legamus Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 what in the hell is the role of the governor-general? i keep reading these astronomical figures of what she spends and i wanna know what she actually, you know, DOES!! (i apologize if this question is so dumb that i should be embarrassed for asking it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Adrienne's duties: represent the Crown and ensure there is always a prime minister act on advice of prime minister and cabinet ministers to give royal assent to bills passed in the Senate and House of Commons (only once has a Governor General of Canada gone against such advice: in 1926, Lord Byng refused Prime Minister Mackenzie King's request to dissolve Parliament) sign state documents read throne speech preside over swearing in of prime minister, chief justice and cabinet ministers - from gg's website Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 what in the hell is the role of the governor-general? i keep reading these astronomical figures of what she spends and i wanna know what she actually, you know, DOES!! (i apologize if this question is so dumb that i should be embarrassed for asking it). the GG does absouletly nothing of any use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 the GG does absouletly nothing of any use. Alot of life is ceremony (think of a wedding). Why do we go through all these strange rituals? (In truth, some people just go to city hall and some people just shack up.) The GG is Canada's Head of State, or the Queen of England's (oops, Queen of Canada's) representative in Canada. It's a ceremonial post with one important single role: the GG asks a Member of Parliament to form a government, or dissolves Parliament. If Harper gets elected with a minority government and loses on a vote of confidence, the GG could ask Martin to form a government. The GG folllows tradition in all this, so that's ceremonial too - except when it becomes a huge scandal: in 1926, Lord Byng refused Prime Minister Mackenzie King's request to dissolve Parliament Incidentally, the GG was always British born until Vincent Massey - named by St. Laurent. I don`t know who named Georges Vanier. (Most people only know these names as high schools now.) Trudeau was the first to name a real political type Ed Schreyer. Chretien went for a CBC journalist. Our French PMs have had a decided desire to enlarge the pool of potential GGs. The GG gets to live in a big 19th century lumber baron mansion (across the street from the much smaller 24 Sussex, house of the PM). Clarkson opened the grounds of Rideau Hall (the GG's mansion) to the public on weekends. Since the GG is Head of State, she/he takes precedence in Protocol terms. This is a big deal in foreign countries. Frankly, I think Canada should be a republic but then I guess we'd be saddled with the problem of paying someone to be President. India and Germany have ceremonial presidents. Vive la République fédérale du Canada! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 the GG is a total waste of money. she represents the monarchy. what is the monarchy? well, the queen is some german woman who has power because she's rich, and was releated to tyranical dictators of the past who ruthlessly killed their own civilians. I'm an Italian-Acadian, My father was an immigrant, making me, I guess, an Immigrant-Acadian, or when translated into monarchytalk, a f***you-f***you, which pretty well sums up my thoughts on the monarchy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legamus Posted March 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 thank you for the responses. i am now completely in favour of scrapping this useless person because spending that many millions of dollars on nothing practical just isn't justifiable. (mostly i'm bitter because my paycheck was smaller than i thought it'd be because of the tax and i don't want the stupid gg spending millions while i'm struggling to tank up my car) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 You've only had a one sided argument Legamus, and one with alot of inaccuracies at that. The Governor General is indeed the Queen's (and yes, that's Queen of CANADA) representative in this country. The Canadian Crown was made distinctly seperate from the British Crown gradually through the BNA of 1867, the Royal Parliamentary Styles Act of 1927, the Statute of Westminster of 1931, and the Constitution Act of 1982 (the same Acts which eventually gave Canada full independence from Britian). The Constitution Act states very clearly the role and reserve powers of the King or Queen, and Governor General. So, although we see the GG and Queen mostly in their ceremonial roles, this does not mean they don't hold very real reserve powers to be used in times of governmental crisis. (Such as the King/Byng affair of '26, and the dismissal of PM Whitlam by GG Sir Kerr in Australia in '75.) Because the Crown is so entrenched in the Canadian Constitution it is next to impossible to remove it. To do so would require no less than the unanymous consent of all ten provinces, the House of Commons, and the Senate. On top of this, to keep our three point parliamentary system running it would require a president (otherwise we would completely have to re-write the constitution with an entirely new system of government-- and good luck with that). Even after who-knows-how-many billions are spent turning Canada from a monarchy to a republic, offices of presidents tend to be far more expensive than that of the GG. So, there's no hope that abolishing the office of Governor General will help you fill your gas tank. Also, your blaming the Governor General herself for the spending is unjustified. By constitutional convention, the Governor General (and Queen) mostly follow advice from ministries and departments. The Governor General does not just fly off on a trip with her friends and then send the bill to Ottawa. She is asked by the Department of Foreign Affairs to undertake State Visits. She must travel as the RCMP tells her to. She participates in events run by Heritage Canada. So, your anger over costs should be directed mostly towards Foreign Affiars, the RCMP, the National Capital Commission, etc. Not just on Adrienne Clarkson. I agree that $41 million is a large number. The State Visits to Russia, Findland and Iceland were badly managed and far too many people were invited (though, that guest list smacked of the typical government policy of "let's not offend anyone, so we'll invite everyone", so I knew Madame Clarkson was not to blame for that). I also agree that the spending of the office of Governor General should be audited and managed like any other government ministry or department. But, to call for the end of the office over this is nothing more than silly. The office of the Prime Minister squanders FAR more money than $41 million, but does anyone call for the abolition of that office? Don't be misled away from the true mismanagement of money in Ottawa. All this isn't about the Governor General, really. Its only about Liberals and their penchent for financial mismanagement. Direct your anger there-- they're the ones who take all that tax off your paycheque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaRocks Posted April 23, 2004 Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 Next time the government is seeking cutbacks to provide tax relief, why not terminate the office of Governor General? We could save some major bucks there. And while we're at it? Why don't we also terminate the Senate? Save some major bucks there too. Perhaps some of those bucks saved, could be used to bolster the Canadian economy, or enhance our social programs. Oh, and just for the heaven of it, next time we do tax breaks? Lets give the lower and middle class a HUGE tax break and give the wealthy a hefty tax increase. It would be very good to see how it feels to have the shoe on the other foot for a change. Far more likely that we will assign a 2nd Govenor General, create more senate postions, raise taxes on the lower n middle classes, lower them for the rich, close a few more hospitals, and move entirely to private health insurance. But then, thats ok with us right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted April 27, 2004 Report Share Posted April 27, 2004 “Next time the government is seeking cutbacks to provide tax relief, why not terminate the office of Governor General? We could save some major bucks there.” Just how do you propose to eliminate the Governor General? How are you going to get the people of Canada to vote in a referendum, as well as get the Legislatures of all 10 provinces, the entire House of Commons, and the Senate to agree to re-write the constitution without the Canadian Crown? Imagine the costs involved in all that. And, even if you did do it, what would you replace the Queen with as our Head of State? If we maintain our parliamentary system we need a president. If we go with the American system, we need a president. Either way, presidents cost money—and a lot more than the Governor General. You’re tax relief would be no different with or without the Governor General. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.