Buckdog

Agreed. We need a Parliament that works too!

The Governor General is the representative of the Queen of Canada while she is outside the country. What sense does it make to have a Governor General who does not represent the Monarch?

Radical Royalist .. that may be one of the dumbest questions ever asked in the matter. Every nation needs a 'head of state'. Call that person a president or a king or a governor general. The difference will be that Canada's ELECTED Governor General now represents the PEOPLE not some hereditary based, unelected monarch.

I think one of the reasons we've maintained the Royal ties and customs, is it makes us less American and more Euro-oriented.

Whatever the practicality behind it, calling Canada a Republic gives me kneejerk Fox News and classical Rome vibes. But then, I'm still not over Harper taking the salutes of the troops.

Do the people who were polled understand what a Republic is, and the duties of said homegrown 'head of state'? Not that the duties have been decided, since the job doesn't exist in Canada. What model would be adopted?

As for an elected official representing the people, I'm back at Harper. Does he represent the people, or just the core people that voted for him in a nation of apathists? Where does the Senate end up in all the talk of everyone should be elected?

Would a Governor General elect be purely a figurehead, or have actual governmental powers? Would the name change? To what? How would it be different from the Prime Minister's role? Would the Prime Minister become the Replacement figure - head of state? Would one of his cronies? Would the head of state change every time a government falls and there's a federal election? Would there be a separate election?

If we think things are divisive now, that can-o-worms would pop big for sure. I can see why people would just let it be, leaving the fancy shmancy stuff to the Royals on parade and the GG. When is there a five minute period to start that conflagration?