Comments on: Do you take issue with Governor General Michaëlle Jean's recent claim to being Canada's "head of state"?

By: Sue

Sue — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:15:41 +0000

The Gov should run the country & let Michaelle Jean be the rep for the Queen while she is not in Canada

By: Bob Dean

Bob Dean — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:10:42 +0000

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.

By: Gilbert B.

Gilbert B. — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:43 +0000

Yes you right. We should get rid of the monarchy, the GG should also be scrapped and declare ourself a republic and have a President (old GG position ) and have an elected Senate and remove those sleeping old ANTS that are spending our money.

By: Canada

Canada — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:40:14 +0000

Please tell me what the the U.S. has to do with Canadians wanting a head of state who lives in their country and identifies as Canadian? You're an idiot, if the only reason you can find for keeping the monorachy is "anti-Americanism."

Get it through your skull: it's NOT about the U.S. but Canada. It's time to get rid of an ancient, expensive colonial machine. It's the 21st century.

By: Canada

Canada — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:32:23 +0000

It is sad that anti-Americanism is driving the support for the monarchy in Canada and not the monarchy itself. That some Canadians cannot stand on their own two feet and feel they must cling to an out-dated, expensive symbol of colonialism is SAD. The monarchy cost us $50 mil plus a year to maintain. The head of our state lives in a foreign country, doesn't speak with our accent and doesn't identify herself with us.

If Canada wants a separate head of state, then keep the GG, but sever her ties from the Monarchy of England.
When will these "monarchist" Canadians get some self-respect and start recognizing how silly the monarchy is? They don't care for Canada.

By: William

William — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:21:14 +0000

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.

By: William

William — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 04:55:08 +0000

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.

By: responder

responder — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:56:53 +0000

Queen Elizabeth ll is Canadian.

By: Ed_Sweeney

Ed_Sweeney — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:46:00 +0000

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?

By: Deanna

Deanna — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:40:01 +0000

I really don’t care, but what makes my blood boil is the phrase “The Harper Government”. I believe it is the Canadian Government

By: Lyn

Lyn — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:38:15 +0000

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.???

By: skyroamer

skyroamer — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 05:38:57 +0000

Wrong! The GG is only the Queen's REPRESENTATIVE in Canada. Therefore the Queen is Head of State and as the GG only represents her is technically not the head of state. The government thus has the right to object for the Queen.

By: Michel Brazeau

Michel Brazeau — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:53:05 +0000

I didn't bother voting… I fall into the category "NONE OF THE ABOVE" or, more specifically…"Who cares? – not me"

By: Jeet

Jeet — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:49:06 +0000

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.

By: Walter

Walter — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:47:41 +0000

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?

By: Thumper

Thumper — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:59:18 +0000

Nope

By: AMW

AMW — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:47:48 +0000

"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.

By: Joanne

Joanne — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:05:49 +0000

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.

By: gilles plamondon

gilles plamondon — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:57:17 +0000

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.

By: ElectroPig™ Von FökkenGrüüven

ElectroPig™ Von FökkenGrüüven — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:28:23 +0000

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!

By: Les

Les — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:16:29 +0000

We put up with the monarchy because it would be too divisive to get rid of it. Though I'm not aware of any big movement in Quebec to get rid of the Queen, I can readily imagine the cries of "Kow-towing to Quebec" from parts of English Canada if we started talking about severing our connection with the monarchy. Another reason: most of us cling to anything that makes us different from the USA, not because we're stupid, just because that's the way the human mind works, defining by differences. Australia, being farther from the US and having no French minority, is much more receptive to the idea. Finally, the present system works fine; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm 50.1 % in favor of keeping the connection.

By: Claire

Claire — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:41:01 +0000

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.

By: bernie37

bernie37 — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:19:02 +0000

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.

By: Armin

Armin — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:15:07 +0000

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.

By: Armin

Armin — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:14:20 +0000

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.

By: Linda

Linda — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:09:01 +0000

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.

By: JohnH

JohnH — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:02:15 +0000

I used to be for the monarchy but since ‘CHARLES’ arrived on the scene what a joke. Appointing a seperatist was also a stupid move. Let’s save money and get rid of the whole thing.

By: Ron Babula

Ron Babula — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:35:43 +0000

Down with the parasitic British royal family .They have no relevence in 21st century Canada and almost no support . If they cost Canada a dime this year it's money wasted . Let's vote to give the bums a boot .

By: @Rose215

@Rose215 — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:56:45 +0000

Why? Lots of people agree that Jean has overstepped her position.

By: Cathy

Cathy — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:56:01 +0000

At this point in Canada's civilized development and independence….I see no place for a monarchy let alone her representative. If the Brits wish to pay dearly for this very expensive symbolism, that's there decision. It's time that Canada votes to eliminate it's relationship with the monarchy. It's expensive and a tradition that no longer has any relevancy nor meaningful purpose. Something akin to our senate.

By: r.craig

r.craig — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:57:16 +0000

Rules are rules so we go by them, if you do not llike them make every effort to change it.

By: browndog

browndog — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:12:44 +0000

I think it would be a good idea to enroll her in a political science course specializing in the British and Canadian Constitutions, as well as a Canadian Geography course (another subject in which she could use some tutoring!

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:43:13 +0000

I agree. Cuz, Charles will never be out King.

By: Teeves

Teeves — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:55:16 +0000

How can there be this much confusion over an issue so clear? No wonder we cannot elect a majority government. We can't even decide what is the right answer to a question when is is written right in the constitution. The queen is the Head of State. The GG is just a representative that carries out the Queen's duty. It should be pretty obvious who is in power when the Queen can fire the GG at anytime and appoint a new one. The Queen has all the power and carries the title. She just does not care enough to do the work herself so she delegates.

By: CdnRiviera

CdnRiviera — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:51:25 +0000

While I think we should be moving on to a system of government that doesn't involve a foreign monarch (yes, yes, I know she's our Queen, but she's a Brit and not many of us are anymore), we haven't done our homework yet. I have yet to hear or read of a viable alternative, and we have to know where we're going before we abandon a quaint but very serviceable form of government. No political party currently has enough of the public's confidence to proceed down that path yet; the statesmanship requirements are beyond the current batch.
'Abolishing the Monarchy' is a strong phrase that more reflects the attitude of the speaker than the nature of the process we'll have to go through to achieve a made-in-Canada solution. Once Liz hangs up her glove, we're going to realize how shaky the bullpen is. Her kids are an odd lot, and we're going to be facing the heir's (whichever) credibility shortcomings before too long.
Time to start thinking seriously about Constitutional reform.

By: Dick Richards

Dick Richards — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:38:41 +0000

That isn't my stance DW or the point that I was trying to get across, I was simply highlighting how hard it is to criticize the American president (though for the record a right to protest and a right to protest at a funeral are two very different things)

By: Peter12

Peter12 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:10:46 +0000

This is all about some Quebeckers who are running the Governor General's office poking a stick in the eye of the Queen. Who in their right mind thinks this is Governor Jean's idea.

By: Sigh

Sigh — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:39:59 +0000

Judging from the first reply to your comment, it would appear that the answer to your question " Have they utterly given up teaching this crap in school?! ", is yes.

By: SeanStok

SeanStok — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:43:00 +0000

will do.

By: Jiminee

Jiminee — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:04:09 +0000

The state to the south claims to be the "champion of democracy" for the whole world. Democracy is supposed to be a government BY the people FOR the people, YET the Reps and Senators and President are paid hundreds of millions of dollars by the wealthy Lobbyists to vote in favour of the lobbyists—appears to be a gov't system that caters to the RICH only ! ! and exploits the rest. I prefer Canada.

By: PhilCP

PhilCP — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:19:41 +0000

Keep up the good fight.

By: ...

... — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:22:36 +0000

Exactly and that's how thing operate in Canada especially when you have an unqualified nitwit (or CBC broadcaster, same thing) like MJ as GG.

By: SeanStok

SeanStok — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:20:51 +0000

"technically she could decide to seize ultimate power at any time"

"neither the gg or the queen/westminster can make any changes to the Constitution since it was patriated in the Constitution Act 1982"

How do you reconcile those two?

By: Check your grammar

Check your grammar — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:18:53 +0000

That would be prorogue.

By: Ottawa student

Ottawa student — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:14:34 +0000

The queen and the gg are not responsible to the people in any way shape or form. In fact, the gg is more like the dictator of Canada because technically she could decide to seize ultimate power at any time . That being said, neither the gg or the queen/westminster can make any changes to the Constitution since it was patriated in the Constitution Act 1982.