Just because we aren't a colony anymore, doesn't mean I have any interest in becoming a Republic, although I'm willing to look into who is meant by "Crown".

But please don't tell the rest of us we have to be like you. The Queen is a foreigner. She got booted out of India, booted out of Ireland, and she'll be booted out of Canada.

Why maintain the tradition? Just to keep the tradition, is that the only reason -because it makes a few people happy as they sip their tea?

British people are different than us. The Queen is, as you say, a Canadian. But seriously, only legally. Not culturally. Walk the streets of London, Manchester, Birmingham. Then come back to Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto. Do you still think we're British?

That said, if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the government of the day to open up the constitution and get the House of Commons, the Senate, and all ten provincial legislatures to agree to change our current system to something else. I really don't see that actually happening.

Anyway, whatever system we get a broad consensus on is fine with me. I have my favourites, but the one that we have isnt stopping us from doing anything right now so hakunna mattatta

Anyway, whatever system we get a broad consensus on is fine with me. I have my favourites, but the one that we have isnt stopping us from doing anything right now so hakunna mattatta

But Jenn makes a valid point though.

I simply object to any notion that we can do so by simply closing our eyes and pretending the Constitution doesn't exist.

I fully support the right of any Canadian to draft an amendment to the Constitution changing the nature of the position of Head of State, and to go to work getting the House of Commons, the Senate, and all ten provincial legislatures to support such an amendment.

I don't think Trudeau cared particularly one way or the other. The Premiers' response was basically "over our dead bodies" though.

It absolutely boggles my mind that we're even having this discussion at all.

Are you sure?

'Cause people seem to be doing that all over the place today.

No, of course not. It says it right there in the Letters Patent of 1947. The powers have been transferred, but the Queen retains the power at all times to take those powers back.

A good book on this is Ted McWhinney's The Making and Unmaking of Governments. The last chapter deals with the future role of the GG as Canada's Head of State, etc.

Here I'm a little less clear, but I think in theory we could also explicitly allow the Canadian Sovereign to marry a Catholic, or be a Catholic, but that's a point which would be moot, as that has yet to be changed in Britain, where it's much more complicated what with a state church, and the Sovereign being the head thereof.

But then, I happen to believe that two of the biggest problem areas are as a result of a misinterpretation over the years, so maybe others aren't as awestruck as I am.

Now, one argument for keeping Queen Elizabeth is simply that it is too hard to amend the Canadian constitution anyway, so we may as well keep her. However, she also serves a valuable purpose in practice. Our system gives the governor-general a great deal of power on paper. Legally, a governor-general can dissolve parliament, for instance, or appoint a new PM (my understanding is that requiring a confidence vote is a convention, and the 3-5 year limit on elections have been breached on at least two occasions – during WWI and in the 2008 election).

In practice the temperament of governor-generals has been pretty kosher, with the possible exception of Byng. They realize that they are figureheads. Still, since in practice they are appointed by the PM you can have some pretty partisan folks on the job. Jeanne Sauve was a Liberal cabinet minister. Ramon Hnatyshyn was a Tory cabinet minister. It is a position open to abuse.

The Queen is a backstop against possible abuse because she can remove errant governors general. Who governs the Queen? The institution itself. If the Queen ever abused her power, there would be an outcry and she would be removed. Because the monarchy is hereditary, she has a long-term interest in avoiding such an occurrence, since it is in her interest to bequeath this dominion to her progeny. The Queen would only intervene in extremely rare situations by definition – where she could be certain there would be no backlash to remove her.

In other words, by having both a head of state and a representative we get the institutional advantages of a monarchy (long-term interests) and of appointment (the Queen's representative is usually a somewhat meritocratic appointment). Unlike the Americans, whose system of checks and balances induce constant gridlock, our system wisely promotes few checks and balances on the business of government (micro-politics), but many (a Queen and a governor general, plus institutional obstacles like the amending formula) on constitutional macropolitics which reflect our core values.

GG serves as the head of state (as opposed to is the head of state)

Even if the only task of the Head of State is to appoint someone, with the advice of her first minister, to take over any and all duties that a head of state would normally do (whether those duties are previously defined as duties of the Queen or duties of the GG is irrelevant, I think), the Crown is still the head of state. If the Queen's role has evolved over the years such that the GG takes on permanently duties which previously she performed only in the absence of the Queen, there is your living law in action. The hard and fast written laws from which this evolution springs haven't changed because of it.

However, this update has changed my mind about the firing of Michaelle Jean. I now better understand how she could make such a mistake. I think Harper, especially now that he's publicly rebuked her, will have to go through all government documentation and remove any reference to the GG as more than a de facto head of state.

If there is a formal change, as opposed to an in practice change, then this should and I would argue MUST be a constitutional change. When informal practice runs up against formal powers the powers win or a an ammendment is struck….the infomal evoilutionary stuff is all around convention (how and when the power is used, not if it exists)

LOL.

Seriously, I think we need to pass some sort of law forcing everyone in the country to go back and re-take grade eight history.

The ignorance in Canada as to the basic structures of our governance is shocking.

Poppycock.

Who says we don't "let" the Queen represent Canada abroad? I've seen video of her doing that very thing! As for not "letting" her accept the credentials of Ambassadors, you're taking the implication a step WAY too far. "We don't need to bother the Queen with this, and it's more convenient for the GG to take care of it" is MILES away from "We no longer recognize the Queen's power to do this".

Find me a passage where the Government says the Queen CAN'T accept the credentials of ambassadors and I'll show you a passage where the Government of Canada spits on the constitution.

I think this episode makes clear how undefined our GG/Constitution is. How many other countries are not clear on whether their Head of State is, in fact, their Head of State?

But she's not our Head of State.