How the term “head of state” is actually used in Canada

Some comments on previous posts insist there’s no ambiguity about who is Canada’s head of state. They assert, “It’s the Queen!”

Maybe it should be that clear. But the reality is that even eminent constitutional experts do not always make a clean distinction between Queen and Governor General when it comes to discussion of Canada’s head of state.

A recent example from Andrew Heard, a political science professor at Simon Fraser University, and author of Canadian Constitutional Convention: The Marriage of Law and Politics, illustrates my point.

In his essay “The Governor General’s Decision to Prorogue Parliament: Parliamentary Democracy Defended or Endangered,” published early this year as an occasional paper by University of Alberta’s Centre for Constitutional Studies, Heard writes about the exercise of the GG’s so-called “reserve powers,” those rare cases where the GG uses discretion instead of simply following orders from a prime minister and cabinet:

“These reserve powers are the practical reason why the role of head of state (Queen or governor general) is separated from the head of government (prime minister) in all parliamentary systems. The office of governor general (and lieutenant governor at the provincial level) exists in order to ensure the proper functioning of parliamentary government. In some ways, the head of state acts like a referee to ensure the political actors play according to the rules, so that the business of government can continue.”

Now, is it not a fair to say that this passage would leave any reader with the impression that the GG either is the head of state or at least shares that designation with the Queen?

I’m not saying, “Aha! Here’s the proof about who is and who isn’t head of state!” I’m pointing out how the term “head of state” is actually used. We should acknowledge that “head of state” is not a label that can be easily affixed in Canada today. It would seem to apply best to the Queen in some contexts, the Governor General in others. And so that’s how the use of the term has evolved—to reflect that reality.

It’s used that way by experts like Heard, in government documents like Library and Archives Canada’s primer on the executive branch in Canadian government, and of course in past annual reports of governors-general.

Those who would prefer that “head of state” be applied exclusively to the Queen don’t have to like the way Gov.-Gen. Michaelle Jean used the term to describe herself, but they shouldn’t imagine that Jean was breaking new ground here.




Browse

How the term “head of state” is actually used in Canada

  1. Can a head of state be fired? Because Jean sure can.

    • Can she? Enlighten us. Where in the Constitution can someone fire her? Presumably it could only be the Queen so it should be easy enough to locate for us all.

    • Yes, of course heads of state can be fired.

      To cite just one example, in Iran the highest body of the Iranian poltical system, the Assembly of Experts, has only one function: to hire and fire the head of state. In many other countries, the head of state is elected.

      • We aren't talking about Iran Ray. We are talking about Canada, the Governor General of Canada and the Queen.

        Do you think the Queen can fire the Governor General? It is an interesting question.

        I don't think she could, frankly, having looked at the Constitution but not being a constitutional scholar. But you folks seem to think Betsy could kick Michaelle out the door if it pleased her to do so. So, please show us all where this authority exists. Because it is not in the Constitution. In fact, the Queen has "vested" all her powers to the GG and as far as I am aware you cannot just simply choose to "unvest" at will.

    • Does that mean we can also fire the Queen?

      Not that we would want to, but just for discussion's sake.

      *whistles*

      • My point was that even if the Queen can fire the Governor General–or more precisely appoint a new Governor General before the current Governor General's term has expired–that would not necessarily imply that the GG is not the head of state.

  2. I would propose something truly journalistically radical: get constitutional law experts (law, not poli-sci, profs, please) on the phone, and ask them the following yes-or-no questions.

    1. Is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Canada's head of state?
    2. Is Governor-General Michaelle Jean Canada's head of state?
    3. Does the delegation of some or all of the powers constitutionally established for a given office transform the delegate into the actual holder of those powers?

  3. I would propose something truly journalistically radical: rather than finely parsing a passing reference in a paper on a tangential subject, get constitutional law experts on the phone (law profs, not poli-sci profs, please), and ask them the following yes-or-no questions.

    1. Is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Canada's head of state?
    2. Is Governor-General Michaelle Jean Canada's head of state?
    3. Does the delegation of some or all of the powers constitutionally established for a given office transform the delegate into the actual holder of those powers?

    • It's totally crazy to me that we should have to go through this exercise, but we really should if only to stop people from perpetuating this myth that this is all just SO COMPLICATED.

      Yes.
      No.
      No.

      Please God let us move on.

      • No.
        Yes.
        Yes.

        The Governor General is Canada's Head of State. Case Closed. No foreigner can ever be Canada's Head of State. Period.

    • I would recommend something anonymous-blog-commenter radical: rather than posting seemingly clever rhetorical questions in a completely transparent effort to ignore the issue of the post and make a partisan point – try considering the actual context and nuance of the post and engage in the discussion accordingly.

    • I'd say these are pretty simple questions. The Sovereign is Canada's de jure head of state in a formal sense. The Governor-General is, however, is vested with all the powers of the Sovereign in Canada and so functions as the de facto head of state. I'm quite happy to keep the Queen around (though her progeny…?), but I think that the Monarchist League types are sadly out of touch if they think that most Canadians think any foreign resident should have any actual powers as head of state.

  4. "Stupid" and "Crazed" sure are quick off the mark.

    • As is "Ignorant," apparently.

      • I heard Palin picked her nose and ate it the other day…Or so the liberal media reported

  5. "But the reality is that even eminent constitutional experts do not always make a clean distinction between Queen and Governor General when it comes to discussion of Canada's head of state."

    That's a matter of pragmatic shorthand. Because the GG is the Queen's acting agent, and because the GG doesn't need to call up Her Highness to clear decisions, it's stylistically cleaner to sometimes refer to her as the head of state – in the context of certain procedural discussions. And it's done with the understanding that the Queen is the real deal, and the GG is the appointed representative (albeit, with great autonomy).

    For the record, I think Canada might be ready to consider cutting our ties to the Queen, and instead make our GG the absolute head of state. But that's another debate.

    Also, I think calling out Jean publicly was incredibly bad form, unless polite and discrete attempts were rebuffed.

    P.S.: I'm going to show my wife all your blog posts from today, the next time she accuses *me* of being stubborn! :)

    • I'm not even sure it is correct to say the GG is the Queen's agent. The Queen has "vested" all of her powers to the GG, given them to her.

      The Constitution is full of a lot of archane legal language but that the meaning of the language is not changed just because we don't use it anymore.

      Part of the problem lies in the inconsistent language of the Constitution as it relates to the GG.

      Sometimes, the Constitution explicitly says all powers are “vested in and exerciseable” in the GG. Other times, it says the GG acts “on behalf and in the Name of the Queen” or “in the Queen's Name” for specific enumerated functions like summoning persons to the senate. And in other times the “in the name of” language is absent. Bills are presented to “the Governor General for the Queen's Assent”. There is quite a bit of inconsistency. [cont...]

    • I take that back.

      According to her website and on the ground reality, she is the commander in chief.

      The Constitution, however, says otherwise: "15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue to be vested in the Queen."

    • Yes, but we should keep in mind that the Governor General is the Commander-in-Chief, basically, because the Sovereign wrote a letter saying "The Governor General is Commander in Chief".

      As Sovereign, the Queen could (though never would) simply write another letter saying "I'm taking back the role of Commander in Chief".

      • I suppose it depends upon how she gave it in the first place. If it was power vested in the GG, she can't unless some authority was reserved for the sovereign.

        • That may be a fair point, however my main point still stands in that the Governor General is Commander in Chief because our Head of State MADE the Governor General Commander in Chief. I have a feeling the Queen could still write new letters patent overriding the 1947 letters patent, but she most certainly never would, so it's an interesting but nonetheless moot point regardless.

          One thing the letters patent didn't do? Make the Governor General our Head of State. In fact, if there's one power I'm quite certain the Sovereign doesn't have, and that's making someone else Canada's Head of State.

      • Monarchist League types are sadly out of touch if they think that most Canadians think any foreign resident should have any actual powers as head of state.

  6. When I was a Canadian Political Science Teaching Assistant we always taught first year students that the answer to this question (which was invariably on exams) was "Canada's Head of State is The Queen as represented in Canada by the Governor General".

    What this means in practice has never been tested. If The Queen was in Canada and a constitutional crisis broke out, would she push the GG aside at the ribbon cutting ceremony and start calling the shots?

    Who knows…?

    • The central issue *is* the ambiguity. And I support. that. If definitions are too strict or powers are too codified, you get what the Americans went through for the last eight years. Language parsing and legalism that permitted Bush to behave like a despot…legally, so that he in fact could not be stopped.

      • Do you think Bush would have acted more or less like a despot if the legal language was more vague and less codified? I think he would have taken more advantage personally, but I hear your point.

        • No. It's the legalism that remains the issue for the Americans. They need some mechanism, other than a military coup or a popular revolt. to remove an administration when the separation of powers breaks down, as it clearly did during the Bush administration.

          It has surprised the heck of me how supportive I've become of constitutional monarchy over the last decade.

    • If the Queen 'were' in Canada..subjunctive mood, indicative case. JC

  7. The Queen is as much the actual head of state as she is the one who actually "makes" laws and just as much as it is the Privy Council (i.e. the government) is "chosen and summoned by the Governor General" and just as much as the Governor General could actually "from Time to Time [be] removed by the Governor General".

    There is a lot of archaic stuff in our Constitution. A lot of formal and official that does not reflect reality or even legal reality.

    Could the Queen actually choose to change the Constitution and fire Harper if she wanted? Technically and formally yes. So could the Governor General. Would anyone accept that, including the Supreme Court? Not for a second.

  8. Thank you for clearing this up…as much as it can be cleared up. Unfortunately, too many people have already made up their minds and don't want to be confused with facts. It seems to me that the real issue is Harper's public 'correction' of the GG. Was it really necessary for him to try to embarrass her? Are we going to spend days debating this issue when there are more immediate issues to be dealt with?

  9. Maybe a clearer way to think of it: when there is a state funeral of some past head of state in another country to which the heads of state of other countries are invited to attend, are Canadians and Harper's defenders here satisfied with representation from the Queen? Doesn't it seem silly to have two representatives attend – the Queen (or her rep, usually Charles or Phillip) and the GG – the head of state and an underling?

    All of which is to bring it back to the real issue: is it such a big deal that in one speech she made a passing reference to being the head of state? And such a big deal that it required the Prime Minister to immediately issue a reprimand/correction?

  10. For crying out loud, Geddes. In your very last post you pointed out that this is not clear-cut:
    "I'm not arguing that there's an open-and-shut case for the GG being head of state. But this is not a straightforward matter. "

    Now, you're suggesting that the whole thing is pretty open-shut and that those of us who think Jean was way out of line are "imagining" things:
    "Those who would prefer that “head of state” be applied exclusively to the Queen don't have to like the way Gov.-Gen. Michaelle Jean used the term to describe herself, but they shouldn't imagine that Jean was breaking new ground here."

    Looks to me like you'd made up your mind from the get-go but wanted to project objectivity while you searched for supporting evidence, so you wrote a post about how the issue is complicated. Then you abandoned all that to post your defense of Jean's overreaching.

    This is not clear-cut, on that you were right. And those of us who think Jean is overreaching are taking one (perfectly reasonable) side of a murky issue.

  11. For crying out loud, Geddes. In your very last post you pointed out that this is not clear-cut:
    "I'm not arguing that there's an open-and-shut case for the GG being head of state. But this is not a straightforward matter. "

    Now, you're suggesting that the whole thing is pretty open-shut and that those of us who think Jean was way out of line are "imagining" things:
    "Those who would prefer that “head of state” be applied exclusively to the Queen don't have to like the way Gov.-Gen. Michaelle Jean used the term to describe herself, but they shouldn't imagine that Jean was breaking new ground here."

    Looks to me like you'd made up your mind from the get-go but wanted to project objectivity while you searched for supporting evidence, so you wrote a post about how the issue is complicated. Then you abandoned all that to post your defense of Jean's actions.

    This is not clear-cut, on that you were right. And those of us who think Jean is overreaching are taking one (perfectly reasonable) side of a murky issue.

    • For crying out loud, Geddes…

      Why do you right wingers always yell at everyone?

      • Well at least we never make generalizations.

  12. … The Queen does retain some explicit rights:

    “It shall be lawful for the Queen, if Her Majesty thinks fit, to authorize the Governor General from Time to Time appoint any Person” to act as deputy GG.
    “The Command-in-Chief of the[Military] is hereby declared to continue to be vested in the Queen.”
    “Until the Queen otherwise directs, the Seat of Government of Canada shall be Ottawa.”

    Under common law, the fact that she vests her powers in the GG and then expressly retains some specific powers means that the Queen no longer has the powers she did not expressly retain. Similarly the fact that sometimes “in the name of” is used and sometimes not has some legal import.

    Personally, there is enough there in the Constitution and in real life to say that Jean is indeed the de facto but not the de jure head of state.

    One way or another, it was a show of disrespect to issue a public reprimand for a couple of words in passing in a single speech.

    • "One way or another, it was a show of disrespect to issue a public reprimand for a couple of words in passing in a single speech."

      Absolutely. Maybe Harper wanted to put her in a spot where refusing his next unusual request would make it look like she was getting back at him. (That's probably not true. I'm just grasping for some reason for them to stir up a tempest in a teapot.)

      • … a petty despot wrangling over titles…

        • That's not quite true.

          No one here is challenging Harper's right to call himself Prime Minister.

      • Well, that's what I said about Senator whassername who "corrected" Her Excellency about the Rockies vs. Coastal Mountains right there on the stage, in front of schoolchiildren, and I got laughed at for being, well, for being me I guess.

        How does it become bad form to correct the GG's error on a fundamental question of the structure of our governance?

  13. there is an elementary to resolve all of these questions and it is not the constitution -> read the oath carefully and study the monarchy and as an after thought study why the Queen uses the Royal Pronoun ' WE ' While MOST powers of the Sovereign have been delegated to the Governor General, not all have been.For example, the exercise of Section 26 of the Constitution Act, 1867 can only be done by the Queen herself 'on the Recommendation of the Governor General'. This in fact happened in 1990 when the Her Majesty's involvement was required to appoint the additional Senators. Again, in most matters the Governor General is empowered to carry out the duties of the Head of State. But for Rideau Hall to state that this is so 'For ALL [emphasis mine] intents and purposes…' is a claim without merit and an affront to Canada's constitutional order.

  14. , __________, do swear (declare) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors.

    So help me God.

    The Oath of the Members of the Privy Council
    I, __________, do solemnly and sincerely swear (declare) that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty.

    So help me God.

    Oath of Office
    I, _________, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear (declare) that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as ………..

  15. The GG does not "share" the designation of head of state with the Queen. She represents the Queen as head of state in Canada.

    • I think if you look at the Constitution, one of the things you can say with some certainty is that she does represent the Queen in some matters but in others the GG acts in her own capacity.

  16. Ted, is right to point out that our GG is our de facto head of state and our Command in Chief. The reason why is that you have to take into account the Letters Patent of 1947 issued by George IV found here

    What is interesting that should the GG die, the powers are vested in the Chief Justice, so they do not even "return" to the Sovereign.

    Though not explicitly, this event resulted in galvanizing the concept of a Canadian Crown and that today the GG does represent to the Crown and not Her Majestry per se.

    • good point!

  17. Do the 10 lieutenant governors also represent "the Crown," and not the Queen, in Canada?

    What is the Canadian Crown without a king or queen to "wear" it?

    How does the GG even "exist" without a Monarch to represent?

    What is a viceroy if there is no "roi"?

    • exactly. there really is no 'roi', as there is no real British power. So let's move on. Canada is Canada, not a subset of the British Empire.

  18. "Vest": To give an immediate, fixed right of present or future enjoyment.

    The term vest is significant in the law, because it means that a person has an absolute right to some present or future interest in something of value.

    or

    "Vest": To give unconditional right to title or ownership.

    You can't vest certain powers you have with someone and then take them away. Once the powers are vested, they are essentially no long yours.

    Which means the Queen cannot fire the GG.

    It also means, when you look at the rest of the Constitution, that in some instances the GG is clearly "representing the Queen" or acting "in the name of the Queen", in some instances the GG acts in his or her own right as GG in Council of Canada, and in still other instances the Queen has retained her direct rights as sovereign.

    • You can't vest certain powers you have with someone and then take them away. Once the powers are vested, they are essentially no long yours.

      Which means the Queen cannot fire the GG.

      No, it doesn't mean that at all. If you're correct in your interpretation of vest in this context, then it would mean that the Sovereign can't take back from the Governor General those powers that she's vested in the Governor General. I'm not sure that's true, but even if it were, that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the Sovereign could remove the person currently holding the office of Governor General.

      Unless you're suggesting that there's a document somewhere in which the Sovereign has vested in the Governor General the power to decide whether or not the Governor General needs to be removed. If you can show me that document, I'll be impressed.

      And a little terrified.

  19. Bottom line, the GG is clearly not totally off the mark to say she is the de facto head of state. Not only is she in reality and for all real "intents and purposes" the head of the state of Canada, she has quite a bit of Constitutional authority to say, in some instances, she is even the de jure head of state.

  20. Here is an interesting find. That will clear everything up.

    From the Canadian Law Dictionary (from my bookshelf, not online):

    "GOVERNOR -GENERAL OF CANADA [GOVERNOR-IN-COUNCIL] The Head of State in Canada; the personal representative of the Queen. [Ed note: !!!] He holds in all essential respects, the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in Canada as is held by the Queen in Great Britain. The position of Governor-General and the powers given to him are created and contained in the British North America."

    The ultimate source and authority on this would be Peter Hogg's Constitutional Law of Canada which I don't have with me here, but that description above is sourced to Hogg's constitutional tome.

    You've given us an interesting issue to delve into John. It's eaten up quite a bit of my work time on a Friday!! Damn you, John Geddes. Damn you all to hell!

  21. The Governor General serves "during the Royal Pleasure" which suggests that the Queen could request a new nominee. But the GG holds Letters Patent that provide her authority. I don't thik it is accurate to isolate the Head of State as the Queen, because since the Constitution Act of 1982, matters that are normally dealt with by the Head of State are managed by the GG, and not referred to London.

    Then again, thinking of John Baird's comments last December, referring laws or questions of prorougation to the Queen in London would be one way of trying to "go over the head" of the GG.

    • Oh, she holds Letters Patent providing her authority, eh?

      Gee, if only there were someone on the planet with the power to write new Letters Patent overriding the old Letters Patent.

  22. Everyone is treating this as a legal/political issue, but it's also a linguistic one. If the Queen is the legal Head of State and the GG carries out all her powers in Canada then it seems the GG acts as the Head of State. Just as if the President of the Company takes off on a 4 year sabbatical and leaves an acting President in charge. The new guy is not the President, but you're probably going to call him that.

  23. From the unimpeachable wikipedia:

    The question of whether the Queen is Australia's head of state became a political one during the 1999 Australian republic referendum, when opponents of the move to make Australia a republic claimed that Australia already had an Australian as head of state in the person of the Governor-General, who since 1965 has invariably been an Australian citizen. The former Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery, said in 2004: "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role." However, in 2005, he declined to name the Queen as head of state, instead saying in response to a direct question, "The Queen is the Monarch and I represent her, and I carry out all the functions of head of state."[2] The Governor-General represents Australia internationally, making and receiving State visits.[3][4]

  24. And finally, from a cached GG page:

    Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State. Sworn in on September 27, 2005, the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, 27th Governor General since Confederation, represents the Crown in Canada and carries out the duties of head of State.

  25. I'm pointing out how the term “head of state” is actually used. We should acknowledge that “head of state” is not a label that can be easily affixed in Canada today. It would seem to apply best to the Queen in some contexts, the Governor General in others. And so that's how the use of the term has evolved—to reflect that reality.

    It's used that way by experts like Heard, in government documents like Library and Archives Canada's primer on the executive branch in Canadian government, and of course in past annual reports of governors-general.

    Here, I think I completely agree with Geddes. The term Head of State is, indeed, used improperly by ALL SORTS of people, including many, many people who should know better.

    But if Andrew Heard jumped off a bridge…

  26. I should add too that I don't consider myself someone who "would prefer that “head of state” be applied exclusively to the Queen" per se.

    I just can't believe that it's really so much to ask that the term Head of State only be applied to the Head of State.

    • Who was Lord Kitchener?

    • once again you make a diversion. this is your only tactic, and proves you will (in both of our lifetimes) lose. Your cause -the monarchist cause in Canada- is failing. The Canadian people overwhelmingly want a Canadian citizen as Head of State. Monarchist League types are sadly out of touch if they think that most Canadians think any foreign resident should have any actual powers as head of state. Your reply that the Queen is a Canadian is a fallback on the LEGAL interpretation -the law changes and morphs along with culture. The law changes and is not STATIC.

  27. How do you know you're in Canada? A visitor asks an assembly of its citizens "So, who's in charge around here?" and, in lieu of an answer, a constitutional debate, replete with warring dictionaries, erupts…

  28. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Who cares.

    The real question should be "why do we have a foreign queen as our head of state or even as a part thereof?"

    • If it bothers you so much, next time the parliament declares fealty to a new Sovereign, we can make Prince Harry King of Canada instead of whoever is going to be King of England (Charles or William).

      But I'll be damned if I'm going to live a presidential system.

      • Who said anything about a presidential system?

    • This is our system…it is our history, it comes from our history. To ignore it or deny it is wrong, but if it to be changed, this would be significant and require actual informed debate, rather than misinformation. The fact is, our system hangs on a system of inter-locking accountabilities that include–even if a figurehead–an overarching Crown. The Queen is part of Parliament, the GG is the head of the Executive, representing the Queen, advised by the leader of whomever garners the majority of support of the House of Commons. You can't just say, off with her head (i.e. the head of state) because it seems to reduce or diminish the power of the executive. The fact is, the elected representatives–i.e. the DEMOCRATIC system would lose their effective voice, since they would lose the capacity to have the ultimate authority indicate, yes the confidence in your government is gone, so be off with you and look to the loyal opposition to form a new government.

    • Oddly enough that's a good example. Answering the question "Who is Canada's Head of State?" tells us a lot about the founding premises of our country, just as answering the famous question you raise tells us a lot about the logic that underlies the concept of a separated intellect.

      And just for kicks, here's the best answer I once got to that famous question:
      - if separated intellects (a.k.a. angels) exist, they can't be said to be "on" anything
      - likewise, they can't dance
      - they can't be numbered since each would be a different species

      Now if someone could answer the Head of State question with that much precision I'd be delighted.

    • Oddly enough that's a good example. Answering the question "Who is Canada's Head of State" tells us a lot about the founding premises of our country, just as answering the famous question you raise tells us a lot about the logic that underlies the concept of a separated intellect.

      And just for kicks, here's the best answer I once got to that famous question:
      - if separated intellects (a.k.a. angels) exist, they can't be said to be "on" anything
      - likewise, they can't dance
      - they can't be numbered since each would be a different species

      Now if someone could answer the Head of State question with that much precision I'd be delighted.

    • Oddly enough that's a good example. Answering the question "Who is Canada's Head of State?" tells us a lot about the founding premises of our country, just as answering the famous question you raise tells us a lot about the logic that underlies the concept of a separated intellect. In both cases the question may have little practical impact, but is an excellent means of delving into the principles of the subject at hand.

      And just for kicks, here's the best answer I once got to that famous question:
      - if separated intellects (a.k.a. angels) exist, they can't be said to be "on" anything
      - likewise, they can't dance
      - they can't be numbered since each would be a different species

      Now if someone could answer the Head of State question with that much precision I'd be delighted.

  29. Ach! Stick an "in" after live would ya, gentle readers?

  30. Folks until we fix the real problem; a British monarchy in Canada, then we will have this problem over and over again. Where is a Pearson when we need such a person today/ He led the battle in the 60s to get us a Canadian flag. The monarchists were against it then, and once again they want to keep an archic institution like the British monarchy in Canada, Let it go ;its harmful to us.

  31. This is Canada! We are an independent nation.Let's put Canadian heroes, artists, musicians and other role models on our stamps and coins. Let's follow the model of other democratic countries such as India, Germany and Israel and name our own home-grown president as Head of State. The office of GG was be reformed; but the big reform can begin when the British monarchy is gone.

  32. You must remember that we did not have a Canadian born GG until 1952. A common Canadian could not even represent the British Queen , it had to be a Duke, Lord or some other person from Britain who thought they were better than us.

Sign in to comment.