health care and pensions for our elders. They greatly outnumber us. Past governments never stacked cash away knowing that the aging population would one day outnumber the younger generations. It's funny how our parents wanted to give us a better life by having less children not knowing that it would actually cause us great difficulty in the future. These are all problems that need to be resolved here at home first.

After all, i guess this is actually "today's reality" so I'll take my chances with optimism and hope that we can bring change to this country.
 
gerryh
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

The Citizen of Canada ,china ,says a flat YES !




You mean the traitor of Canada.
 
scratch
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Adriatik View Post

You are right... Today's reality is that too many people are synical. Synicism is change's worst enemy. I for one am optimistic for the future if we are able to bring about the necessary changes. I guess we don't see the same reality.

Most young people are optimistic but do not feel concerned by politics because they know that their voices will be overruled by the older generations because they are a larger population of the country.

As a young man in my 20s, I see exactly what is happening.

I don't only see an inequality between social classes but also between age groups.
I see baby-boomers controlling politics in the country, making legislation based on their values and priorities. Did they ever think about the priorities of younger generations? Did they ever think about the environment or the difficulties we face in paying for post-secondary education? Did they think that younger generations are going to have a hard time supporting the aging population? No they didn't! It's sure going to be hard for us to finance health care and pensions for our elders. They greatly outnumber us. Past governments never stacked cash away knowing that the aging population would one day outnumber the younger generations. It's funny how our parents wanted to give us a better life by having less children not knowing that it would actually cause us great difficulty in the future. These are all problems that need to be resolved here at home first.

After all, i guess this is actually "today's reality" so I'll take my chances with optimism and hope that we can bring change to this country.

Stick to what you believe and never waver. Things (although you may think that they don't) change.
Stay the course, never give in. You will surprize yourself.

Sincere Regards,
scratch
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#19
I say no. I forget why as polisci 101 was a loooooong time ago.
 
Risus
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

I find it hysterical that people would suggest that we would have a smaller government under a republic. Look to the USA for an argument against that. They are the single largest socialist country on the planet (but shhhhh don't tell them).

Yep. And how long did their election last?
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Adriatik View Post

I feel that serious changes should be made to the constitution to change Canada into a Federal Presidential Republic.

Jeez, this subject's like a vampire. Every time I start thinking it's dead, somebody pulls the stake out of its heart.

A republic is simply a form of government in which the head of state is elected in some fashion rather than being related to a hereditary monarchy. All Canada need do to become a republic is make the Governor-General an elected position. We wouldn't even have to change the job title. All references to the Crown and the monarch in statutes, regulations, and titles, would have to be altered--no more Court of Queen's Bench, for instance--but those are fairly trivial and don't require any substantive change. Becoming a republic would not in itself necessarily have any positive effect on any of the problems you mention, and might make some of them worse. The President or Governor or Archon or Doge or whatever we choose to name the job, as an elected official can be expected to be partisan. Any incumbent will feel a certain political legitimacy that is not currently associated with the position, and thus entitled to speak out on matters of public policy.

From what you've posted so far, you don't appear to know enough about this to think clearly about it. Regional interests would remain as they are, the structure and functions of parliaments and legislatures could remain as they are, the powers of the two orders of government could remain as they are, the concentration of power in the PMO could remain as it is, the electoral system could remain as it is... Becoming a republic wouldn't in itself require any change in those areas. It's not a solution to anything important and seems likely to just create more issues.
 
s_lone
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Jeez, this subject's like a vampire. Every time I start thinking it's dead, somebody pulls the stake out of its heart.

To really kill a vampire, you need to expose it to light so it can burn and disappear forever. That's what we should do with monarchy. Expose it for the rigid and dogmatic system that it is and get rid of it altogether.


Canada is in complete denial. We claim to be progressive but our national institution has at its core one of the most rigid and dogmatic system of all (hereditary monarchy). The point isn't that the Queen is a bad Head of State. The point is that if she was a bad one, the system would not in any way permit any alternative. It's completely absurd in a supposedly democratic country. There's no difference between a theocracy and a hereditary monarchy in the sense that that the latter constitutes a blind and absolute faith held in the idea that a family lineage will consistently assure a decent and rightful heir to the throne.

I personally find the idea despicable and for that reason, my love for Canada is lessened. It's a sad thing to say, but I can only be true to what I believe is right and I strongly believe hereditary monarchy is screwed up and completely backwards way to decide who's gonna be a Head of State. Canada deserves better than that type of system. Way better.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

A republic is simply a form of government in which the head of state is elected in some fashion rather than being related to a hereditary monarchy. All Canada need do to become a republic is make the Governor-General an elected position. We wouldn't even have to change the job title. All references to the Crown and the monarch in statutes, regulations, and titles, would have to be altered--no more Court of Queen's Bench, for instance--but those are fairly trivial and don't require any substantive change. Becoming a republic would not in itself necessarily have any positive effect on any of the problems you mention, and might make some of them worse. The President or Governor or Archon or Doge or whatever we choose to name the job, as an elected official can be expected to be partisan. Any incumbent will feel a certain political legitimacy that is not currently associated with the position, and thus entitled to speak out on matters of public policy.

And a Head of State shouldn't be entitled to speak out on matters of public policy? What's the point of having a Head of State if he or she is going to be a silent figure with no idea as to how the country should evolve?

The idea that we shouldn't vote for a Head of State because that would make it a partisan position doesn't hold in my opinion. With that kind of reasoning, we wouldn't vote for anyone at all! The people vote for people to represent their own ideas and of course, the people is not one big chunk of citizens who all agree unilaterally. There are divisions and thus partisanry.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

From what you've posted so far, you don't appear to know enough about this to think clearly about it. Regional interests would remain as they are, the structure and functions of parliaments and legislatures could remain as they are, the powers of the two orders of government could remain as they are, the concentration of power in the PMO could remain as it is, the electoral system could remain as it is... Becoming a republic wouldn't in itself require any change in those areas. It's not a solution to anything important and seems likely to just create more issues.

You're right, becoming a republic wouldn't be a solution to anything in itself. Things could either get better or worse depending on what us the people decide to do with the power we have and what the leaders we elect do with the power we give them. But the fact remains that the core of our system is based on a dogmatic and quasi-religious principle which has no place in a modern country like Canada.
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone View Post

And a Head of State shouldn't be entitled to speak out on matters of public policy?

Oh c'mon s_lone, I said nothing of the sort and you know it, though I would suggest that a head of state like ours, with no official role to play in public policy, speaking out on matters of public policy is unlikely to be anything but divisive. My point was that if we change the nature and role of our head of state, the consequences will be largely incalculable and not necessarily for the better, and since nothing is obviously broken, the issue seems pointless to me. I have the same low regard in principle for a hereditary monarch as you do, but I don't see that an elected one is necessarily any better. Consider the outgoing American president, for instance.

One of the strengths of the parliamentary systems that evolved from the British model is that the head of state and the head of government are different people, and the former's role is largely ceremonial. The French figured out that was a good idea too, possibly motivated by inspecting the results of the American model, so they have both an elected head of state, a president, and an elected head of government, a prime minister. They gave the president some important non-ceremonial functions as well, which is pretty much essential if you're going to elect one, otherwise there's no basis on which to choose who to vote for. But that might not have been a good idea. The history of the French republic is rife with disruptive and divisive partisan conflicts between presidents and prime ministers. Wanting to make Canada a republic is very much a case of "be careful what you wish for."
 
Adriatik
No Party Affiliation
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Oh c'mon s_lone, I said nothing of the sort and you know it, though I would suggest that a head of state like ours, with no official role to play in public policy, speaking out on matters of public policy is unlikely to be anything but divisive. My point was that if we change the nature and role of our head of state, the consequences will be largely incalculable and not necessarily for the better, and since nothing is obviously broken, the issue seems pointless to me. I have the same low regard in principle for a hereditary monarch as you do, but I don't see that an elected one is necessarily any better. Consider the outgoing American president, for instance.

One of the strengths of the parliamentary systems that evolved from the British model is that the head of state and the head of government are different people, and the former's role is largely ceremonial. The French figured out that was a good idea too, possibly motivated by inspecting the results of the American model, so they have both an elected head of state, a president, and an elected head of government, a prime minister. They gave the president some important non-ceremonial functions as well, which is pretty much essential if you're going to elect one, otherwise there's no basis on which to choose who to vote for. But that might not have been a good idea. The history of the French republic is rife with disruptive and divisive partisan conflicts between presidents and prime ministers. Wanting to make Canada a republic is very much a case of "be careful what you wish for."


You say that if nothing is obviously broken in this country, changing the system is useless...

Obviously, you are having troubble seeing the obvious.. Do you find it normal that provinces have been arguing for over 40 years regarding autonomy issues? Do you find it normal that since the beginning of the millenium, we have already had 4 elections? 4 elections in 8 years. Anyone who finds this normal has gone mad.

Nothing is getting done at parliament because of these frequent elections of minority governments. Nothing is getting done due to the fear of change that our politicians are haunted with.

And regarding your comments regarding head of state and head of government:

I think that the head of state should be the same person as the head of government. I see no reason to have two different people in these postions.. For starters. it's a waste of taxpayer money, and it would put a fork in the road for a government in power. The role of the head of government is to govern, not to struggle against the will of a head of state. If the head of government constantly has to argue with the head of state to get legislation passed, no progress can be made in a nation. So if Canada would ever become a republic, the head of state and head of government would have to be the same person person.

Call me a partisan but I don't see the point of giving a mandate to a government if it doesn't call the shots in the end...
 
Tonington
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Wanting to make Canada a republic is very much a case of "be careful what you wish for."

And reminds one of the law of unintended consequences. It's striking that folks who strive for this sort of more democratization don't see the problems inherent with more politicization. Students of history should know better what the latter leads to, and simple current comparisons make the former pretty obvious.
 
EagleSmack
#26
Become a Republic and then you can have a cool Battle Hymn

The Union Forever!
Huzzah Boys Huzzah
Down with the traitors
And up with the Stars
And we'll Rally Round the Flag Boys...
We'll Rally Round the Flag...
Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom!
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Become a Republic and then you can have a cool Battle Hymn

The Union Forever!
Huzzah Boys Huzzah
Down with the traitors
And up with the Stars
And we'll Rally Round the Flag Boys...
We'll Rally Round the Flag...
Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom!

Who's that? UAW or Teamsters?
 
EagleSmack
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Who's that? UAW or Teamsters?

US Civil War... Battle Hymn of the Republic.
 
Adriatik
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

US Civil War... Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Why are you guys even talking about battle hymns in the first place?

If Canada becomes a republic, there will definitely never be a civil war...

If Canada would have ever had a chance of civil war, it would have been in 1980 or 1995...
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

US Civil War... Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Is my face red? Last three lines are familiar....

*wolf sits to another feast on crow*
 

Similar Threads

10
Coming to Canada
by farazthambi | May 13th, 2014
97
The Republic of Canada
by Cobalt_Kid | Mar 6th, 2010
63
Canada: A Banana Republic?
by Trex | Dec 9th, 2008
5
coming to canada disabled
by tmapj | Dec 8th, 2005