noahbody Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) It's really not a big deal for me. She's applied anyway. We did have a PM who avoided paying taxes in Canada. Edited April 7, 2011 by noahbody Quote
William Ashley Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) I don't think it's completely irrelevant. She will be somewhat of a diplomatic figure if Iggy is PM, chumming with foreign leaders and so forth, most of whom will assume she's a Canadian. This gets to me, part of what ruins Canada is political interferance in diplomacy. Let the government do this stuff, Canada has Ambassadors and the GG to represent the state the PM is SUPPOSE to be an interior minister not a minister of state. Parliament should be directing treaty and international agreements NOT THE PMO. THE PM is only suppose to ORGANIZE GOVERNMENT.. BY NATURE OF LAW CABINET CAN ONLY EXERCISE EXECUTIVE POWERS AUTHORIZED IT BY PARLIAMENT OR THE QUEEN (ex. letters patent). The Privy Council is suppose to direct executive posts through advice to the GG, - or the gg themself or the queen. TREATY IS LAW... it is the legislature that should be consenting and that means parliament NOT THE PM. It is a perversion of de jure law for the PMO to be involved in state affairs - other than so being asked of that role they are totally illegal in doing such without consent to act in that capacity. It is not a unilaterial determination of the PM to enter Canada into treaty. The PM is not the cheif executive power in Canada. Edited April 7, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
ToadBrother Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 This gets to me, part of what ruins Canada is political interferance in diplomacy. Let the government do this stuff, Canada has Ambassadors and the GG to represent the state the PM is SUPPOSE to be an interior minister not a minister of state. Parliament should be directing treaty and international agreements NOT THE PMO. I'm not sure what your complaint is here. The GG acts on the advice of the PM in the use of prerogatives like assigning ambassadors. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 This gets to me, part of what ruins Canada is political interferance in diplomacy. Let the government do this stuff, Canada has Ambassadors and the GG to represent the state the PM is SUPPOSE to be an interior minister not a minister of state. Parliament should be directing treaty and international agreements NOT THE PMO. Hello YOUR Majesty...I am iggy the new PM in Canada....I am primarily American at heart......and let me introduce my wife from Hungary........She really has no loyality to me or any nation......she`s just along for the ride - REAL CLASSY! Quote
William Ashley Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) I'm not sure what your complaint is here. The GG acts on the advice of the PM in the use of prerogatives like assigning ambassadors. The PM in giving advice (much like any other PrivyCouncillor) is not the same as the PM doing the act. The PM is not an ambassador. For maters of parliament it is the speaker, for matters of state in canada it is the GG, for matters of state outside Canada it is the diplomatic mission so assigned (ex. Ambassador) The PM has no de jure capacity for state function other than that assigned periodically, but not unilaterially. Such thing in capacity as a Privy Councillor can be granted (like any other Privy Councillor - or a Privy Councillor petitioning for someone else to so be assigned) - however - it should be clearly understand there is no de jure capacity for the PM to outright act as a diplomatic agent of Canada. That is it is not equivolent to the President of the United States in creating pacts. It is actually not legal for the PM to do so because it would be state interferance, and contempt of powers assigned to parliament and the queen. - Moreover it would comprise foreign allegiance since not domestically derived, and thus disqualify the PM and constitute a breach of his oath of office. (and yes that is what happened with the perimiter security deal - unless the queen authorized it without letting the public know, but that would be a use of reserve powers in secrecy.. I'm not aware that is the case, but at default the PM breached his oath, and collaborated with an alien power when agreeing to the security perimiter pact) - since parliament did not consent and it was a state operation. (I'm not yet sure if it constitutes treason, but it is pretty damn close) Edited April 7, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Oleg Bach Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 The PM in giving advice (much like any other PrivyCouncillor) is not the same as the PM doing the act. The PM is not an ambassador. For maters of parliament it is the speaker, for matters of state in canada it is the GG, for matters of state outside Canada it is the diplomatic mission so assigned (ex. Ambassador) The PM has no de jure capacity for state function other than that assigned periodically, but not unilaterially. Such thing in capacity as a Privy Councillor can be granted (like any other Privy Councillor - or a Privy Councillor petitioning for someone else to so be assigned) - however - it should be clearly understand there is no de jure capacity for the PM to outright act as a diplomatic agent of Canada. That is it is not equivolent to the President of the United States in creating pacts. It is actually not legal for the PM to do so because it would be state interferance, and contempt of powers assigned to parliament and the queen. - Moreover it would comprise foreign allegiance since not domestically derived, and thus disqualify the PM and constitute a breach of his oath of office. Educational if it`s true - carry on. Quote
scouterjim Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 Toronto Sun What I don't understand here is that she has been resident in Canada since 2005 (5 or 6 years) and she still has not obtained citizenship. Why not? It requires three years residency before one can apply for citizenship and I can understand bureaucratic delays but this seems very long. Either Ignatieff's wife didn't see this as a priority and hence hasn't pushed the bureaucracy or she simply didn't apply on time. I personally take these matters seriously. If someone wants to represent Canadians in government, I think they should be resident here and strongly attached to the country. Canada is not a flag of convenience. Well, at least she isn't an illegal immigrant (not to defend Iggy). Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
Saipan Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 The PM is not the cheif executive power in Canada. Unfortunately. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 Unfortunately. So you're a republican. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 The PM in giving advice (much like any other PrivyCouncillor) is not the same as the PM doing the act. The PM is not an ambassador. The difference since the 19th century has been largely ceremonial. Prime Ministers since Victorian times have performed a number of diplomatic acts that previously would have been seen as stepping on the Monarch's toes. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 Unfortunately. Unfortunately or fortunately - he might just become that in the next few months. Quote
g_bambino Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 No, I'm Canadian. The king president of non sequiturs still presides. Quote
bloodyminded Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 The king president of non sequiturs still presides. Very good. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Oleg Bach Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 The king president of non sequiturs still presides. Hey fancey pants....is that some Latin or sumpin.... Quote
g_bambino Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) The PM is not the cheif executive power in Canada. True, he isn't; executive power is the Queen's. But, by the convention of responsible government, it is "loaned" to the ministers of the Crown, responsible to the elected House of Commons, for exercise in the day-to-day governing of the country, including, as has already been pointed out, the appointment of ambassadors, judges, and even the governor general. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one. Still, this has nothing to do with the wife of the prime minister. She may get to shake hands with some members of foreign governments and diplomats, but that doesn't qualify as a governmental role. [c/e] Edited April 7, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 Okay -----Iggy can have a non-Canadian as a wife..what the heck - feel like a liberal denying a man his pleasure. Quote
Smallc Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 I don't know what Sharon Johnston does, though; she's always seemed very low-key to me. What role has she been given? [+] It's rather symbolic I think. She gets to be called Excellency, anyway. Quote
Jack Weber Posted April 7, 2011 Report Posted April 7, 2011 Saintly enough to work with the goddamned Bloc Quebecois. Traitor to the nation. You know its a testament to the freedoms of Canada that my tax money is paying these treacherous bastards a yearly salary, benefits and pension to tear the country up based on sentiments from the 14th century A right winger from South Africa.... Hmmm... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
August1991 Posted April 8, 2011 Author Report Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) No, I asked you.He said, she said....Cherie Blair, the wife of Tony Blair, had a political role to play in British politics. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. IOW, the citizenship of the wife of a man who wants to lead a country understandably matters to people. It is foolish to pretend otherwise. And I happen to be one of those people who is curious about the private life of a prime minister including marital status or citizenship of the spouse. I think it is germane to ask whether Ignatieff's wife has bothered to become a Canadian citizen or not. You may disagree with my curiousity but that's democratic politics in the 21st century. ---- Bambino, let me look at this question from your perspective. You often talk about "constitutional conventions". Where do you think these "conventions" come from? They come over time from common practice. For example, it is now common practice that a federal PM is bilingual. In a similar sense, we no longer live in an age where the spouse of the PM can live in the shadows. Ask any spouse of any PM what "conventions" she/he must follow. Edited April 8, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Jack Weber Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) He said, she said.... Cherie Blair, the wife of Tony Blair, had a political role to play in British politics. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. IOW, the citizenship of the wife of a man who wants to lead a country understandably matters to people. It is foolish to pretend otherwise. And I happen to be one of those people who is curious about the private life of a prime minister including marital status or citizenship of the spouse. I think it is germane to ask whether Ignatieff's wife has bothered to become a Canadian citizen or not. You may disagree with my curiousity but that's democratic politics in the 21st century. ---- Bambino, let me look at this question from your perspective. You often talk about "constitutional conventions". Where do you think these "conventions" come from? They come over time from common practice. For example, it is now common practice that a federal PM is bilingual. In a similar sense, we no longer live in an age where the spouse of the PM can live in the shadows. Ask any spouse of any PM what "conventions" she/he must follow. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill... Better to ask you why you think Mr. Mulroney's approach vis a vis the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords was correct?...If we are going to talk about meaningless stuff??? Edited April 8, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
ToadBrother Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) He said, she said.... Cherie Blair, the wife of Tony Blair, had a political role to play in British politics. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. She got some press and was reasonably well known in certain circles before Tony became PM. She had no role in any formal sense, and despite all the sort of feminist aspirations she exuded, at the end of the day, she still basically functioned as an arm for Tony to take at formal engagements. IOW, the citizenship of the wife of a man who wants to lead a country understandably matters to people. It is foolish to pretend otherwise. And I happen to be one of those people who is curious about the private life, marital status or citizenship of a prime minister. I think it is germane to ask whether Ignatieff's wife has bothered to become a Canadian citizen or not. That's democratic politics in the 21st century. There's nothing 21st century about such a question. It sounds more like the boorish kind of politics one would have heard in the 18th and 19th century. ---- Bambino, let me look at this question from your perspective. You often talk about "constitutional conventions". Where do you think these "conventions" come from? They come over time from common practice. For example, it is now common practice that a federal PM is bilingual. In a similar sense, we no longer live in an age where the spouse of the PM can live in the shadows. And yet, for the most part, PM's wives do. Harper's wife is rarely seen. Martin's wife was rarely seen. Chretien's wife was rarely seen. I'll grant you that Mila Mulroney was out there a bit more, and of course there's Margaret Trudeau... which is probably why pretty much all the PM's wives afterwards kept low profiles. You're just inventing this new "21st century" as some sort of an angle of attack. It's idiotic, and your underlying premise is faulty. Get over it. Unless she's a bloody Comintern spy or something, her birthplace and how far along her goal of citizenship is none of your flipping business. There are plenty of real reasons to be critical of Iggy, but this, this is lower than lower, it's just the sort of ugly, bottom feeding rhetoric that turns elections into septic tanks. Edited April 8, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
g_bambino Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 Cherie Blair, the wife of Tony Blair, had a political role to play in British politics. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. I'm still waiting for the answer to my question: what governmental role does the spouse of the prime mininster have, August? You said he or she has one; it should be simple for you to say what it is. The indirect and irrelevant retorts you keep offering are beginning to more than hint that you don't actually have a proper response. If I have to ask again after this, it'll be pretty much certain. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 I like this angle... Some commentators have tried to style prime minister's wive as "First Lady of Canada", similar to the style of First Lady used in republics, but this is not a recognized title. Use of the term is based on the pervasive influence of American media and not a defined public role or title for the prime minister's spouse. In any case, both the spouse of the Canadian monarch and that of the Governor General of Canada take precedence over a prime minister's spouse, rendering the notion untenable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spouse_of_the_Prime_Minister_of_Canada Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
g_bambino Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 There's nothing 21st century about such a question. It sounds more like the boorish kind of politics one would have heard in the 18th and 19th century. Or from the so-called "Birthers" in the US. Though, at least there is some reason behind their lunacy, given that there is an actual constitutional requirement that the president be US-born. It's impossible to fathom why August thinks it's so necessary that the wife of the prime minister meet the requirements of the Citizenship Act. Quote
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.