The Queen and Canada: Residences, Governor General, etc...

[wbenson]

Harper reminds GG just who is head of state

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a clear message to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean that she should not call herself Canada's head of state.

"Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State," the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement issued to Canwest News Service on Thursday. "The Governor General represents the Crown in Canada."

The extraordinary reminder from the country's head of government to its top viceregal representative follows an uproar over Jean's use of the phrase "head of state" when referring to herself during a speech in Paris on Monday.

 

[wbenson]

Governor General's new website adds fuel to head-of-state debate

Rideau Hall launched a new website on Friday with numerous references to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean as "head of state," the latest development in the controversy over who, exactly, is Canada's head of state.

 

[wbenson]

Queen keeps distance from 'head of state' flap

News of Canada's "head of state" uproar has reached Buckingham Palace, where a spokesman for Queen Elizabeth responded cautiously to a question on Tuesday about the role Her Majesty plays in this country's political system.

 

[Saragli]

As much as I like Her Excellency, I am finding her behavior quite off putting. Though I do agree with her for the most part. Like I said, I've always liked the notion that the Queen is Sovereign and the GG is the Head of State. But Michelle has gone about it in an inappropriate way. Especially with the Queen visiting so soon. Her term will be over next year though so It will be interesting to see who will be the next GG.

 

[Bosana]

Up until this flap, I had always assumed that Her Excellency would be offered another term as Governor General, which is customary, I think. Now, I'm not so sure ...

 

[Katrianna]

I agree and I think Her Excellency has put her foot in her mouth and also has let her position go to her head. Her dressing down by PM Harper was appropriate because she is not Head of State. Her re-appointment appears to be shaky at this time.

 

[wbenson]

I don't think it's customary for a governor general to get a "second term." (I put it in quotation marks because there is no formal fixed term for a governor general. He or she serves at the pleasure of the Queen who acts on the advice of her prime minister in that regard.) Adrienne Clarkson's term was "extended", but that was because Paul Martin wanted to keep an experienced governor general in office due to the likelihood of a minority government forming. No recent governor general has been in office more than seven years (none have even gone over six since Roland Michener).

 

[Royal Fan]

Very unprofessional of the GG if you want my opinion.

 

[Mermaid1962]

The Queen is the Sovereign, which means that she is the Head of State. Michelle Jean isn't the first GG to say of herself, "I am the Head of State." I believe that Jeanne Sauve was the first one, back in the 80's. In her case, however, she wasn't corrected. Had she been, perhaps the faux pas wouldn't have been repeated.

 

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

Governor General Georges P. Vanier had his term extended twice and served nearly seven years.
It was believed he should stay on to celebrate the Canadian Centennial in 1967; but sadly he died in office that year just before the main events.

This beloved man was given a state funeral.

Larry

 

[Mermaid1962]

I believe that it was Mr. Vanier who was in Cape Breton during the 1960s. He requested a bilingual driver, which made perfect sense since Mr. Vanier was a Francophone. Well, he did get his bilingual driver, but not one he expected. The driver spoke English and Scots Gaelic.
At that time in Cape Breton, there were a great many Gaelic speakers. There are still some, but their numbers are growing smaller now.

 

[wbenson]

Queen takes top role in new Canadian citizenship guide

Canadians looking at a $20 bill would be hard-pressed to detect a smile on the face of their Queen, but the leading defenders of the country's constitutional monarchy say they are ecstatic over Elizabeth II's front-and-centre status in the federal government's controversial new citizenship guide for newcomers to Canada.

-------

The guide can be viewed in its entirety here. There is one thing that may be an error: it states that Canada is the only constitutional monarchy in North America. I believe most continental models include Belize in North America (and many include all of the Caribbean islands, where the Queen reigns in eight other realms). (I also have an issue with the way it deals with the formation of a government after an election, but I'm probably nitpicking a little too much there.)

 

[ghost_night554]

Can I ask a really dumb question? Okay so back when the rumors first surfaced about the Queen possibly opening the 2010 Olympics I read a reply on a forum somewhere and the poster said that the Queen is technically not supposed to open the Olympics for Canada anymore since 1982. So my question is what happened in 1982 besides the Canada Act. Was there something in there that forbids her from opening them like I really don't understand. See I told you it's stupid, sorry if I've put this in the wrong place I didn't know where else to go and I've been dying to ask for a while now.

 

[wbenson]

I don't know of anything in the Canada Act or the Constitution Act, 1982 that changes the constitutional role of the Queen, especially something that would leave the Queen as sovereign of Canada but preclude her legally from opening the Olympics. I'm sure that some people would think it inappropriate in light of the total constitutional separation of Canada and the United Kingdom, but I don't think there's any law stopping it.

 

[ghost_night554]

Ya that's what I thought. I tried to think back in what I had learned about in Socials Studies (thank u very much I was in la la land half the time my teacher would talk) but I couldn't and didn't remember him saying anything along those lines so I found it weird when I read what that poster had written.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I remember that in 1999 when the decision was being made about who would open the Sydney Games the argument was that the Governor-General was the Head of State and therefore the GG had to open the games rather than some foreign monarch. We were of course in the middle of the republican referendum at the time and the PM was making the point rather forcibly that the GG was the Head of State.

I suspect that Canada is operating under a similar argument - that the Canadian Head of State to all intents and purposes is the GG with the Queen just there but with no real role to play any more.

 

[wbenson]

For whatever reason, the current government has recently decided to play up the monarchy. It's actually all come fairly quickly, so I wonder if it isn't somehow to atone to monarchists for not having the Queen do the Olympics. A lot of monarchists had been complaining about the Harper government's lackluster support for the monarchy (which wasn't that surprising; the party where the Prime Minister started his political career wasn't really all that enthusiastic about it). I'm just a bit cynical about this recent push, though.

 

[wbenson]

The way forward with Canada's maple Crown - The Globe and Mail

At the National War Memorial on Wednesday, Canada's constitutional monarchy worked. The Prince of Wales and our Governor-General stood side by side, solemnly and in unison laying wreaths of remembrance and reviewing a parade of veterans and active servicemen and women. On a gorgeous autumn day, the sometimes creaky institution of the Canadian Crown came to life.

The monarchy: Offshore, but built-in - The Globe and Mail

Polls say Canadians are ambivalent about being subjects of an overseas sovereign, but the Crown is in the warp and woof of our form of government

 

[ghost_night554]

...I suspect that Canada is operating under a similar argument - that the Canadian Head of State to all intents and purposes is the GG with the Queen just there but with no real role to play any more.

Actually I'm suspecting that might be what the poster was trying to say. Okay I really am kicking myself for not listening in Socials but the Canada Act I think basically just gave Canada the ability to amend their constitution by themselves without permission of the Queen or something to that affect. So I'm thinking that like you said the poster was trying to say that they consider the GG more as the head of state than the Queen since the Queen no longer has the same amount of power she once had in Canada, I think. That's all I can basically gather from my memory.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I find it interesting that changing the Canadian Constitution would ever had anything to do with the Queen.

When we federated in 1901 it was made plan then that Australia could change our constitution without any reference to the British monarch. All it takes is a majority of the population and a majority of the states. We have 6 states so four states have to vote YES as well as 50% + 1 of the actual population. The territories only count in the total vote not in the states votes.

I had always assumed that the Canadians has something similar but clearly not if they had to refer it to the Queen at some time. That will teach me not to assume that we have similar structures just because we have a shared heritage.

 

[wbenson]

Until 1982, the Constitution was amended by the British Parliament (since the Statute of Westminster, it was virtually automatic and only done on petition by Canada). There wasn't actually anything in any of the British North America Acts (now all renamed "Constitution Act") mentioning how they would be amended, since they were just normal Acts of (the British) Parliament. The Constitution Act 1982 contains several different ways for it to be amended. The hardest thing to do would be to abolish the monarchy, which requires the consent of the federal parliament as well as every provincial legislature. There are no provisions for a referendum in the constitution, but several provinces require one before the legislatures vote.

 

[ghost_night554]

Oh maybe it was that they weren't allowed to amend the constitution without the permission of British Parliament, like I said I didn't have a clear memory about what exactly my teacher had said. Okay well then if they needed British Parliament what in the world does the change have to do with the Queen...blah now I'm confused.

 

[wbenson]

Royally tiresome debate | Peter Worthington | Columnists | News | Toronto Sun

Now that Prince Charles and Camilla have left our hallowed land, perhaps the debate will recede on whither the monarchy in Canada.

Until next visit.

 

[wedmonds]

I think that people should get rid of that monarchy. She is the Queen of Britain. And when she travels outside of Britain to other countries she travels there as the "Queen of Britain" and not the Queen of (Canada, New Zealand, or Australia). When she goes to other countries none of her visits benefit Canada so why do they have her as monarch? What does the Queen do for her realms that the government in those countries can't do for themselves?

They say that the monarchy is cheap to retain. I think that you can have a president like Germany, India, and all of those other places where the President is cheaper than the Queen. And still not as expensive as the President of the U.S.A. And be able to run a country efficiently. The Queen does nothing for your country. Canadians should stop wasting money on a silly Governor-General when they can have a President to do the Prime Minister and Governor-General's job. Less money spent! Just that plain and simple! You can argue with me all day long, but I am done!

 

[bweir]

There are countless things wrong with your post, but I'll keep this as brief as possible since we're invited to argue with you all day long.

First, the Queen has travelled abroad as Queen of Canada. I'm not sure if she has done so as Queen of Australia, or New Zealand, or Jamaica, etc., but she has as Queen of Canada -- including visits to the United States and France.

Your post indicates you know nothing about Parliamentary democracy, so I'm not going to waste my time outlining it for you. I think recent history has shown that it's not ideal to hand over the roles of Heads of both State and Government to the same person. (I'm not looking for a completely unrelated political debate, so please treat the following as simply an example and not a comment on politics) It was problematic when George W. Bush went overseas as the American Head of State and Head of Government. If going on a state visit he wasn't simply representing the people as a whole -- as non-elected (or non-partisan at the very least) Heads of State are beter equipped to do -- but he was representing the Government and all the controversial baggage that went along with it at that time.

 

[wedmonds]

Dear Sir, I am not a expert on political matters. Neither, do I care to become a expert in the near future. But as you stated, we have the right to debate this all day long. Since that is what these forums are for.

I think that you can have a President as Head of State and Government, but have a constitution that gives the President little or no power at all. If you search the term 'figurehead' on the internet you will find several websites that explain what that political term is. I am not going to explain it to you neither do I care to go into that long debate either. But just so you know, there is a such thing as having a President who's powers are limited by a Parliament which is elected by the people to act on behalf of the people. That way it would not cost nearly as much as a monarchy. And the President can not ruin the country like George Bush because he would have no power. So in the end, Parliament would all have to SIT DOWN and work everything out. I am not a genius neither am I a political expert or historian. Although if you notice, most countries that have a Parliament with all of the power have been fine. You don't hear about India everyday going to war with a country (like the U.S.). Because they don't have those problems.....

Shows what you know!!!!!

 

[Warren]

Dear Sir, I am not a expert on political matters...I think that you can have a President as Head of State and Government... You don't hear about India everyday going to war with a country (like the U.S.). Because they don't have those problems...

Shows what you know!!!!!

Then you should know the meaning of hubris.
The President of India is Head of State; the Prime Minister of India is Head of Government.

 

[Humera]

Governor General delivers tearful statement on Haiti

OTTAWA – Governor General Michaelle Jean broke down in tears today as she spoke of the devastating earthquake that has rocked her native Haiti.

. . . Jean expressed concern for her friend Hedi Annabi, the UN's special envoy, still unaccounted for, and thanked Canadian Amb. Gilles Rivard for his team's efforts on the ground. They had helped her during her visit to Haiti exactly a year ago just as Haitians were beginning to see "a glimmer of hope" after a series of hurricanes had battered their island. Governor General delivers tearful statement on Haiti - thestar.com

Video of her emotional press conference:
Thestar.com - VideoZone


Why Michaëlle Jean's heart belongs to Haiti

OTTAWA–With a barely stifled sob, Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, mother of a young Haitian girl, and native of Haiti, captured a nation's broken heart and mobilized donations.

. . . At her news conference later, she said her ailing uncle in Haiti was safe. Of other family and friends, she had no news, like the rest of the Haitian diaspora, adding "it's not about me." In Creole, she haltingly wished Haitians "courage." Why Michaëlle Jean's heart belongs to Haiti - thestar.com


Brief Video:
Thestar.com - VideoZone

 

[Mermaid1962]

Speaking as a patriotic Canadian, I can only say that I see the Queen as my Queen, the Queen of Canada. When she is in this country, she doesn't come as a representative of the United Kingdom in any way. Having a politician, or a political appointee, as the actual Head of State is an idea that frightens me a bit.

I think that people should get rid of that monarchy. She is the Queen of Britain.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Thank you for posting this. The Governor General is truly in a position to understand the devastation of the earthquake in Haiti and speak for us all in expressing sympathy.

Governor General delivers tearful statement on Haiti