Categories: Polls
Print
Comment
85 Responses to “Do you take issue with Governor General Michaëlle Jean’s recent claim to being Canada’s “head of state”?”
- Col. Russell Williams' double life? - 127 Comments
- Credibility is what’s really melting - 326 Comments
- Maxime Bernier unplugged - 96 Comments
- Shy Adam Lambert comes to town - 62 Comments
- Our banking rules are smarter, not tighter - 36 Comments
Contrary to popular belief, the ceremonial lighting of the Olympic flame at the Opening Ceremonies is, in fact, a decidedly modern affair. The culmination of the torch relay in a grandiose display at the Opening Ceremonies is a relic of the 1936 Berlin Games—just one of many attempts by the Nazi regime to lend a mythical air to the Games. Still, despite its dubious history, the lighting of the cauldron has evolved into one of the most spectacular and ostentatious displays at the Games. And the secretiveness that surrounds the lead-up to the ceremony only lends to the hype.
When it comes to the 2010 Games, the speculation about who will be selected to light the cauldron has coalesced around whether VANOC will go the traditional route and opt for a former Olympian or take the road less-travelled and pick someone from outside the sports world. Facebook groups have popped up promoting everyone from Terry Fox’s mother, Betty, to former Vancouver Canucks captain Trevor Linden. So far, Vancouver’s Olympic organizers have kept a tight lid on who the potential candidates might be. We’ve assembled a list of the names making the rounds, but feel free to add your own in the poll or in the comments below.
From Macleans
Health
Could cows hold the cure for Crohn’s?
A pathogen found in cattle may lead to a cure for Crohn’s disease
Andrew Coyne
Our banking rules are smarter, not tighter
ANDREW COYNE: Obama’s banking reforms would make the U.S. and Canadian systems even less alike than they are at present
Beyond The Commons
The Commons: Jack Layton doing as Jack Layton does
In all sorts of ways, it’s difficult to imagine him ever stopping
Arts & Culture
Shy Adam Lambert comes to town
The ‘American Idol’ runner-up shares his views on gays on TV and the ‘closed-minded’
Colby Cosh
The Wardrobe Malfunction Paradox
Colby Cosh on the current state of the Super Bowl halftime show—and how to fix it
Arts & Culture
Tales of over-the-top Christmas
In a wealthy suburb, a writer discovers people who take celebrating to a whole new level
Newsmakers
Friend in high places, Dog tired and Bubba’s other bombshell
Newsmakers of the week
There is a generation which still feels a strong connection to the Queen and and the monarchy. That generation is reflected in the fact that only 30% of your respondents want to abolish the Queen's position as head of state. I both hope and believe that when the time comes for the crown of England to pass on to Charles or William, that some of the other countries in the Commonwealth, including Australia and Canada, will take the opportunity to change their constitutions in uch a way as to eliminate the monarchy from their governing hierarchy. I hope that somewhere in the morass of government red tape, someone is working on how to do that without a major hitch.
I cannot believe that there is so much hate expressed here. What has the queen done to you? Personally I feel that there is nothing wrong with the queen. But……… she is not Canadian. It does not really matter who is the head of state, whether it is a monarch (if you like the pomp and ceremony and old traditions) or if it is an elected or appointed official i.e. a president. Please do not get this mixed up with an American style president who actually runs the country. Look at the European countries that have a fully functional government with lower and upper houses and a president who is the final safeguard and has to do the final signature on any new piece of law. The government itself is run by the prime minister or chancellor or whatever. This solution would also work well for Canada today. But if Canadians want to keep the monarchy, then why on earth do they not get their own king or queen?
There is a length limit here, so I continue in the next comment.
Continued:
Pick somebody from the British royal family and move him/her to Canada and let him/her be the royal and the head of state. Once they have kids, it will continue by itself. It does not really have to be much more expensive either then a president or governor general. The European northern countries like Denmark and Norway run their monarchy very lean and efficiently.
I have been a landed immigrant in Canada now for over 40 years and I am here because I love it here and not because I have to be here. I do not need a Canadian passport like many immigrants from other countries. I have an excellent passport which lets me travel to any country without restrictions. Why have I not taken out citizenship? Because I find it just too difficult to swear an oath to a queen that does not live here and is really another countries’ queen. Sorry, I cannot connect there , even if she is a nice old lady.
Interesting idea – picking a member of the Royal Family to be our resident Canadian Head of State! That would no doubt be the easiest and simplest solution . No long constitutional discussions or debates. But you and I know that will never happen, unfortunately.
As far as I'm concerned she is the head of state. The Queen is when she is here. As soon as the Queen leaves, Mdm Jean is.
Eliminate the monarchy from our country.
BTW I never wish to see our head of state being from another country, nor her representative. I want our own elected head of state.
As the Queen's representative in Canada, she IS the de facto "Head of State" and I have absolutely no issue with this – why is anyone even bothering to give this the time of day – as if it actually matters?? If everyone is so hot under the collar, then an act should be brought before parliament to completely separate Canada from the sovreingnty (sic). We've already had the BNA Act – not far reaching enough for you all? One comment noted that Harper might "pay" for his rebuke – perhaps the next time parliament needs to be proroged, there MIGHT be a wee problem, but I somehow doubt it; not needed often, so again, what's the issue here – got too much time on your hands? There are far more pressing items like economic recovery.
I fail to see how this affects anyone, and I believe that this is nothing more than a way to deflect attention from real and important issues which the Canadian public are left unaware of, or deliberately misinformed about.
We have the same type of FIAT currency as the USA (based on high-grade AIR), the same fractional reserve monetary system which leads to inflation, and we are about to implement the same failed policy as the USA which will bankrupt Canada. This policy is the mandatory minimum sentence” legislation (Bill C-15) which will incarcerate hundreds of thousands of non-violent Canadians, as it has incercerated nearly a million US citizens last year.
We are about to enact “health legislation” (Bill C-6) which will remove a great number of proven natural health products from access, or from access without a prescription, or which will severely restrict the amount of a given natural substance so that it is nearly completely ineffectual. (Vitamin C, etc.)
We need to stop allowing ourselves to be sidetracked by non-issues and start paying attention to those things which WILL affect us! Stop playing THEIR games!
my point is, while we may vote for a different symbolic figure to represent Canada, one should not forget that we are a democratic state and as such our views are important to those who influence changes in government, but let us do it in a way that would reflect democracy.
Harper should lighten up. She performs official functions on behalf of the Queen, so…. she is her representative in this country and head of state in her absence.
"I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen."
You'll notice that the Oath of Citizenship doesn't make any mention of the GG. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is Canada's head of state. Yes, I do take issue with the GG claiming to be Canada's head of state because it is a lie.
The queen is part of Canada history as well as first nation treaties. You can make a friendly abolish to both and became a Republic that will include Quebec. This is the homework for others to talk how?
I am all for dumping the Monarchy but that doesn't give this affirmative action-political appointee from the CBC the right to beak off. What is she, the fifth CBC employee in the job. Hardly an institution keeping the government honest when they are all vying for a cushy job.
I didn't bother voting… I fall into the category "NONE OF THE ABOVE" or, more specifically…"Who cares? – not me"
The Queen is still the head of state. what does it matter that she is not here. I believe the day they eliminate the Queen as our Head, Canada will definitely become part of the US. Do we want that.???
I really don’t care, but what makes my blood boil is the phrase “The Harper Government”. I believe it is the Canadian Government
I am a little curious, did you get boiled up with the phrases, 'The Trudeau Government', 'The Chretien Government', and 'The Martin Government'? Is it a semantic problem you have with it, or just a political one?
The Queen of Canada is Head of State, the Governor General is her representative. End of discussion. As the present reign is coming to a close, it may be time to discuss openly whether Canada should continue its affiliation to the British Crown, British symbols no longer defining this country. However, as long as this affiliation is still in place, HM The Queen deserves our loyalty and respect. PS The Royal Family is paid for entirely by British, not Canadian , taxpayers.
The third choice is really a double one and should be separated into its two parts.
1 I don't care
2 Down with the monarchy
As a result of this double prong I can't vote. I say 'yes' to 1 but 'no' to 2.