Her Excellency the RH Michaëlle Jean

[d_rawk]

Missed the installation speech because you were working? I just know you're dying to read it, so here's the link:

The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada on the occasion of her installation

I thought it was pretty good, as far as these things go.

The time of the “two solitudes†that for too long described the character of this country is past. The narrow notion of “every person for himself†does not belong in today’s world, which demands that we learn to see beyond our wounds, beyond our differences for the good of all. Quite the contrary: we must eliminate the spectre of all the solitudes and promote solidarity among all the citizens who make up the Canada of today. As well, we must make good use of our prosperity and our influence wherever the hope that we represent offers the world an extra measure of harmony.

There is an observation by Montesquieu, a philosopher of the Enlightenment, that has a particular resonance for me and I would like to share it with you. It states that “The duty of the citizen becomes a crime if it makes him forget the duty of the man.â€

In Roy MacGregor's Globe piece this morning, he summarized Edward McWhinney's fairly convincing argument that the Liberals are being irresponsible by having Jean succeed Clarkson prior to the next election. But then, Clarkson's failing health kind of makes it excusable ... and I'm sure that she is as happy as a fucking clam to be returning to private life after the Libs let her take all the heat for (worthwhile) expeditions which they themselves approved both in concept and through funding. (A GG can't spend money that isn't approved by the house, folks ...). Cowards.

[timouse]

thanks for posting this, d rawk...i quite like roy macgregor, for a columnist in canada's paper of record he's pretty commonsensical. and despite all the hooplah i like Michaëlle Jean. her work on vision tv always impressed me, she seems pretty socially minded.

not that the gg actually wields any real clout...can a gg deny ascent of legislation and halt the process??

Edited September 27, 2005 by Guest
more words spelled wrong then right :)

[d_rawk]

I believe that, technically, yes. But it would be a shit storm.

The GG can be crucial when it comes down to what to do if a government is defeated in the house. Which is a very real possibility under the present circumstances. IE. Mackenzie King and Governor General Byng (that's for you meggo ...)

Plus the ceremonial functions and representation abroad, for which the GG tends to take a lot of shit - mostly, I imagine, because people tend to be in the habit of thinking of the PM as the head of state. I mean, would Canadians have been so critical of attempts to raise Canada's profile abroad if it had been Paul Martin making those appearances?

[timouse]

I believe that, technically, yes. But it would be a shit storm.

has this ever happenned? i know that the gg is the ceremonial last step in making law, but i've never seen a gg stand up and start the predicted shitstorm by refusing to grant ascent to a bill.

The GG can be crucial when it comes down to what to do if a government is defeated in the house. Which is a very real possibility under the present circumstances. IE. Mackenzie King and Governor General Byng (that's for you meggo ...)

so what could she actually do? could she nullify a non-confidence vote?

[d_rawk]

No, she gets to decide whether the newly defeated PM should be allowed to call a general election, or whether there are sufficient grounds to believe that the opposition (or coalition of opposition) are able to form an effective government. This, in fact, was the crux of the King/Byng controversy. He wanted an election. The GG said no, and the opposition formed government.

The basis of McWhinney's argument cited above is that because Clarkson had been extensively briefed - and had ample time to contemplate - what to do in such a scenario (which, again, is a distinct possibility in the very near future), it was irresponsible to usher her out and bring in someone new who presumably might be unequiped to deal with such a situation should it arise (through no fault of her own, but simply through lack of preperation and inexperience).

As to the question of whether royal assent has ever actually been withheld in regards to legislation, I'm not sure. My guess would be that it has probably happened when the GG was still appointed by the Queen and Canada was still considered a Dominion. But I'm not sure. I would be very surprised if it had ever happened since we started appointing our own GGs from within Canada. I can only even think of one recent example where even the Senate overturned legislation approved by the Commons (abortion).

[ollie]

I mean, would Canadians have been so critical of attempts to raise Canada's profile abroad if it had been Paul Martin making those appearances?

Well no, but that's because I think Paul Martin would carry more weight.

[bouche]

I fell asleep after the word 'solitudes' in your quote.

[timouse]

I fell asleep after the word 'solitudes' in your quote.

hahahaha!

and thanks for your insight, d rawk!

[d_rawk]

I fell asleep after the word 'solitudes' in your quote.

Well then, you're missing out, aren't you?

Well no, but that's because I think Paul Martin would carry more weight.

I don't know for sure, but I think that maybe this is because you are too close to it. When we see Jacques Chirac, we don't generally, for example, say "oh, but he's just the President of France [d_rawk's note: essentially the equivalent of our GG]. He doesn't carry the weight of the Prime Minister of France!".

When we see the President of Germany [d_rawk's note: again ...], we don't tend to say, "oh, but he's not the Chancellor!"

Foreign relations and representation abroad are part of the duties with which these people are invested. It is understood that it is representative of the larger will of the country, and thus "weightful".

[d_rawk]

oh, fun!

The kids over at freedominion.ca (WARNING: site is bad for your soul) hate her seal, and hate that she's not british, acts like a rapper (??), and apparently ... kills chickens (being Haitian and all).

I put my foot into that muck because I was curious to see the arguments regarding her oath. Apparently they are all a-tizzy because she "affirmed rather than swore her oath of office, with some insisting that even though she doesn't believe in God, she should have sworn on the bible anyway, and others saying she shouldn't have been allowed to serve as GG". But I find the forums there hard to navigate and haven't yet found what I was looking for.

I come from a line of Quakers, who consider swearing an oath to be the height of hypocrisy. It suggests two truths. It suggests that you are only being honest when it "counts", that it is not only acceptable but *expected* to be dishonest otherwise, and only really necessary to act in the service of truth when one is presumably at risk of some exterior threat, like damnation.

Damn freepers. Good on Jean.

[ollie]

Are the presidents of France and Germany elected?

[d_rawk]

This is actually a pretty interesting area. If you are getting at what I think you are ... I agree. I think that there is a significant problem with the idea of the PM appointing the very person who is to hold him accountable. Although, for certain reasons, I'm reluctant to think that direct election of the GG is the way to solve the problem. Approval by a certain proportion of parliament (2/3rds?) might be desirable. Some have suggested appointment by the Order of Canada rather than the PM ... but that seems to smack of aristocracy to my sensitive disposition.

Anyways.

France: the President is presently in fact directly elected by the country's citizens. This is rather new -- he used to be selected through the electoral college. Much as there are increasing calls for the GG of Canada to be elected rather than appointed by the PMO. The power still lies with the PM. Here's the thing -- the President appoints the PM. The appointment must be approved by the assembly, however, which means the President's hands are pretty much tied as to who he can appoint. His role has traditionally been largely ceremonial. He officially signs laws (like our GG), receives foreign officials, presents the country to the world, etc.. France is moving somewhat from a Parliamentary system towards something resembling a Republican/Presidential system (owing in some measure, I suspect, to the increased confidence given to a directly elected head of state), so the President's powers are growing somewhat.

Germany: The President is pretty much strictly ceremonial, and is "elected" by a special commision (of assembly officials) put together for the express purpose of selecting the President. This is an appointment. He/She is not elected by the people. The executive and legislative power rests with Parliament, and more specifically, the Chancellor. Tellingly, the office of President is often referred to as "First Representative of the State", which, I'd argue, is fairly on par with what we should expect from our own Governor General.

[ollie]

Hey d_rawk, thanks for the info. I'm just making the simple point that an official elected by the people carries more weight in my eyes, in terms of representing his or her constituency, than someone who is appointed.

I'm admittedly ignorant on the details of Adrienne Clarkson's spending habits but I recall one sticking point for me being the people invited along with her on these trips on our dime. I recall them often being amongst the "gliteratti" of Canada and resented them not paying for a trip that they could afford.

The level of government waste I see from working "on the ground" is staggering. It's not hard to imagine that waste "filtering up" and that chafes my skin.

[d_rawk]

Those are good points, for sure. I don't doubt that there is an awful amount of waste happening, and I'm willing to concede too that some of that waste happened through the office of the outgoing GG. I just dislike the gov. not coming to Clarkson's defense in the matter and at least shouldering some of the criticism.

What is it that you do "on the ground"?

I personally don't have a problem at all with an appointed official doing the rounds where there aren't actual state-to-state negotiations taking place. I don't think we really want our head of government tied up with these things when they can be handled just as effectively (or more - Charisma is not Paul Martin's middle name ... nor need it be ...) by someone else. The US, for example, makes use of its secretary of state (presently Condi Rice) for such purposes, who is also unelected. But I understand your point. I think that there is something of a crisis of legitimacy regarding the GG, which a lot of Canadians are becoming uncomfortable about as the position gets more attention, and it is going to have to be dealt with sooner or later. It's a reasonable concern.

It will be interesting. We're going to have to make some big decisions about these things in our lifetime.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I come from a line of Quakers, who consider swearing an oath to be the height of hypocrisy. It suggests two truths. It suggests that you are only being honest when it "counts", that it is not only acceptable but *expected* to be dishonest otherwise, and only really necessary to act in the service of truth when one is presumably at risk of some exterior threat, like damnation.

There's a keeper. Ya learn something new every day . Reminds me of Utah Phillips' quote from Ammond Hennessey, brought before court - "Aw, Judge, your damn laws - the good people don't need 'em, and the bad people don't obey 'em, so what use are they?"

[d_rawk]

Hahaha. I suppose that analogy will do

Yeah. The basic idea is: you can eat your fucking bible. My word is my word. My integrity is my integrity. And if I'm prone to dishonesty, it probably doesn't matter what book-cover I'm touching as I lie to your face and tell you I'm going to tell you the absolute truth. And while you're at it, you can take a minute in the corner and consider whether it is really appropriate for you to be telling me how and when to relate to God ... publicly, no less.

It goes deeper, too, of course. Jesus admonished his followers to "swear not at all" (yes should mean yes, he said, and no should mean no). And while not all Quakers are Christian, traditionally they were (radically anti-church Christians, mind you, and among the first religious groups to advocate against slavery, in favour of homosexual unions, for prison system reform, against capital punishment .....)

Being honest is more than just not telling lies.

This is part of what is so offensive about the freedominion folks mentioned above. To them, affirming rather than swearing an oath is evidence of "Godlessness". Well, no. It isn't. We've been through this ... a long time ago, and at a lot of good people's expense. And further: even if it was evidence of such (and, again, it's not) ... so. fucking. what.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I'm continually brought back to the notion that most people are driven more by insecurity than anything else, because they themselves act on whatever it is that they can get away with, and have to assume, in some refraction of a categorical imperative, that everybody else must be doing the same as well.

These sorts of people would boil God down to being something this side of Mystery, so rendering each idea completely worthless, but giving themselves all sorts of fiat in the process.

[d_rawk]

These sorts of people would boil God down to being something this side of Mystery, so rendering each idea completely worthless, but giving themselves all sorts of fiat in the process.

That is awesome, DEM, and is what I'm going to chew on for the rest of the night.

and have to assume, in some refraction of a categorical imperative, that everybody else must be doing the same as well.

I suspect that this is equally awesome, but I'm going to have to jog my memory of things Kantian before I'm sure