Michael Dorosh said:
a) what mechanism we could use to effect these changes
b) a single practical benefit of having enacted these changes
c) a single reason to even consider these changes in the first place, beyond a visceral reaction to the current GG
If you want to couch your proposal in some form of coherent presentation, perhaps there would be something to discuss.
a) Now, as Canada is a constitutional monarchy, technically all we need is the Queen to decide for us.. However, as we're looking for something a bit more practical, we would need to amend the constitution. Monarchy Accords, anyone? Given our historical failures at changing our constitution (by failures, I mean we have yet to institute any, whether they be good or bad) I doubt we would be able to change the constition as such.
b) PRACTICALLY speaking, we don't need a G.G... A constitutional change to abolish the position would be practical. (ie save money, reduce governmental bureaucracy and eliminate a figure-head position) I mean, aren't our ambassadors supposed to be the ones representing Canada abroad? The reigning monarch in England is still capable of stamping her seal of approval on any passed legislation, calling an election, dissolving parliament, etc. However, I agree with Pieman that I think the Monarchy is one of the things that makes Canada what it is, so I would rather keep it than not. Having a Canadian King/Queen could maybe allow Canadians in general to be able to better associate or define the "Canadian" character. When the GG position was first created, it was done so because the reigning Monarch was too busy running the British Empire, and delegated the responsibilities out. Perhaps now that the Queen isn't so busy, she'd like to (or ask her grandson to) take over that role? Doubtful, yes, but it's an idea.
c) This one I cannot add anything... I would like to see the change occur, but only from the standpoint that I personally like the idea. Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson is a well educated, well spoken individual, with many merits to her name, and I applaud her for what she has achieved. Due to personal experience however, I cannot support her position as GG. Just my opinion, that's it. I believe that she would be capable of serving Canada better were she to be in a different role, perhaps as an ambassador, or even an elected position. (I think she's got the intelligence for PM, but, that isn't always a pre-requisite, is it?)
T