Governor General Michaelle Jean to be Replaced as Early as Canada Day

[Smallc]

There's a rough script being written in the Prime Minister's Office on how Stephen Harper will crown Canada's next Governor-General.

The plan, according to one informed source that the PMO didn't dismiss as delusional speculation yesterday, would see Gov.-Gen. Michaelle Jean replaced on July 1 on the eve of her fifth anniversary as a popular force of personality and fashion sense.

The unique twist would see the 28th vice-regal sworn in by Queen Elizabeth II herself during her nine-day tour of Canada that starts on June 28.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2578925

That's too bad. I was really hoping that she'd have her term extended.

[Oleg Bach]

That's too bad. I was really hoping that she'd have her term extended.

Was hoping that she would set up a perminent dwelling in Haiti and do some real work other than model clothes.

[Oleg Bach]

The Queen may have finally viewed a belated video of the GG with seal blood on her chin and said " we are not amused, remove that cute savage - what is that Phillip - Her husband knew the scoudrels that stuffed one of my envoys in a trunk - dead as the corner stone a Berkshire?"

[capricorn]

I like Michaelle Jean. She has done a fine job seeing her Constitutional duties through. Yet, of late she has ventured into matters that should be off limits for a Canadian Governor General. For example:

Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean strayed from her regal ceremonial functions to excoriate the excesses of capitalism in a speech that encouraged young people to aim for more than just profits.

Jean made a series of pointed criticisms Thursday about a fend-for-yourself market mentality, while championing other values like social justice, the arts, and civic involvement.

That foray into social commentary might clash with a common view of the vice-regal role as limited to ribbon-cutting and awarding medals.

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100219/mtl_michaelle_jean100219/20100219/?hub=MontrealHome

Women ski jumpers - barred from the Vancouver Winter Games - have a surprise ally as they try to lift off at the 2014 Olympics in Russia: Governor-General Michaëlle Jean.

Ms. Jean quietly lobbied International Olympic Committee chief Jacques Rogge as she sat beside him at the opening ceremonies a week ago. She relayed what she heard to 18-year-old Canadian jumper Atsuko Tanaka at a reception at Canada House in Whistler Tuesday night.

"She just said that she had a chat with Jacques Rogge and how he said he was confident about 2014 ski jumping and women being part of it," Ms. Tanaka said in an interview. "It's good news but it's even better that it's coming from the Governor-General."

http://www.ctvolympics.ca/ski-jumping/news/newsid=47119.html#governor+general+joins+fight+women+jumpers

Maybe she already knows she'll be replaced, then again maybe she wants out. Whatever the case, she should know better than to overtly criticize the capitalist system that Canada has certainly not turned away from. She may have some good points to make about capitalism's greed and the resulting social ills but while she holds the GG's Office it is not her place to pronounce speeches on those topics. As for the IOC, it has been often used as a political instrument in the past, as seen most recently when Obama personally lobbied to have the 2016 Olympics held in hometown Chicago. A GG lobbying the IOC on behalf of a women's sport may not be on the same scale, but the social/political overtone is obvious.

I think we need a new Governor General.

[charter.rights]

The Queen may have finally viewed a belated video of the GG with seal blood on her chin and said " we are not amused, remove that cute savage - what is that Phillip - Her husband knew the scoudrels that stuffed one of my envoys in a trunk - dead as the corner stone a Berkshire?"

Not so. I have it on good authority from someone close to Buckingham Palace that the Queen likes aboriginal people and is planning a big display this summer. This year is the 300 anniversary of the Silver Covenant Chain Treaty originally signed with the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy and the Crown, and the reason for the Royal Proclamation 1763.

The Queen and Buckingham Palace like the Iroquois people,and still see them as Her Majesty's Royal Allies.

[Smallc]

she should know better than to overtly criticize the capitalist system that Canada has certainly not turned away from.

Except, that's not what she did. She in fact criticized unregulated capitalism. That's something Canada doesn't have.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Smallc

[Hydraboss]

Not so. I have it on good authority from someone close to Buckingham Palace that the Queen likes aboriginal people and is planning a big display this summer. This year is the 300 anniversary of the Silver Covenant Chain Treaty originally signed with the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy and the Crown, and the reason for the Royal Proclamation 1763.

The Queen and Buckingham Palace like the Iroquois people,and still see them as Her Majesty's Royal Allies.

And I have it on good authority that, with the 300 year anniversary looming, Canadian people are planning on ignoring this fact in record numbers.

[Hydraboss]

I like Michaelle Jean. She has done a fine job seeing her Constitutional duties through. Yet, of late she has ventured into matters that should be off limits for a Canadian Governor General. For example:

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100219/mtl_michaelle_jean100219/20100219/?hub=MontrealHome

http://www.ctvolympics.ca/ski-jumping/news/newsid=47119.html#governor+general+joins+fight+women+jumpers

Maybe she already knows she'll be replaced, then again maybe she wants out. Whatever the case, she should know better than to overtly criticize the capitalist system that Canada has certainly not turned away from. She may have some good points to make about capitalism's greed and the resulting social ills but while she holds the GG's Office it is not her place to pronounce speeches on those topics. As for the IOC, it has been often used as a political instrument in the past, as seen most recently when Obama personally lobbied to have the 2016 Olympics held in hometown Chicago. A GG lobbying the IOC on behalf of a women's sport may not be on the same scale, but the social/political overtone is obvious.

I think we need a new Governor General.

Where, oh, where will Canada be able to find someone who can make social commentary of this level on a regular basis? Where will Harper be able to locate someone who can model clothing on behalf of Canadians and carry out the varied, important job of the Queen's representative in this country by spring?

I wonder if Pamela Anderson is busy for the next five years?

Canadians are on the edge of their collective seats.

[g_bambino]

I wonder if Pamela Anderson is busy for the next five years?

Oh, you are so clever.

Wait... Sorry. No. Actually, you're not.

[g_bambino]

I think we need a new Governor General.

The commentary on capitalism comes uncomfortably close to a line she shouldn't be crossing, but I'm not convinced she went over it. Conversing with Olympic officials, on the other hand, is fine; she can consult and talk to anyone she wishes about anything she wants.

[Smallc]

The commentary on capitalism comes uncomfortably close to a line she shouldn't be crossing, but I'm not convinced she went over it.

I would agree with that assessment. I think that she realizes she is actually in a position that technically makes her one of the most powerful women in the world. It may be that she just wants to make a difference. That's fine, as long as she doesn't carry it too far.

[g_bambino]

That's too bad. I was really hoping that she'd have her term extended.

It would be risky, though, to pass up this opportunity to have the Queen swear-in her representative in person and wait for a possible other chance. If the supposition does prove to be true, it'll be a pretty amazing Canada Day: the celebrations, the Queen present, and a new Governor General, all on the same day.

I note that the linked article contains an odd claim, though:

If a British monarch anointing his or her colonial stand-in has happened before in Canadian history, the precedent could not be found yesterday by staff at Rideau Hall or the Library of Parliament.

Unless they really did limit their search to the colonial era - which raises the question: why? - the author of the piece, and the staff at Rideau Hall and the Library of Parliament, should all be fired. Not only are the words "British monarch" and "colonial stand-in" horrendously anachronistic, but all these researchers missed the fact that Georges Vanier was sworn-in before the Queen at a meeting of the Privy Council in Halifax, in 1959. It's on Wikipedia, for god's sake!

[+]

Edited February 20, 2010 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

It would be risky, though, to pass up this opportunity to have the Queen swear-in her representative in person and wait for a possible other chance. If the supposition does prove to be true, it'll be a pretty amazing Canada Day: the celebrations, the Queen present, and a new Governor General, all on the same day.

Totally...especially since I had already booked my first trip to Ottawa for that week (that had a great deal to do with the Queen. I realize that she's coming to Manitoba, but it just isn't the same thing. I can't wait, no matter what happens. I'm very excited...I only wish I had more than 2 days in Quebec City and 4 in Ottawa.

the words "British monarch" and "colonial stand-in"

Don't worry, I had the same reaction to those words. Journalists like to think they know what they're talking about. I've found when it comes to this issue in particular, they usually don't. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Rideau Hall and the Library were never really asked.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Smallc

[Argus]

That's too bad. I was really hoping that she'd have her term extended.

She was doing a good job - though that bit about her being "head of state" was amazingly stupid and ignorant - and I understand it really ticked off the PMO. But I think the smart thing, politically, is to keep her on. I understand she might be replaced by some other "minority of the day", perhaps an Inuit, but personally, I'd still rather see Prince Andrew as GG.

[g_bambino]

[T]hat bit about her being "head of state" was amazingly stupid and ignorant...

I think we put too much emphasis on the term "head of state", which isn't really an expression applicable to either a monarch or a viceroy. However, the intent behind the Governor General's employment of the phrase is concerning; repeatedly using it in reference to herself in order to cement into fact the myth that she is above the Queen herself. I don't fault Jean alone for that; she's surrounded by flunkies at Rideau Hall who've, since she first walked in the door, been shoving it in her face that she's the top of the Canadian pyramid, the Queen a colonial hold over. Recall Clarkson and her unfathomable ramblings about how she represented the Crown but not the Queen. Or Sauvé, who barred the playing of the Royal Anthem and demanded the Loyal Toast be to her and not the monarch.

I sure hope Harper's pick will buck that trend.

[c/e]

Edited February 20, 2010 by g_bambino

[Topaz]

Deciding which way Harper will go is not easy but from his views on women and the GG being the head of the Armed Forces, I think he'll go with the General.

[capricorn]

It would be risky, though, to pass up this opportunity to have the Queen swear-in her representative in person and wait for a possible other chance. If the supposition does prove to be true, it'll be a pretty amazing Canada Day: the celebrations, the Queen present, and a new Governor General, all on the same day.

I note that the linked article contains an odd claim, though

I agree. IMO the Queen personally swearing a new GG trumps Jean's extension which would only be for a maximum two years. Also provides an opportunity to recognize another deserving Canadian in that high office. Traditional anglo-franco rotation would mean an anglo would take over the GG's job.

[capricorn]

Deciding which way Harper will go is not easy but from his views on women

What views are they?

and the GG being the head of the Armed Forces, I think he'll go with the General.

Ah! But would Jean's military uniform fit the General?

[Smallc]

Deciding which way Harper will go is not easy but from his views on women and the GG being the head of the Armed Forces, I think he'll go with the General.

Actually, the Governor General isn't the Commander in Chief, but she has been allowed by the Sovereign to use the title. Technically, the Queen of Canada is still the Commander and Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces....as for his views on women, well, what are they exactly?

Edited February 20, 2010 by Smallc

[William Ashley]

Maybe it will be charles.. that would be cool.

[Smallc]

Maybe it will be charles.. that would be cool.

Ummmm....doubtful.

[William Ashley]

Ummmm....doubtful.

who would be better for the job?

Ok lets see who donated the most to the CPC's coffers since it's inception.. based on appointments to date made by harper I think this is the first place to look to figure out, ability to perform a function.

Edited February 20, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Ummmm....doubtful.

Yes, but unfortunately; at least, the lack of possibility of any member of the Royal Family ever serving as Governor General of Canada, if not Charles himself. Because, really, we should have the heir to the throne do so.

Oh, I know we don't because we'd rather roll over and capitulate to the ridiculous myth that the Royal Family is British only; people in Ottawa and across the country wring their hands with worry about what the Americans would think of Prince William "governing" Canada. But, why hide from the reality that William is as much ours as he is the Brits'? Why cower away from this unprecedented example of multilateralism in a world that's fighting a (sometimes losing) battle against nationalist tribalism? Those who reject as a colonial throwback the idea that one of Canada's princes or princesses could represent the Queen here tend to do so in conjunction with a narrow, navel-gazing, pseudo form of Canadian nationalism that we really shouldn't be accommodating.

[Machjo]

I like Michaelle Jean. She has done a fine job seeing her Constitutional duties through. Yet, of late she has ventured into matters that should be off limits for a Canadian Governor General. For example:

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100219/mtl_michaelle_jean100219/20100219/?hub=MontrealHome

http://www.ctvolympics.ca/ski-jumping/news/newsid=47119.html#governor+general+joins+fight+women+jumpers

Maybe she already knows she'll be replaced, then again maybe she wants out. Whatever the case, she should know better than to overtly criticize the capitalist system that Canada has certainly not turned away from. She may have some good points to make about capitalism's greed and the resulting social ills but while she holds the GG's Office it is not her place to pronounce speeches on those topics. As for the IOC, it has been often used as a political instrument in the past, as seen most recently when Obama personally lobbied to have the 2016 Olympics held in hometown Chicago. A GG lobbying the IOC on behalf of a women's sport may not be on the same scale, but the social/political overtone is obvious.

I think we need a new Governor General.

Actually, criticisms of capitalism can be interpreted outside the political sphere, not necessarily in terms of promoting any change in laws, but rather in one's personal behaviour within that system. I'm guessing even the most rabid of libertarians would agree that the more capitalistic a society is, the more important it is for each member of that society to take on more responsibility for his society of his own accord seeing that in such a system the government is not there to stand up for the most vulnerable members of society. Clearly an extreme libertarian society could function only if the members of that society take it upon themselves to care for their fellow citizens, otherwise such a society would be doomed to fail.

If understood in that context, which I'm sure is how the G intended for it to be taken, then there is no political overtone there. It would not be about opposing any kind of capitalistic system, but merely pointing out one's increased responsibilities within such a system, as compared to a socialist system where individual responsibilities are considerably reduced.

[Machjo]

Does the selection have to be from Canada? If not, then my pick would be...

Rowan Sebastian Atkinson

He'd add some spice to Canadian politics. I just know he would.