Vice regality

[The Terrible Sweal]

have your say

[caesar]

This is not a poll it is just childish nonsense. Quit making a mountain out of a molehill. Quite often; funerals cannot be attended by the top dignataries as they have previous commitments. Making a poll with only one side of an issue winning whichever way you vote is ludicrous.

[kimmy]

Can I vote for both?

People of course are being petty. I doubt any of the people criticizing Clarkson for skipping the event were really very sorry that she didn't attend.

That said; Clarkson really does suck. If her office had simply come out with the facts in the first place instead of coming up with an evolving, leaky cover story, there wouldn't have been much to talk about. She invited scrutiny and criticism upon herself, as she's done several times in the past. I think it is fair to say that Clarkson has brought controversy to the position of Governor General, and diminished Canadians' respect for the office. So, while "sucks" might not be a kind way of putting it, I think she has done a disservice to the position of Governor General, not just through her response to the recent controversy, but also in the past with her lavish spending and seeming arrogance in response to criticism.

-kimmy

[Newfie Canadian]

I'm on the record as saying we need to do away with the GG (and by extension LGs) and start making our own traditions instead of holding onto the monarchy in the current fashion.

I will agree with Kimmy though, honesty was the best policy here, and if that policy was used, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Guest eureka]

Honesty would inquire more into the nature of our system of governance before parroting the "do away with the GG."

Honesty would also do some research into the requirements of the office and its spending before parroting a press that wishes to impose an American style of faux democracy on Canada.

I happen to think that Clarkson was not the best choice for GG. I also think that the appointments have been a political football ever since we assumed the appointment process.

However, that does not lessen the importance of the office. It merely makes it less effective than it should be. There no spendthrift ways; only an inadequate budget for the office.

[Grantler]

Clarkson sucks.

Spending tax payers money to travel the world. Really, come on, who cares if they meet the Governor General of Canada?

Well, they might care, but there is no point in caring.

All she does is give a brief Canadian history lesson to people that don't even know anything about the country.

[Newfie Canadian]

And here's another reason to close up Rideau Hall.

Student Asks a Question and Gets in Trouble

Wasn't bad enough that they kicked out the group, but then the school suspended him.

Hilarious.

On the other hand, Rideau Hall will be offering an apology and the boys suspension will be lifted.

Too bad it took an appearance on Canada AM to do it.

Suspension Lifted

[kimmy]

She invited scrutiny and criticism upon herself, as she's done several times in the past. I think it is fair to say that Clarkson has brought controversy to the position of Governor General, and diminished Canadians' respect for the office. So, while "sucks" might not be a kind way of putting it, I think she has done a disservice to the position of Governor General, not just through her response to the recent controversy, but also in the past with her lavish spending and seeming arrogance in response to criticism.

While she apparently didn't actually do anything in this latest instance, she's still at the root of it. First as it is her notorious spending that prompted the comment, and secondly that her staff apparently has developed some kind of seige mentality in response to all the criticism.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

I think, Grantier, that you should read up on the role of the Head of State in government before coming to a conclusion.

I won't go into it now since it is complex and important to out way of life. There are too many who post, even on this forum, who have no understanding of government. Thry make similar statements to yours without the background information - not that information matters to those who have already made up their minds.

[Grantler]

The Governor General is kept as a symbolic gesture. For example, as the meanings states:

Symbolic:

2: serving as a visible symbol for something abstract; "a crown is emblematic of royalty"

Clarkson is just representative of an unecessary historic purpose. The way you are talking seems to suggest you'd rather the Queen sign in our laws again.

Wonderful.

[Grantler]

Some facts:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/governorgeneral/

------------------------------------------------

WHAT

Queen's representative in Canada and Canada's de facto head of state. ***(The Queen is the official head of state.)

DUTIES

The Governor General's duties, which are largely ceremonial, include:

Representing the Crown and ensuring there is always a prime minister.

Acting on advice of prime minister and cabinet ministers to give royal assent to bills passed in the Senate and House of Commons.

Signing state documents.

Reading throne speech.

Presiding over swearing-in of prime minister, chief justice and cabinet ministers.

BUDGET (2004 est.)

Office budget set at $19.1 million, the same as in 2003 and up from $11 million in 1999. Governor General's spending totalled $41 million in 2003, counting costs to the Department of National Defence, RCMP and other bodies.

Meh, she only spent double her budget. That's not bad at all.

[Guest eureka]

Dig a little deeper! And, think a little more about symbols.

[Grantler]

Why think about it? That is all she is. Just because she is a breathing and living and wasteful symbol doesn't make her anything more.

[Guest eureka]

You have a great deal yet to learn and I am not interested in getting into this with you. If you do not understand what national symbols do and mean, then you will simply have to work on your political education until you do - or withdraw from debate.Your answers indicate a closed mind.

That is only the symbolic aspect of an underfunded office in Canada. You still have to learn the role of the office in the governance of Canada.

[Grantler]

I just think that there are more importanty Canadian symbols than one that represents a foreign monarch.

I know that foreign moarch might be a stretch but Canada does control her own destiny and I am proud of the people that fought for that right.

I believe that in the modern world the need to hold onto Britain through a symbolic office is unecessary. I too am proud of the British connection but it no longer needs to be practiced by a 19.1 million dollar office. You obviously think we need a symbol to remind us of our history. That is totally kewl, but I think that my position isn't one of being uneducated about what she represents, its just that I don't see a need for it.

[Newfie Canadian]

I'm all for a head of state, but I think we can safley assume that we (as a country) are old enough to have one that is technically responsible to Canadians, not the Queen.

It's sort of like saying that the Senate, the wasteful moneypit that it is, shouldn't be reformed or abolished because it is based on the House of Lords, in other words tradition.

We should start making our own traditions.

[Guest eureka]

By being responsible(technically) to the Queen, the GG is responsible to all Canadians. That is one of the beauties of our system, The GG is not responsible to any political party or leader. We need to strenghten the office and affirm that Constitutional position.

As for the Senate, I said all that I think needs to be said in the discussion on the Senate. We should think a little harder before lightly saying that we should discard "tradition." Because, it is not only tradition. It is the most responsive and democratic system that has been devised anywhere.

[Newfie Canadian]

I agree eureka that tradition is important.

It's how we got where we are, where we came from.

But being responsible to "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith", hardly seems to be responsible to all Canadians.

I know it is just ceremony, but the GG can refuse to dissolve parliament, refuse to sign a law, etc in the name of the Queen. It may cause unrest and constitutional chaos, but the GG is permitted to do it. It's in the constitution.

There's something wrong there.

[Guest eureka]

It isn not tradition that is at the heart of the office. It is the role in the Parliamentary system. The King-in-Parliamrnt concept is the only one that has yet produced a workable democracy. It is the nelief that she is somehow respomsible to the Queen that is the problem.

The GG is responsible only to the duties of the Office and through that to the Canadian people. The other is dressing.

The idea that we can now cast off the British connection is the result of a complete lack of understanding of our Commonwealth ties. Canada is completely independent and the Commonwealth is a strength, not a weakness. It is unfortunate that the resentment of Colonial status in the past - as if there would be a Canada without that - has caused a weakening of the ties.

Had the Commonwealth not been reduced to a club of friends, there might not have been a WWII: there might not now be a George Bush who could strut unchallenged on the world stage.

The symbolic aspect of the GG is not about the British tradition except in our inheritance of all that is good in that. It is about every nation's need for valid centrepieces that do not have the power to stifle democracy - as the US Presidency does.

[Newfie Canadian]

It is the nelief that she is somehow respomsible to the Queen that is the problem.

Yes, and technically, she is.

I see what you're saying, and in the real world you're right. In practice, the GG is responsible to the people. She's appointed by the Queen on the advice of the PM. The GG dissolves parliament on the advice of the PM, etc.

But like they say, the devil is in the details, and in the details she is responsible to the Queen.

I'm not sure what to think of the Commonwealth.

I'm all for multi nationall institutions, but the Commonwelath appears to be stuck in neutral on many items.

Too much politics and not enough substance appears to be the mantra.