# The choice for GOV GEN.



## SHELLDRAKE!! (13 Aug 2005)

Should the Gov Gen not be the best representation of a Canadian, with an impecable past? Im sorry but IMHO the fact that FLQ involvement was even brought up tells me where theres smoke, theres fire.


----------



## edadian (13 Aug 2005)

It is just separatists causing trouble. It would be best avoid stirring up controversy because it gives into the separatists aim to discredit a popular federalist Quebec.


----------



## Bug Guy (13 Aug 2005)

edadian said:
			
		

> It is just separatists causing trouble. It would be best avoid stirring up controversy because it gives into the separatists aim to discredit a popular federalist Quebec.



Let's face it.  Seperatists are like herpies, they have their active cycle.  As far as the new choice is concerned, I have to agree that I am not impressed.  Would past generations agree and future generations be supported?  Personally I doubt it.  But Clarkson is a hard act to follow, she took her job seriously and was supportive of the military.


----------



## Blakey (14 Aug 2005)

Thank-You for alerting me to this topic   (You know who you are)

Here is one of the "many" articles that call into question the "Loyalty" of our new GG elect and her husband.
If you have read it already, my apologies. I should say that this is from Charles Adler's site, a daytime talk radio personality. In Winnipeg he has become somewhat of an iconic figure for his "straight" talk and "pulling no punches" attitude with regards to the coverage of controversial news topics, or "anything under the sun". (to steal a quote from another excellent talk radio personalty, Peter Warren.)

Link To Article (By NELSON WYATT)


Link To Homepage (Charles Adler)

Now, before everyone jumps on me, my opinion on this matter is that if the GG elect AND OR her husband voted FOR separation in the last referendum then in _my opinion_ she should gracefully resign. In any case I for one would like to here from themselves in regards to this matter, I'd like to here directly from them what their rational behind voting for separatism was?, and if they did and now have "switched" over to "federalism" what prompted them to make that switch during the past 10 years?

I for one, would like to have answers to all of these questions answered because until then, in my eyes they have no credibility with me.....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (14 Aug 2005)

I was under the impression that how she voted in the last referendum is nobody's business but her own.  Isn't that one of the freedoms our military has fought to defend?


----------



## Blakey (14 Aug 2005)

So, if they had a subversive or ulterior motive you wouldn't care?


----------



## Gunner (14 Aug 2005)

I agree with Michael, how Jean and her husband voted in 1995 is moot at this point.  We have all done stupid things in our past..

I do expect her (and him) as the appointed Governor General of Canada to renounced any and all sympathies towards Quebec sovereigntists who are intent on breaking up this country. I think the PMO stifling her ability to speak out has contributed to this media frenzy and it is damaging her credibility and the Prime Minister.


----------



## Blakey (14 Aug 2005)

Well, its not inconsequential in my opinion, if there isn't anything to hide...let the people of both _countries_ know, Canada and Quebec.


> I think the PMO stifling her ability to speak out has contributed to this media frenzy...


I wasn't aware that it was, honestly.


> I do expect her (and him) as the appointed Governor General of Canada to renounced any and all sympathies towards Quebec sovereigntists who are intent on breaking up this country.


I agree, *but*, if one was a card carring member previously in the "sovereigntist movement" within Quebec, would you not care about the rational behind there about-face on the issue?

What it all boils down to, at least for me, is what was the motivating factor('s) (if they did vote for sovereignty) that they had this miraculous 180 degree in there thinking?


----------



## jmacleod (14 Aug 2005)

In Canada, and in all countries where the standard is the British system of representative government
the ballot is secret. In Canada, the ballot in a municipal, provincial or federal election is secret. The
Premier of New Brunswick has brought up the issue of the attitude of Conservative Leader Hon.
Stephen Harper, PC, MP, whom he would dearly love to discredit, on the contrived issue of how
the newly appointed GGC voted in a referendum, where the ballot is secret. The Premier of New
Brunswick seeks to discredit the Hon. Stephen Harper, PC. MP Leader of the Opposition, who
appears disinterested in discussing a secret ballot. Did the Premier of New Brunswick vote for
the Hon. Stephen Harper in the Conservative leadership race?  We will never know; it's a secret.
Would the Liberal Party of Canada welcome the Premier of New Brunswick as leader of the
Conservative Party; of course, it's no secret. MacLeod


----------



## beach_bum (14 Aug 2005)

Blakey said:
			
		

> Well, its not inconsequential in my opinion, if there isn't anything to hide...let the people of both _countries_ know, Canada and Quebec.I wasn't aware that it was, honestly.I agree, *but*, if one was a card carring member previously in the "sovereigntist movement" within Quebec, would you not care about the rational behind there about-face on the issue?
> 
> What it all boils down to, at least for me, is what was the motivating factor('s) (if they did vote for sovereignty) that they had this miraculous 180 degree in there thinking?



Frankly, I quite agree with you.  As the Queen's representative, how does she feel about it?  I know that I would be very interested in hearing her part.  I have many questions about her and would love answers.  Sadly, I don't think I'll ever get any.


----------



## Gunner (14 Aug 2005)

> I agree, but, if one was a card carring member previously in the "sovereigntist movement" within Quebec, would you not care about the rational behind there about-face on the issue?



The issue is not whether she is a card carrying member of the FLQ, BQ, or PQ in that there has not been any proof that she was.  The question was how did she vote during the 1995 referendum and, quite honestly, I agree with jmcleod.  The vital ground is where her sympathy lies as the "head of Canada".  I assumed she was a federalist having taken the job but I would have to go over her "acceptance" speech again to confirm what she stated and, as I mentioned, I think it is a mistake not allowing her to speak out against these allegations.  The PMO imposed silence simply allows the seed of doubt to fester in the media and political pundits.

Lest there be no doubt, I am not in favour of this appointment as I do not think she has achieved the level of national stature that I deem sufficient to be worthy of the job, moveover, I am very much against the patronage appointment of a poliitcal hack to represent my country.  However, having said that, I am not going to judge Jean or her husband for having "hung around" or had/have a "sympathetic ear" for those wanting to break apart Canada.  Certainly the previous referendum's have all be fairly close and if 1 in every 2 people voted against the federal government, don't you think you would actually know someone who voted yes.

In the end, remember, even Jesus walked and associated with the prostitutes and tax collectors and looked how he turned out!


----------



## 48Highlander (14 Aug 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> I agree with Michael, how Jean and her husband voted in 1995 is moot at this point.   We have all done stupid things in our past..



Well, let's use another example.  There's pretty good evidence that the current president of Iran was one of the hostage takers in the 1979 crisis at the US embasy in Tehran.  Would you say that his past is also irelevant?  Would you trust him enough to allow Iran to research nuclear technology for "peaceful purpuses"?


----------



## Gunner (14 Aug 2005)

> Well, let's use another example.  There's pretty good evidence that the current president of Iran was one of the hostage takers in the 1979 crisis at the US embasy in Tehran.  Would you say that his past is also irelevant?  Would you trust him enough to allow Iran to research nuclear technology for "peaceful purpuses"?



I thiink we are talking about asking a person how they voted in a secret ballot and the reason for not has been well articulated by Jmcleod above.  

Let's keep the thread on track and leave the digression into Iranian affairs for another thread.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (14 Aug 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Well, let's use another example.  There's pretty good evidence that the current president of Iran was one of the hostage takers in the 1979 crisis at the US embasy in Tehran.  Would you say that his past is also irelevant?  Would you trust him enough to allow Iran to research nuclear technology for "peaceful purpuses"?



Gunner is right about talking Iran in another thread, but you do provide an interesting example that I think is an acceptable parallel.  Is his past irrelevant?  I think it shows where his loyalties lay at some time in the past.  It wouldn't make him more or less likely to build nuclear bombs, taken on its own.

Do we think the Governor General is likely to dissolve Parliament and ...well, what, exactly?  Ratify a motion to seperate?  Even if she was a seperatist, what influence could she exercise in order to achieve that goal?  I don't know which is why I ask.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Aug 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Well, let's use another example.   There's pretty good evidence that the current president of Iran was one of the hostage takers in the 1979 crisis at the US embasy in Tehran.   Would you say that his past is also irelevant?   Would you trust him enough to allow Iran to research nuclear technology for "peaceful purpuses"?



I think the difference there is hostage taking is a crimminal whereas being a separatist in Canada is not.


----------



## Blakey (14 Aug 2005)

> The issue is not whether she is a card carrying member of the FLQ, BQ, or PQ


Gunner, 
My mistake, my previous post should have read as such;  





> if one was a "card carring member" previously in the sovereigntist movement within Quebec,


Either way, it's all the same in my eyes, let us know where you (GG/ husband) stand on the issue, and dispel any false accusations that may have been leveled against you. Failing to refute such claims will inevitably lead to speculation, thus the need for a public address...


----------



## 48Highlander (14 Aug 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Gunner is right about talking Iran in another thread, but you do provide an interesting example that I think is an acceptable parallel.   Is his past irrelevant?   I think it shows where his loyalties lay at some time in the past.   It wouldn't make him more or less likely to build nuclear bombs, taken on its own.
> Do we think the Governor General is likely to dissolve Parliament and ...well, what, exactly?   Ratify a motion to seperate?   Even if she was a seperatist, what influence could she exercise in order to achieve that goal?   I don't know which is why I ask.



I was using Iran as a more extreme example, I didn't mean to bring the thread off topic.

You have a point about peoples past not ALWAYS being indicative of their future performance, however, most of the time the past is the BEST indication of future performance.  If a Pte. on a course keeps screwing up, the staff generally considers him a shitpump and keep a closer eye on him.  If you've gotten charged numerous times for insubordination, you're pretty unlikely to get a leadership course.  And so on.  The way people have behaved in the past is always relevant to the way we judge them, and being a seperatist is no different.  Does the fact she voted to seperate mean she still feels the same way?  Probably yes, but maybe not.  Either way we'd be better off choosing someone who never held such views.

As to what she could DO about it...well, she's not going to force the country apart, but do we really want an official representing our country who beleives that we shouldn't even BE a country?  Especially when there's so many other candidates to chose from?  If her resume was a thousand times better than any other person who was considered for this position, then yeah, ok, let's ignore her past views about seperation and see how she does.  However, when there are other candidates who are just as qualified, if not more so, and who do NOT side with seperatists, well, it should have been a no-brainer.



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I think the difference there is hostage taking is a crimminal whereas being a separatist in Canada is not.



Like I said, obviously it's a more extreme example.  I wasn't trying to make her out to be a criminal, I was simply pointing out that her past views on seperation are VERY relevant as to wether or not she's a suitable choice for GG.


----------



## Blakey (14 Aug 2005)

48Highlander,
Although I agree with most of your post, i do not agree with;


> If her resume was a thousand times better than any other person who was considered for this position, then yeah, ok, let's ignore her past views about seperation and see how she does.


Using another *extreme* example, if as you say here resume was a thousand times better than say...Don Cherry's resume, I would still pick Don Cherry. I (as well most Canadians) at least know Don Cherry, he's very opinionated, loud mouthed, and pulls no punches, sometimes it's the devil you know rather than the devil you don't know...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Aug 2005)

Blakey said:
			
		

> at least know Don Cherry, he's very opinionated, loud mouthed, and pulls no punches,



Exactly the traits you want for a senior diplomat who travels abroad to represent the country....

Granted, some have argued that is not the G-G's mandate, but I think the position has evolved to include that.

Can you honestly see Cherry giving a eulogy half as eloquent as the one Adrienne Clarkson delivered for the Unkown Soldier?  Or greeting foreign dignitaries (especially Europeans, given his views on European hockey players)?  Or having any appeal whatsoever in Quebec?

What is it you think a Governor General does, incidentally?


----------



## Blakey (15 Aug 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Exactly the traits you want for a senior diplomat who travels abroad to represent the country....
> 
> Granted, some have argued that is not the G-G's mandate, but I think the position has evolved to include that.
> 
> ...





> Using another *extreme* example,


Read the above quote... :
Edited to add: 





> What is it you think a Governor General does, incidentally?


Maybe represent the country without any untoward bias??? I dunno call me crazy...


----------



## beach_bum (15 Aug 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Can you honestly see Cherry giving a eulogy half as eloquent as the one Adrienne Clarkson delivered for the Unkown Soldier?   Or greeting foreign dignitaries (especially Europeans, given his views on European hockey players)?   Or having any appeal whatsoever in Quebec?



Okay, perhaps his wouldn't be quite as eloquent, but I do believe that his would be just as heartfelt.  As for appeal in Quebec....meh.  How many people in that position would have appeal if they weren't french?  Really?


----------



## jmacleod (15 Aug 2005)

Don Cherry is a great Canadian broadcaster and hockey expert. He would be the ideal appointment
as head of Canada's Olympic Games Committee, or Director of CBC Sports, but these are not comparable
positions to the Canadian Governor General, which is and has been for decades, a political appointment
-I think all readers and contributors to this Forum are well aware of that.The Speech From The Throne
is written in the PMO, the government makes all policies, and the CGG is a figurehead, but a very
necessary figurehead. Once the new CGG starts appearing in public, her unique charm and grace
will dispel controversy, and the critics will find something else to be critical about. But there will be
no resignation, and a lot of Canadians will be looking forward to the first formal speech, in both
official languages from the new Governor General of Canada. MacLeod


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (15 Aug 2005)

Maybee if the proposed GG made a clear statement that she stands against separation in Canada, Canadians could stop speculating about what her views were and current separtists would see that the idea of separation is not so popular anymore.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Aug 2005)

David Frum on the GG



> AUG. 10, 2005: GG PS
> 
> Some Canadian readers have asked in response to my column on governors-general just why I think Romeo LeBlanc was a worse choice than Michaelle Jean, the newly named governor-general. I suppose it comes down to my feeling that in the current Canadian context, Liberal cronyism is an even worse political problem than racial preferences - and that LeBlanc owed his appointment to the former while Jean is merely an exhibit of the latter. That said, Jean remains the second worst choice to fill the office in modern times.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gunner (15 Aug 2005)

You will note in news reports tonight (Global) that Jean attended a 1991 dinner of Quebec sovereignist intellectuals and they all toasted to the independence of Quebec.  I reaffirm my comments that the PMO not allowing her to speak out continues to damage her image even prior to her anointment in September.  

I think this is going to get worse for the Liberals.  I am starting to think that we may have the first GG appointee turfed before taking over the job.  Harper can thank God for this event as there was a lot of media focus on Harper as a washed up leader (stick a fork in him, he's done) prior to this announcement.  He may yet live to fight another day and defeat PM.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Aug 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> You will note in news reports tonight (Global) that Jean attended a 1991 dinner of Quebec sovereignist intellectuals and they all toasted to the independence of Quebec.  I reaffirm my comments that the PMO not allowing her to speak out continues to damage her image even prior to her anointment in September.



Don't mean to be a naysayer, but I recall one of our corporals - who later became a Reg Force officer - drinking toasts in the JRs mess to, and I quote, "die Wehrmacht".  He in fact corrected another corporal who called it "der Wehrmacht".

I am sure there were Communists, Jews, and other enemies of the Nazis that said "Heil Hitler" if it meant escaping notice, or if it served a political purpose at the time, or was good for business...

Sounds like I am advocating situational ethics, doesn't it.  Ah well, just food for thought.  I don't think it was a particularly inspired choice for GG either, but I haven't yet seen any real smoking gun either.  Am interested in the story as it unfolds, however, like the rest of you.  Keep plugging.


----------



## Gunner (15 Aug 2005)

> Sounds like I am advocating situational ethics, doesn't it.  Ah well, just food for thought.  I don't think it was a particularly inspired choice for GG either, but I haven't yet seen any real smoking gun either.  Am interested in the story as it unfolds, however, like the rest of you.  Keep plugging.



They had her on video....smoking gun enough?


----------



## Acorn (15 Aug 2005)

De Chastelain an immigrant? Not because he was born in Romania. Frum always has a tendency to overstate things. 

Acorn


----------



## Black Watch (16 Aug 2005)

The new Governor General, Her exellency MichaÃƒÂ«lle Jean is a debating point in Québec. Because her husband was friend with former FLQ's members. It is often said in Québec that it is a try from Paul Martin to keep Québec in Canada.

As a federalist, I think that those extremists are just frustrated because Québec is not a soverein nation.

I would like to hear your comments.


----------



## Blakey (16 Aug 2005)

Being Discussed Here


----------



## Strike (16 Aug 2005)

I guess it's guilt by association.  I am friends with someone who used to be a junkie.  Does that mean I did drugs?  No.  Does it mean I condoned it?  Of course not.

I realize that each situation is different, and this may not be a fair comparison.  Okay.  My mother's side of the family is Quebecois.  My uncle and his two sons used to be staunch separatists.  Does this make my mom a separatist too?  How about the rest of her family?  Since my uncle has admitedly changed his vews, as have my cousins, does this mean they can no longer associate with their friends who may still hold these views?  What if these family members were working for the federal government?  Seems a little less serious when you bring it closer to home.

Here's another one -- Trudeau and Castro.  They were good friends, and not just because they were both heads of state.  Was Trudeau automatically a communist?  (Okay, he may have seemed like one to some...lol)


----------



## NCRCrow (16 Aug 2005)

she's prety hot for a GG though


----------



## Blakey (16 Aug 2005)

> I guess it's guilt by association.  I am friends with someone who used to be a junkie.  Does that mean I did drugs?  No.  Does it mean I condoned it?  Of course not.


I would hope that they make some sort of public statement regarding the fact...



> she's pretty hot for a GG though


Glad to hear that..... :


----------



## Black Watch (16 Aug 2005)

I live in Québec, and I can tell you that extreme separatists are going crasy


----------



## Andyboy (17 Aug 2005)

I happen to think that the right to keeping your vote a secret is paramount to a free society. That being said I don't think it is too much to ask that the Governor General be unquestionable loyal to Canada. The fact that there is any question at all-through her views on federalism, as well as her French citizenship-says to me that she is not an appropriate choice.

Then again, I have spent the better part of my life not caring who the GG was, why would now be any different?


----------



## sjm (17 Aug 2005)

I don't care what her background was.  SHE WAS AND STILL IS A NOBODY.  Surely the PM could have appointed someone of some note.

If she's supposed to represent Canada abroad what's the point if she has to introduce herself everytime she leaves her driveway.

SHANIA TWAIN for GG.   At least the GGFG would get a boss that looks decent in (and actually be willing to wear) scarlets.


----------



## S McKee (17 Aug 2005)

Oh just heard on the radio she issued a statement denying separatist links


----------



## Blakey (17 Aug 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> Oh just heard on the radio she issued a statement denying separatist links


I would like to know what has changed her mind since 1991...


> *...authored by Lafond. In the book, Jean, a former broadcaster, is quoted as saying "you don't give independence, you take it."
> *





> *Le Québécois reports the comments were included in a 1991 documentary film by Lafond,*





> John Aimers of the Monarchist League of Canada says the governor general designate must speak out to rebut what's being said about her.


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/17/governor_general_2005_08_17.html
Edited to add:


> There may be problems for Jean on another front. Reports say French officials are now looking into whether or not to strip Jean of her dual Canadian-French citizenship.


WTF? _Dual_ Canadian-French Citizenship.... ???
NM, I misread


----------



## lahr_brat (17 Aug 2005)

I am not too happy about the choice made by the PMO.   However, the choice is made and I do not expect the PM to change his mind.   Let's give the GG designate the opportunity to show Canadians that she is the proper choice.   However, I also feel that she does not properly represent Canadian society as a whole.   

In my opinion, the pre-requisites and qualifications for the position, or standards if you will, are being diminished to "buy" more votes for the big red Liberal machine.      

I think the federal government should hold an Governor General lottery where any Canadian citizen over the age of 18 can buy a $100 ticket for an equal chance to become GG.   If you hold the winning ticket you are the GG for the 2 year term.   The proceeds from the lottery then become your operating budget for the term, so spent it wisely.

Just my two cents

Pamela


----------



## sjm (17 Aug 2005)

I like the lottery idea.

Besides can she really be such a bad person, afterall she does wear the Order of Canada (and a CD).



Wait a minute, didn't Al Eagleson wear the Order of Canada?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Aug 2005)

sjm said:
			
		

> I like the lottery idea.
> 
> Besides can she really be such a bad person, afterall she does wear the Order of Canada (and a CD).
> 
> ...



Hitler wore the Iron Cross First Class, does that make the Red Baron any less of a pilot?


----------



## Blakey (17 Aug 2005)

I never knew Hitler could fly.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Aug 2005)

Blakey said:
			
		

> I never knew Hitler could fly.



I never knew Alan Eagleson was the Governor General.  

We could do this all day, so if you have a point to make, why not just make it without the sarcasm?


----------



## MdB (17 Aug 2005)

lahr_brat said:
			
		

> However, I also feel that she does not properly represent Canadian society as a whole.



Do you mean that Adrienne Clarkson is more representative than Jean? I don't think so.

As for reprensentativity, would a mid-class person from Winnipeg or, let's say, Windsor, would be more representative?? Anyway, is the GG not supposed to represent the Queen herself? Come on, look at your history books.



			
				lahr_brat said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the pre-requisites and qualifications for the position, or standards if you will, are being diminished to "buy" more votes for the big red Liberal machine.



Do you mean that we, people of Quebec, are so easily lured by such things? How would such an appointment translate in votes? I do think that the PMO thinks it would, but I don't, as many others. And, I don't think this would bind Quebec to Canada in a deeper way. There's much more to do, but it would be too risky for the PM to begin. In the meantime, he goes on with the disunity of Canada by signing piecemeal deals with any province that needs cash...


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Aug 2005)

Why do we need an appointment that is representative of Canadians?  Which other countries are sufficiently insecure in their identity to require a multicultural figurehead, with or without real political power?


----------



## jmacleod (17 Aug 2005)

The CGG makes no decisions at a political level, her speeches come from the PMO, she is in every
sense of the word, a "figurehead". There has been talk about abolishing the office, but that will
not happen. There should be a requirement however for the PM, every MP, bureaucrat, political
appointee, senators, political flunkies, all municipal and provincial employees, judges, magistrates
etc.,  a requirement for an Oath of Allegiance to Canada - used to be "the Dominion of Canada"
not the Queen, but to Canada, ie "I pledge allegiance to Canada, and all its Provinces, lands
and Territories, etc." or something like that. If you are one of the political chosen or annointed
you either provide the solemn oath, or depart. Problems with such an mandatory activity? many
- (the PQ would balk and act enraged, but they are, after all, Canadian MP's). Sovereignty for
Quebec? only popular in elitist, academic circles - technology and aerospace people we deal with
just laugh when a seperate "country" is mentioned - who would finance Bombardier? only the
tooth fairy. MacLeod


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (17 Aug 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> De Chastelain an immigrant? Not because he was born in Romania. Frum always has a tendency to overstate things.
> 
> Acorn



???  What does this mean???  His father was Scottish, his mother American and they immigrated to Canada when he was 18.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (17 Aug 2005)

> *Not a separatist -- just unqualified*
> 
> So she's not a separatist, and has never belonged to a political party. Bully for her. Was she a separatist in the past, even if she did not actually join the party? Does she renounce her past statements, and those of her husband? For that matter, will she renounce her French citizenship?
> 
> ...


  http://andrewcoyne.com/2005/08/not-separatist-just-unqualified.php


----------



## Acorn (17 Aug 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> ???   What does this mean???   His father was Scottish, his mother American and they immigrated to Canada when he was 18.



Frum's piece never mentioned his parentage, just that he was born in Romania. Despite the oddity of his name, that would imply he was Romanian, rather than another scion of the "Empire's Establishment" (his Scottish father was a British diplomat IIRC). Frum overstated (well, actually, it was a _non-sequitur_) the status of Prince John.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Aug 2005)

From the Heritage Canada web page for the GG Designate:

http://canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/ggd/declaration_e.cfm

Statement
August 17, 2005

By MichaÃƒÂ«lle Jean
Governor General Designate

"I am deeply touched and wish to thank all those who have so warmly greeted the news of my recent nomination to the office of Governor General of Canada. Others have questioned my attachment to Canada and that of my husband, Jean-Daniel Lafond. 

I want to tell you unequivocally that both he and I are proud to be Canadians and that we have the greatest respect for the institutions of our country. We are fully committed to Canada. I would not have accepted this position otherwise. 

We are equally proud of the attachment to Quebec that we have always shown beyond any partisan considerations. Let me be clear: we have never belonged to a political party or the separatist movement. 

The values of respect, tolerance and openness are very precious to all of us, and I look forward to meeting Canadians in every part of the country. "

Have at 'er.....


----------



## jmacleod (18 Aug 2005)

General deChastelain's name denotes the links between the highland Scots and France, dating
back to the House of Stuart (Charles, Bonnie Prince Charlie). His mother was indeed Romanian
and a member of the famed British Special Operations Executive in WWII. History Television.ca
did an hour program on the deChastelain family several years ago, which appears on the network
from time to time. Col Ian Fraser, formerly CO RCR and a close friend of the General, as well as
director of the Nova Scotia International Tattoo, actually featured the General when he was
CDS playing the traditional lament, "The Flowers of the Forest" on his bagpipe - he is a pretty
good piper by the way. Would have made an excellent CGG, but the choice has been made
MacLeod


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Aug 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Col Ian Fraser, formerly CO RCR and a close friend of the General, as well as
> director of the Nova Scotia International Tattoo, actually featured the General when he was
> CDS playing the traditional lament, "The Flowers of the Forest" on his bagpipe - he is a pretty
> good piper by the way. Would have made an excellent CGG, but the choice has been made
> MacLeod



The Calgary Highlanders taught him well.  When we were presented our Queen's Colour by Her Majesty in 1990, Gen deChastelain played on parade - right behind me, as a matter of fact - with the Regimental Pipes and Drums.  I was frankly surprised at his skill, he was indeed a good piper as I recall.  His military career had begun in our regimental pipe band decades ago.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (18 Aug 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Frum's piece never mentioned his parentage, just that he was born in Romania. Despite the oddity of his name, that would imply he was Romanian, rather than another scion of the "Empire's Establishment" (his Scottish father was a British diplomat IIRC). Frum overstated (well, actually, it was a _non-sequitur_) the status of Prince John.



An immigrant from the Empire is an immigrant, just as an immigrant from anywhere else is: what am I missing?   The only non-sequitur is the suggestion (which I think Frum is reacting to, rather than making) that it in any way relates to being a qualification!


----------



## edadian (19 Aug 2005)

I support Jean even though it is surprising she was nominated. It is a sign of the disconnect between the parts of this country that no one out side Quebec has heard of her. Its the same as if Loyd Robertson or Peter Mansbridge was appointed, Quebec would ask who? As for her French passport it may just open doors for Canada in Europe.

General De Chastelain is busy with his current job disarming terrorists and thugs. He could be appointed next time.


----------



## Acorn (19 Aug 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> An immigrant from the Empire is an immigrant, just as an immigrant from anywhere else is: what am I missing?     The only non-sequitur is the suggestion (which I think Frum is reacting to, rather than making) that it in any way relates to being a qualification!



Well, what you're missing is that he wasn't "just as an immigrant from anywhere else" particularly a place like Haiti. Check out what the rules for immigration were back when he came to Canada:  hint - a British passport was better than a Haitian or Romanian one.

In any case, whatever his musical or political accomplishments, and his apparent qualifications to be GG, to compare him with Ms. Jean is just bizarre. I understand the point Frum was trying to make. I just think it was a terrible analogy. Of course, my impression is likely coloured by my dislike of Frum's politics.

Acorn


----------



## jmacleod (20 Aug 2005)

The Conservative Party appear to be making the appointment of the new GGC a personal issue,
rather than a political issue. Michael Harris writing in the Ottawa Sun today 20 August, states the
obvious from a "political perspective", which is exactly my conclusion some posts ago. Harper should
leave the issue alone, but if he persists, then focus on what is a typical Liberal Party decision, supported
by the current Liberal government; a totally partisan, political decision designed to obtain more votes
in a national election - I hate to say this in relation to Canadian politics, but the phrase "who dares,
wins" is very appropriate in the selection and choice of the new CGG. The lady will perform well, and
attract a lot of national and international media attention once she shows up on the CGG's circuit
- she will make quite a hit at, for instance, a Commonwealth Conference, or the upcoming Francophone
Summit, or visiting Canadian troops at home and abroad, plus a lot of American citizens are going to
be impressed with the appointment. MacLeod


----------



## mdh (20 Aug 2005)

> The Conservative Party appear to be making the appointment of the new GGC a personal issue,
> rather than a political issue. Michael Harris writing in the Ottawa Sun today 20 August, states the
> obvious from a "political perspective", which is exactly my conclusion some posts ago. Harper should
> leave the issue alone,



Wasn't it the New Left and their revolutionary cohorts (the kind that Jean and her husband chummed around with) who dreamed up the slogan that "the personal _is_ political." I'm not sure what's "obvious" about this from a political perspective - except the obvious double standard applied to Harper that he is somehow making this "personal" - one can only imagine the outrage if the Liberals discovered a video that showing Harper had attended a cocktail party with members of Western Canada Concept and toasted Albertan indepedence - (he still hasn't escaped the "firewall" comment).   But Ms. Jean's consorting with FLQ terrorists is somehow dismissed as a charming youthful indiscretion. I wonder how Pierre Laporte's family feels about it. If this is the best we can do for GG give me Romeo Leblanc back.

Cheers,
mdh


----------



## RangerRay (20 Aug 2005)

I whole heartedly agree with Andrew Coyne's article.

Even if Mme. Jean and her husband was not seperatist sympathiser, and even if she did not hold French citizenship, she is still an inappropriate choice for Governor General.  She does not have the gravitas or knowledge that the position demands, nor is she widely known outside of Quebec.  I wonder if she could stand up to Dithers if he tried to circumvent the Constitution?  I doubt it.

Whatever happened to the time when we had people like General Georges Vanier to be Governor General.  Or people like Australia's Governor General:

http://www.gg.gov.au/html/fset_bio.html



> His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery, AC, CVO, MC (Retd)
> 
> The short title for Major General Jeffery is:
> 
> ...



Instead, Dithers appoints a second-rate unknown journalist with dual citizenship from the state broadcasting organ with questionable loyalty to Her Majesty, and to Canada.

The fact that there is this much controversy should be a sign that another person should be sought for the job.


----------



## ArmyRick (21 Aug 2005)

agreed. There are people far more deserving of a GG position than Jean. I throw Lew Mckenzie's name in the hat if it were up to me.


----------



## NCRCrow (22 Aug 2005)

I would like to nominate Mr Don Cherry


----------



## 48Highlander (22 Aug 2005)

Better yet, Jim Carry


----------



## ArmyRick (22 Aug 2005)

Not to be rude, guys, but I was dead serious when I suggested retired General MacKenzie. He served the nation for over 30 years, is internationally known and is a real gentlemen (if you are lucky enough to ever meet him).


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Aug 2005)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Not to be rude, guys, but I was dead serious when I suggested retired General MacKenzie. He served the nation for over 30 years, is internationally known and is a real gentlemen (if you are lucky enough to ever meet him).



None of which are prerequisites for being a good Governor General.  But I think he does have other assets - most importantly he is intelligent, and has experience dealing with people in other countries/cultures, as well as being well versed in international politics.  I think he'd be an inspired choice.


----------



## MdB (22 Aug 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> But I think he does have other assets - most importantly he is intelligent, and has experience dealing with people in other countries/cultures, as well as being well versed in international politics.



It's weird cuz Jean got all that: intelligent, dealt with people from other countries/culture and knows about international politics. What's the big deal?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Aug 2005)

MdB said:
			
		

> It's weird cuz Jean got all that: intelligent, dealt with people from other countries/culture and knows about international politics. What's the big deal?



Aside from reporting on foreign politics, what experience does she have in actually being a part of the political dealings?  I would suggest there is a big difference.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2005)

The only thing I find even mildly offensive about MichaÃƒÂ«lle Jean's appointment is the appalling lack of imagination in the PMO.  Adrienne Clarkson _worked_ so lets have a _super-sized_ Adrienne: more visible, more minority, more telegenic and media savvy, more married to a sock-less _intellectual_, more, more, more ...

There were many, many nay-sayers when Mme. Clarkson was appointed; for the military _family_ she is, I would argue, the best GG since Vanier - she made the military her own _family_, as much as he did.  She went places and did things which would have been way beyond the wildest imaginations of Jeanne Sauvé or Romeo LeBlanc - Vancouver's lower east side and Alert, for example.  She polished up an office tarnished by Liberal hacks, flacks and bagmen.

I do not expect Mme. Jean to follow in Mme. Clarkson's footsteps, especially not with regard to her _duties_ as commander-in-chief; it would be nice if I was wrong and this new GG followed some of the (almost) traditions established by her predecessor.  I expect she will want to use her office to highlight other areas of Canadian society and that may be only fair and proper.

_Communications_ seems to me to be increasingly important for all public figures.  The _making of the _______ is now the primary occupation of political parties and it (making the leader) has precious little to so with policies and platforms and everything to do with 10 second sound bites and _image_ and _message_.  Elections, it seems are won on TV - where, I read, an overwhelming majority of Canadians acquire almost all their political _information_ (and they believe Rick Mercer is a good source of _information_!) - and Mme. Jean is just one arrow in Prime Minister Martin's election quiver.  Contrary to her assertion, she is a _token_ and she will be _used_ as such -that's part of the job and it was no different for Georges Vanier and it is no different for Her Majesty, who is, regularly _used_ (and abused) by the British government (and occasionally by Canada's too).  (Tony Blair shamelessly used and abused the Queen during the whole Princess Di funeral fiasco to strengthen his _attachment_ to her and to focus public discontent towards the Queen - great political management from a master of the art.)

Given the constitutional powers which still reside with the crown one can almost _excuse_ appointing Michener and Sauvé and the like - working politicians with considerable _cultural sensitivity_ re: the workings of a parliamentary democracy.  Given the _office_ it is hard to settle for anyone less than a Massey or a Vanier.  As I said, above, I believe Mme. Clarkson restored some of the requisite _dignity_ to the office - which she applied even as she wore a CADPAT jacket in Kabul - even as she _broadened_ how we (most of us, anyway) 'see' it.  Mme. Jean may do the same but I doubt it - she is a (not so) pale imitation; who's next, an Arab girl from the Weather Channel?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Aug 2005)

I too am willing to give her a chance - I've been reasonably surprised (and impressed) with Clarkson's devotion to her role as C in C of the Armed Forces.

However, there is one niggling point about Jean that continues to annoy me:  her retention of French citizenship.  I know that this is a point of contention for the Legion, and I think it is for me too.  After all, she sought and obtained a French passport after getting married.  This means that we have a French citizen as our _de facto_ Head of State and in nominal command of the CF.  This dual nationality suggests to me dual loyalties and I cannot find this acceptable...  Renounce the French citizenship and we're getting somewhere...

Cheers,

TR


----------



## MdB (22 Aug 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> This means that we have a French citizen as our _de facto_ Head of State and in nominal command of the CF.



Yeah a Head of State and C in C with no executive power whatsoever. What's the difference? I know this is more a principle or sentimental attachment (and I can talk a lot about the latter...), but in the reality of things, the GG is a PR person, period.

Where would your loyalty be, in Hillier or Clarkson? I know now that military personnel can't even answer to that because it's considered as treason to speak against a superior, be it Hillier, Graham, PM or Clarkson. Now, what is what? It really is in the contract and effective upon signature, but does that really makes sense? I know it's something to accept and I am willing to abandon this right to speak as a citizen, but really, there's some principles that are really out of the loop when transposed in the reality. Just look at Puzzle Palace and tell me that's not true after.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (23 Aug 2005)

> Yeah a Head of State and C in C with no executive power whatsoever



Strictly speaking, that's not true - there are a lot of residual powers left with the GG's office, as may have been vividly illustrated during the recent minority government fracas.

However, you're missing my point.  I feel that the person occupying the GG's office should have a single loyalty - to Canada - and don't believe that the head of state (powerless or not) should hold the citizenship of another nation.  It gives the perception of divided loyalties and in a "PR heavy" position, this cannot be a good thing.  I'll restate my position - she should sever any connection to France.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## MdB (23 Aug 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Strictly speaking, that's not true - there are a lot of residual powers left with the GG's office, as may have been vividly illustrated during the recent minority government fracas.



It has not been vividly illustrated because the Liberal administration is still there clinging. The GG would not have by herself brought down the government, it would have been asked, from the Commons to bring it down, thus empowering her to do it. If it's not what's written in the Constitution or laws, the reality is that she has no deciding power, but in her own office.



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> However, you're missing my point.   I feel that the person occupying the GG's office should have a single loyalty - to Canada - and don't believe that the head of state (powerless or not) should hold the citizenship of another nation.   It gives the perception of divided loyalties and in a "PR heavy" position, this cannot be a good thing.   I'll restate my position - she should sever any connection to France.



Now, after some thinking, I agree that it must not hold both citizenship, it's kind of misleading. The perceived highest position in Canada should not be equivocal.


----------



## edadian (23 Aug 2005)

If her second citizenship wasn't French but American, British or Australian would you be still demanding her to give it up? Or is this more Francophobia.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (23 Aug 2005)

I'd feel exactly the same way if it were American citizenship, but (perhaps - I'll need to think about it) less so if British or Australian because of the nature of the office's role as a representative of the Crown.

I've served extensively alongside the French Army and have no love lost for France, but that doesn't enter into it in this case.


----------



## tig3r (23 Aug 2005)

i think it was somewhere in the toronto star where i read a statement which went something like this "...do people not have a life?...we have a new governor general...stop complaining and give her a chance..."


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Aug 2005)

tig3r said:
			
		

> i think it was somewhere in the toronto star where i read a statement which went something like this "...do people not have a life?...we have a new governor general...stop complaining and give her a chance..."



It was a nakedly political _Liberal _appointment: what else would you expect from the _Toronto Star_?


----------



## Gunner (23 Aug 2005)

According to Garth Pritchard, the new GG is anti-military.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/pritchard082305.htm



> General Anti-Canadian Military?
> By Garth Pritchard
> Tuesday, August 23, 2005
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Aug 2005)

Good find.

So in addition to renouncing her foreign citizenship, I would feel much better with a statement from her regarding what she feels the state of the military is, and what she plans to do in her role as commander-in-chief.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Aug 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Good find.
> 
> So in addition to renouncing her foreign citizenship, I would feel much better with a statement from her regarding what she feels the state of the military is, and what she plans to do in her role as commander-in-chief.



Re-invade Haiti? 

It would be nice if the current GG might speak publicly about what her replacement's role ought to be... just to set the expectation so that we can all measure with some accuracy the gravity of the impending failure.


----------



## jmacleod (23 Aug 2005)

CBC is no friend of the Military, here, the US, the UK, and in particular, Israel. CBC is a PR operation
whose main activity on a daily basis is making the Martin government look good. Once the Liberals
decide to recall the House of Commons, the CBC "lockout" will vanish within minutes and we, if
we are for some reason compelled to listen or watch, what is known in Journalist trades, as the
"corpse" will be the subject to various levels of spin (also known as bullshit). CBC should be sold
off - Chretien really detested the CBC who also detested him. CBC were scared shitless of Trudeau
however. The "lockout" is caused by their plan to contract out - the strange thing about the
situation however is that the Martin government is considering contracting out hundreds of
functions, which from a business perspective, makes a lot of sense in my opinion. MacLeod


----------



## mdh (23 Aug 2005)

Is it any surprise that Jean is anti-military? Having worked hand-in-glove with that conveyor belt of anti-American "propaganda" at the Passionate Eye (or should we call it the Passionate Lie) could she have been anything but anti-military. Anyone who has spent more than 10 seconds at Radio Canada is generally speaking anti-military, sovereignist and leftist.

JMacleod notes that the CBC was terrified of Trudeau. Trudeau would _never_ have sanctioned this appointment because he knew a separatist when he saw one, and he would _never_ have allowed anyone near the federal government who had been even remotely seen consorting with FLQ.

cheers, mdh


----------



## jmacleod (23 Aug 2005)

I am not sure that the CGG designate is actually "anti-military" - probably never gave it much
thought - and you are right, Trudeau would have appointed someone else, but the politics
of the appointment are smart, if you are sitting in the PMO, and focused on more seats in
downtown Montreal - which is fact is all the PMO crowd actually think about, politics and the
upcoming election (probably early 'Spring, 2006). But the fact is, life being what it is, (there
are no absolutes except death), Martin could be defeated in the next session, if the NDP wake
up to discover they've been screwed. I don't think Martin's guys expected any flak about the
CGG appointment in any event, but will never admit it. I am hoping the situation works out, 
the lady meets the Prince of Darkness, and lives "happily ever after" (or something like that).
MacLeod


----------



## MdB (23 Aug 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> Anyone who has spent more than 10 seconds at Radio Canada is generally speaking anti-military, sovereignist and leftist.



This is a freakin big brush. Oh yeah, I remember, Alberta is part of USA... ???



			
				mdh said:
			
		

> Trudeau would _never_ have sanctioned this appointment because he knew a separatist when he saw one



This is deep thought. Why not abolish the justice system now and hire people recognizing criminals while we're at it, would save a lot of cash. This should be moderated.



			
				mdh said:
			
		

> and he would _never_ have allowed anyone near the federal government who had been even remotely seen consorting with FLQ.



That's for sure.

Man, he made a documentary and hired the guy to do furniture!! Anyway, there's no proof she is leaning toward separatism. That's just claims from a bunch of hardcore separatists. And now all the population in English Canada thinks the whole bunch is hardcore and on the verge of revolution.

Let me tell you one thing, Quebec won't separate, you know why? No, cuz you're not here. And you can't ponder any of the words you say about Jean, cuz you don't know her. So, Quebec won't separate cuz it's too confortable now being part of Canada. Things are not as they were even 20 years ago. This just doesn't hurt as much as it were and when it doesn't hurt enough, why change?

There's better chance now that Alberta quit and say bye bye to Canada than Quebec. Canada is going bye bye if the federal government doesn't change its aim, which is to keep and acquire as much as possible the political power in Ottawa. Leaving provinces begging for crumbs...


----------



## mdh (23 Aug 2005)

> Anyone who has spent more than 10 seconds at Radio Canada is generally speaking anti-military, sovereignist and leftist.
> 
> 
> This is a freakin big brush. Oh yeah, I remember, Alberta is part of USA...



May have been a bit of drool-flecked hyperbole on that one - _mea culpa_

How do you feel about the new tactical vest??

cheers, mdh


----------



## MdB (23 Aug 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> How do you feel about the new tactical vest??
> 
> cheers, mdh



You took my point, hehe.


----------



## RCD (27 Aug 2005)

We'll what do you expect from Mr Dithers!


----------



## FastEddy (28 Aug 2005)

MdB said:
			
		

> Let me tell you one thing, Quebec won't separate, you know why? No, cuz you're not here. And you can't ponder any of the words you say about Jean, cuz you don't know her. So, Quebec won't separate cuz it's too confortable now being part of Canada. Things are not as they were even 20 years ago. This just doesn't hurt as much as it were and when it doesn't hurt enough, why change?




Thanks for that comforting assurance. I'm glad "No, CUZ you're not here" and oh! yes "And you can't ponder any of the words you say about Jean, CUZ you don't her.", are your ardent reasons not to question her appointment and the looming aspect of Quebec's separation.


----------



## MdB (28 Aug 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Thanks for that comforting assurance. I'm glad "No, CUZ you're not here" and oh! yes "And you can't ponder any of the words you say about Jean, CUZ you don't her.", are your ardent reasons not to question her appointment and the looming aspect of Quebec's separation.



I guess that's not entirely true for all people here. I'm trying to point out that she's condemned even before she's taken the job and that it was never proven that she's done anything against Canada. People won't even wait until she speak out, she did finally in a succinct written press release, and judge her with sayings from hardcore separatists.

I found out that Paul Wells' article in last issue of Maclean's was particularly interesting in that regard. He has taken the time to hear all Quebec commentators, ponder opinions and do some research unlike what I've seen here that was more like "hang her" from time to time than solid-based opinion.

Anyway, here's the link: Too Late Now


----------



## NCRCrow (28 Aug 2005)

its too late now......is right.

There is nothing anybody can do. Live with it and close this meandering thread.


----------



## FastEddy (28 Aug 2005)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> its too late now......is right.
> 
> There is nothing anybody can do. Live with it and close this meandering thread.




Yes lets forget about ! it is so simple to follow the path of least resistance. Lets be good little Canadians and go along with what ever our PM dictates. In case you feel that this matter is not worth discusing you can always switch over to, WHATS YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE - ALIEN'S - WHATS YOUR FAVOURITE MAGAZINE ETC. ETC.. Maybe those are less troubling and parallel to your line of comprehension.


----------



## FastEddy (28 Aug 2005)

MdB said:
			
		

> I guess that's not entirely true for all people here. I'm trying to point out that she's condemned even before she's taken the job and that it was never proven that she's done anything against Canada. People won't even wait until she speak out, she did finally in a succinct written press release, and judge her with sayings from hardcore separatists.
> 
> I found out that Paul Wells' article in last issue of Maclean's was particularly interesting in that regard. He has taken the time to hear all Quebec commentators, ponder opinions and do some research unlike what I've seen here that was more like "hang her" from time to time than solid-based opinion.
> 
> Anyway, here's the link: Too Late Now




Yes I will agree that it certainally raises a great deal of suspicions if not evidence. Even if only part of the statements are correct and there is the slightest blemish or association, it should be grounds for re-considerations. The PM jumped before he looked and has no other avenue but to pursue it.

I guess the old saying, "It better to be Safe than Sorry" doesn't apply to politics.


----------



## NCRCrow (28 Aug 2005)

we elected a corrupt Liberal party who stole our money and sorta admitted it. Gomery/adscam

the GG who has no power except for a Garden party every year...

lets get on with the show... c'mon Fast Eddy comprehension...dont be a hater!!

My fav movie is: The Rowdy Man btw and thats Canadiana at its best plus the Trailer Park Boys

yeah I am WT!!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Aug 2005)

Was the PM really responsible for the pick? Sure, he put his stamp on it and made the announcement. He's only the lightning rod. However, as with to many of the high level decisions made in this country, this one was also made by the faceless, unelected persons in the PMO's Office. These are the people that whip the Party, tell us what's good for us (and you'll like it) and force their own agenda on the country. They have more power than any MP. They are handlers, not the PM. He's really only a signing authority and figurehead for the Party, the sacrificial lamb that will take the fall, while the real people behind the throne perpetuate their will and stranglehold on the country from one PM to the next. Want political reform here? Dissolve the PMO, and let the people start to govern the country like it was meant to be.


----------



## FastEddy (28 Aug 2005)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> we elected a corrupt Liberal party who stole our money and sorta admitted it. Gomery/adscam
> 
> the GG who has no power except for a Garden party every year...
> 
> ...




Well at least we agree on one thing, we did put the Liberals back in power, sadly enough.

Considering our ever diminishing ties with Tradition and the Monarchy its very disturbing to see the last vestage pissed away for a Political parties gain.

I presume you have read MacLeans article in its entirety. If this does not give some rise for concern, I can't imagine what would. Considering MacLeans untarnished reputation, you can bet your bottom dollar that they have done their home work on this.

On the matter of the G.G.s garden party as being her only power or real function, I think there are far more knowledgeable readers that might like to differ with you on that note.


----------



## FastEddy (28 Aug 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Was the PM really responsible for the pick? Sure, he put his stamp on it and made the announcement. He's only the lightning rod. However, as with to many of the high level decisions made in this country, this one was also made by the faceless, unelected persons in the PMO's Office. These are the people that whip the Party, tell us what's good for us (and you'll like it) and force their own agenda on the country. They have more power than any MP. They are handlers, not the PM. He's really only a signing authority and figurehead for the Party, the sacrificial lamb that will take the fall, while the real people behind the throne perpetuate their will and stranglehold on the country from one PM to the next. Want political reform here? Dissolve the PMO, and let the people start to govern the country like it was meant to be.




You'll get no argument on that !!!.


----------



## NCRCrow (28 Aug 2005)

she gave me my OP ATHENA star.........


----------



## George Wallace (28 Aug 2005)

Which Gong Giving She?


----------



## NCRCrow (28 Aug 2005)

GCS in Nov 04


----------



## canadianblue (28 Aug 2005)

I think that alot of our provincial Lieutenient Governors are better then most Governor Generals. For example here in Alberta we had Lois Hole as Lieutenient Governor and she did a good job and most people had deep respect for her.


----------



## Gunner (28 Aug 2005)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> GCS in Nov 04



HFXCrow - You will forgive me if I question your comment.

How did you get a GCS?  Your profile indicates your military experience as Navy League Cadets.  Moreover, the first GCS were not issued until 29 November 2004.



> The inaugural ceremony took place on 29 November 2004 in the ballroom of Rideau Hall in Ottawa. On this occasion, Her Excellency, the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada, presented the Star to 28 representative recipients (8 with ALLIED FORCE bar and 20 with ISAF+FIAS bar), including the families of the three casualties listed above. The first presentations of the General Service Medal were also made during that event.



http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/honours_awards/engraph/honour_awards_e.asp?cat=3&Q_ID=112

After the inaugral ceremony, the first CF members to receive the GCS belonged to Op ATHENA Roto 2 and they were not issued until January 2005.  Qualified recipients from Roto 0 and Roto 1 did not get theirs until later in the year.

If I am way off, fill in your fricken profile so you don't look like a poser.


----------



## NCRCrow (29 Aug 2005)

Gunner:

I enjoy the anonymity the internet provides to post my views based on experience and TI without reprecussion.

Crow


----------



## Gunner (29 Aug 2005)

Roger that!


----------



## George Wallace (29 Aug 2005)

Noted


----------



## Gunner98 (29 Aug 2005)

Not much anonymity if you spill the beans, the Nov 04 list only has 45 names on it:

http://www.gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=e&DocID=4319


----------



## NCRCrow (29 Aug 2005)

Roger out


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Aug 2005)

All the naus about profiles has been split off. This thread is about the choice of th GG. Let's keep it there.


----------



## DannyBoy (31 Aug 2005)

I'm sorry but i couldn't contain myself on this subject and in response to bug guys statement that she was supportive of the military, i have my doubts. I have alot of friends who have done ceremonial guard for many years now and have heard some statements made by clarkson that would lead me to believe Bug Guys was false. Clarkson was heard saying in front of two Guards at her house that she did not want "those guys" but her "other guys"(RCMP). Also she has forbid the wearing of forge caps which are the standard headdress for the Governor Generals Footguards because they remind her too much of the headdress worn by the Germans(or Nazis, which many people who are historically challenged called all the germans in WW2). To finalize, the Governor General is supposed to attend the annual Christmas Dinner with her own unit (GGFG for those who don't know) and she did not attend. Supportive of the military in my opinion not so much.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Aug 2005)

DannyBoy said:
			
		

> To finalize, the Governor General is supposed to attend the annual Christmas Dinner with her own unit (GGFG for those who don't know) and she did not attend. Supportive of the military in my opinion not so much.



I'm not even going to address the initial couple of ALLEGED complaints. As to the one above, I guess you think it's more important that she come to your dinner than visit the troops overseas. FYI, she normally spent Xmas and NewYears with the troops on deployment. That's supporting the military, not your poncy dinner. That post of yours was the epitomy of the most useless, ill informed, spoiled child whine I've heard in a long time.


----------



## Gunner98 (1 Sep 2005)

DannyBoy,

Loose lips sink ships, if the boys can't be trusted to keep their mouths shut, perhaps she was right about her observation concerning protection.  I find it poor judgement when someone professes their conclusions based on what their friends tell them and not what they witness.  Now you expect us to judge our GG (who you refer to as "Clarkson") based on what your friend with loose lips says.  

Do you have proof of a link between GGFG forage caps, the Nazis and the GG - or is that something else that one of your pals told you.  

Welcome aboard Danny Boy, you got some 'splaining to do.


----------



## DannyBoy (1 Sep 2005)

Based on what my friends told me, yes and i stand firm by what i said because i am also a member of the Footguards and CG and if my friends just came off a house shift, and told us what they had heard then I'm pretty sure id believe them considering they just heard it .The forge cap topic was her telling the unit we are not to wear them in her presence or her house or the function she is attending.Also everyone is entitled to their own opinions i wrote my opinion on the forum, thats what its for.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Sep 2005)

So you still stand by your statement that she should attend your Xmas dinner instead of visiting the troops on deployment?


----------



## DannyBoy (2 Sep 2005)

Obviously the troops overseas are more important, but considering the Xmas dinners is weeks in advance of actual Christmas, and i doubt that she would spend a little more then 2 weeks overseas I'm pretty sure she could fit it in her schedule.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Sep 2005)

Guess you figure she just sits around the house in her slippers, reading the paper all the time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2005)

Is it only me or is HM gritting her teeth at the latest indignity inflicted upon the institution of the monarchy by the _senior dominion_?

Keep smiling through, Ma'am; Canada will, soon enough, dispense with a remote, foreign sovereign - however dutiful and dignified, and you and your throne will be free to get on with things British.

(Photo courtesy _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050907.wxqueen07/BNStory/National/ )


----------



## S McKee (7 Sep 2005)

Her smile does seem alittle "forced" poor woman.
Vive la Quebec!, Vive la Rene Levesque! Vive la Radio Canada! We finally got one over on you English Pig Dogs!


----------



## DannyBoy (7 Sep 2005)

that has to suck if your the queen always forced to smile, has to be the perfect role model for the country.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (7 Sep 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> Her smile does seem alittle "forced" poor woman.



You've never taken a bad photo?  Rush to villainize the new GG all you want; I agree she is less than an inspired choice, but don't do the Rush Limbaugh thing and pull conclusions out of thin air based on out-of-context visuals.  That's just embarrassing.


----------



## S McKee (7 Sep 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> You've never taken a bad photo?   Rush to villainize the new GG all you want; I agree she is less than an inspired choice, but don't do the Rush Limbaugh thing and pull conclusions out of thin air based on out-of-context visuals.   That's just embarrassing.



You sound like all those "liberals" that control the media. How dare you sir! Mere mortals and the great unwashed masses may "take a bad picture" but Her Majesty?! Never! I believe just before the picture was taken she found out that the GG is also a citizen of France. Nelson and Wellington are spinning in their graves. (Don't worry I think she'll be a good GG)


----------

