# Our Great GG.



## Kunu (26 Nov 2004)

Toronto Star - 26 November 2004

Clarkson's budget to be cut
Commons committee wants $417,100 slashed
Governor General will have to show `discipline'


RICK WESTHEAD AND BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
STAFF REPORTERS

OTTAWAâ â€Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, whose lavish trips have stoked controversy, will have to "switch brands of caviar," a New Democrat MP said after a parliamentary committee slashed her budget.

Clarkson is looking at cutbacks after the government's operations and estimates committee voted yesterday to trim her $19.1 million budget by $417,100.

While Clarkson has won praise for reaching out to people, the former journalist has come under fire in recent months for using government planes to fly to her Georgian Bay cottage and spending millions of dollars on allegedly exorbitant trips â â€ such as $5.3 million last December for a three-week sojourn through Russia, Iceland and Finland.

"We're not trying to clip her wings to the point where she can't do her job," said NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre), a vice-chair of the operations committee. "We're simply asking her to show the same kind of discipline that the rest of us are expected to exhibit."

Martin is a long-time critic of Rideau Hall spending.

"We don't believe this will cause layoffs," he said. "We don't believe she'll have to cancel programs ... Anyone with a sharp pencil should be able to find that somewhere."

The Governor General's office has enjoyed significant gains in recent years. For the year ended March 31, 2005, Clarkson has a $19.1 million budget, up from about $13 million in 1995.

It would take a full vote of Parliament to reverse the prospective cut.

Treasury Board President Reg Alcock said the recommendation of the committee, chaired by a Conservative MP, might "carry consequences" since Clarkson also serves as ceremonial head of the armed forces. 

"You can't talk about supporting the military, cut the budget of the commander-in-chief and then still expect her to play the same role in the ceremonial role with the armed forces and support troops," Alcock said. 

"The magic of the minority government is that we're all responsible. The thing that the opposition is now going to learn is that when you make decisions like that ... that will have consequences."

Randy Mylyk, a spokesperson for the Governor General, declined to comment on the proposed budget cut, although he did say Martin "clearly does not understand the role of the Governor General in our parliamentary system" and "distorts the reality of the budget.

"Is it below Canada to honour Canadians through the activities of the governor general's office that honour, recognize and engage Canadians for bravery and volunteerism and lifelong excellence?"

Still, Martin suggested Clarkson's office â â€ which acts as Canada's de facto head of state representing the Queen â â€ was just one agency that should prepare for a future of austerity.

Opposition MPs also used their majority on the operations committee to take a bite out of the Privy Council Office budget, cutting it by $121,000 a year. It's a symbolic cut, matching the amount the office spent to hire a public relations firm to cope with the fall-out of the sponsorship scandal.

"Where do they get off spending public money on purely partisan issues? So we've deducted them dollar for dollar," said Martin. "This is what minority government looks like. They better get used to it."

In an interview last March with CBC Radio, Clarkson said she thought the millions spent on her office was well spent.

"I do believe that the money we ask for in our budget to do the job I think the Governor-General should do â â€ of reaching out to people, of making Canada real to everybody through travelling about and making connections with people, of showing people at their best to each other â â€ I think that we do spend it well," she said in the interview. 

Clarkson has said her expenses have climbed because of costs associated with modernizing her office. She's also involved in 908 events a year â â€ three times more than have been scheduled in past years.

Accompanying the Governor General on her controversial "circumpolar" tour last fall were husband John Ralston Saul, 22 staffers and 59 "prominent Canadians."



This one managed to get me visibly incensed at 0845 this morning, due to 

1/   $19.1 Million!?
2/   The audacity of some to associate such a pork-barrel office with support for the military.


----------



## Goober (26 Nov 2004)

> "I do believe that the money we ask for in our budget to do the job I think the Governor-General should do â â€ of reaching out to people, of making Canada real to everybody through travelling about and making connections with people, of showing people at their best to each other â â€ I think that we do spend it well," she said in the interview.



I'm sorry, but 19 million is far better spent elsewhere. You don't need to spend 19 million to network with foreign business people or governments.


----------



## camochick (26 Nov 2004)

This is obscene. Our military is underfunded, tuition is on the rise , healthcare is going by the wayside and we let this woman travel the world on our money. 19.1 million dollars of our money. I want a free trip. Better yet, i want to be able to eat something better than Kraft dinner while I am in school. They need to make her more accountable for the money she spends. THis seems like a huge waste.


----------



## Guardian (26 Nov 2004)

I agree she's spending too much....

However, I'll point out that she seems to be the only person of any constitutional authority in Ottawa who actually gives a rip about any of us. It's sure been nice seeing someone actually taking an interest in what we do, trying to share our hardships (her hubby went on a mountain patrol in Afghanistan!!) and giving up her holiday time to spend it with the troops. If only our elected leaders would actually "lead" that way.....

I've got no problem with cutting her budget, but let's be careful to remember who our (few) friends are.



			
				Kilo Mike said:
			
		

> "You can't talk about supporting the military, cut the budget of the commander-in-chief and then still expect her to play the same role in the ceremonial role with the armed forces and support troops," Alcock said.



The sight of a Liberal pontificating about "supporting our troops" makes me sick to my stomach. The gall....


----------



## Bograt (26 Nov 2004)

Goober and Camochick,

You are both way out of line. I am appauled that you would suggest that our beloved GG is not worth 25 million. The only way that aurgument could be supported would be to suggest that she needs more money.

How else are we Canadians supposed to feel pride. She is imbeded into my soul as a vile of blood is imbeded into Istvan Kantor's anus.

For those unaware of this Mr. Kantor recently won the Governor Generals visual arts award.

See link; http://www.cbc.ca/arts/send/govgenart030304

'No-holds-barred' artist wins Governor General's award 
Last Updated Wed, 03 Mar 2004 

OTTAWA - A performance artist who once lay naked in a shallow grave with a vial of his own blood dribbling out of his anus is among seven winners of one of Canada's most prestigious visual arts awards this year.

Described by the jury for the 2004 Governor General's Awards in Visual and Media Arts as a "no-holds-barred, neo-Dada" artist, Toronto-based Istvan Kantor is being honoured for his entire body of work, which blends music, kinetic sculpture, multimedia installations and, most famously, performance art. 

"Kantor's use of blood is literal and personal. More than feces or sperm, blood is the spurting, contagious prima material of life," wrote Daniel Baird, art editor of the New York-based arts and culture magazine The Brooklyn Rail. 

 :


----------



## tabernac (26 Nov 2004)

> "Kantor's use of blood is literal and personal. More than feces or sperm, blood is the spurting, contagious prima material of life"



Wow, thats, uh, pretty repulsive.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Nov 2004)

If any of you know-it-alls wants to post what the budget SHOULD be, and justify to the penny the exact amount, taking into consideration her schedule (including travel), her accommodations, her entertainment, etc. go right ahead.

Until then, save the phony anger.

Put up or shut up.


----------



## Bograt (26 Nov 2004)

Oh my anger is not phony. Its pretty genuine.

I personally don't think that this individual should received 15,000 dollars of tax payers money to humiliate himself like that. I don't have to justify the Penny to Penney spending of the GG. She does. I question the value of the 5 million circumpolar trip by her and various other "outstanding Canadians." 

Micheal, if you have a problem with me, may I suggest you PM me and see if we can work this out?


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Nov 2004)

Bograt has a point.  I can't think of any useful role for the GG.  Why give her a $20 million budget when there's a so many better uses for that money.


----------



## bubba (26 Nov 2004)

hey how ya get that job,20 mill to start ,your own jet lemo,they wash the streets of vancouver for ya,don't want ya steepin on no dirty needles.hobnob with the rich&famous,send hubby out on a patrol with the boys in afghanastan in the morning,back to russia for a caviare supper(troops eat imp,s)wonder if she got same perks at cbc.mike im not resentfull,i'm just envious,hope i didn,t hurt your feelin's.you ain't got a picture of her pinned up in your room do ya


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Nov 2004)

Unless someone has something intelligent to say in this thread, my padlock finger is getting itchy.

First of all did the arts endowment come out of the GG's budget?  If not, it is a seperate issue.

Secondly, and again, if you want to argue the merits of having a GG, check the other threads on this issue.

Thirdly, if you feel the budget is too much, fine, state why you feel that way, and what you think a more realistic alternative would be, justifying your answer with your detailed knowledge of her itinerary and needs.

Otherwise, this entire thread is just useless noise.


----------



## RCA (26 Nov 2004)

Before all the yahoo's s forget it out there,and until there is a change, the GG is The Head of State of Canada, and head of The Armed Forces. Do you expect her to represent Canada by flying Air Canada and traveling by Volkswagen? 

This is typical partisan politics and knee jerk reaction without knowing the facts. Who here can say $19 million is too much without seeing line by line the GG's budget. If you scratch hard enough, you will probably find Pat Martin is a Republican (in the Australian mold) and has his own agenda.

For instance, is part of the budget for maintaince and upkeep of Rideau Hall and its staff. Is she expected to host functions out of her own pocket. She performs her job as she is suppose to. Who greeted the wounded troops in Germany coming back from Afghanistan. 

I will say this because the media and the peanut gallery perpetuate it. If bullshit is said enough, it becomes truth. If "unbiased newsreports" keeping calling her trips "Lavish" enough times, it somehow becomes fact. Was the trip to Russia a waste of time, a vacation, or the GG showcasing Canadian talent. If you don't know, keep your opinions to yourself.

The GG award is a red herring and has nothing to do with the current discussion. If you think she picks the awards personally instead of by committee then you are part of the peanut gallery.


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Nov 2004)

Just to throw a little more fuel on the fire  ;D

The House of Commons Committee on government operations and estimates is starting a review of the mandate and spending of the Governor General to see if Canadians are getting their money's worth. The Toronto Star reports that the committee will also look at the spending of other federal government departments on the Governor General.

The cost of the Governor General's office drew public attention last fall when Governor General Adrienne Clarkson and 59 prominent Canadians went on a circumpolar tour to promote the Canadian north. Media reports at the time estimated the cost of the tour at $1 million. By the time the final bills were in and the costs of all government departments involved were tallied, the trip cost $5.3 million. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has since cancelled plans for a second tour.

While the Governor General's own budget went from $10 million in 1995 to $19.1 million in 2003, costs covered by other federal government departments for the Governor General rose from $307,000 to $15 million.

http://canadaonline.about.com/b/a/2004_02_25.htm


So the real cost of having a Governor General is closer to $34 million.

Mike, I don't need a knowledge of her itinerary or needs in order to know we're giving her way too much money.  Just like I don't need to know how much every component of the gun registry cost in order to know that $1 billion was way too much for the combined cost of the program.  Nor, when I go out to buy a car, do I need to know how much every nut and bolt costs in order to determine wether or not I'm getting a good deal.  I don't know why you're getting so upset by this discussion, but I think you're being a little unreasonable.  Just my opinion, if anyone thinks I'm wrong, feel free to tell I'm a dumbass


----------



## Mortar guy (26 Nov 2004)

OK now, I had the great priviledge of working at Rideau Hall for two years as an Aide-de-camp to the GG and all I can tell you is that she works harder than any previous GG. She does twice as much (statistically) as any of her predecessors and honestly tries to use her influence to improve Canada. She passionately represents the CF and the troops who serve overseas and makes a considerable effort to visit troops overseas. She could have spent her last four Christmas vacations relaxing in Canada but instead she chose to visit soldiers in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. She didn't have to personally visit the families of every soldier who has died on operations in recent memory, but she insisted that she do just that. No one told her to visit over 300 communities a year, including many remote, impoversihed native communities, be she did so with enthusiasm because she wants to help those people. She doesn't have to meet with drug users and street kids in Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon and Toronto but she does because she wants to draw attention to their plight. She did not fly to Russia, Finland and Iceland to meet with business people (she didn't meet any business people). She went there to show Canada to the world. She went to show the Russians, the Finns and the Icelanders that we are a great country full of talented people. You may think that this isn't important I'll ask you this: how do you want the world to see Canada? As a bunch of cheap penny-pinchers with an immature attitude towards culture, diplomacy and international relations? Or as a world leader in arts, literature, democracy, federalism, etc?

Yes her budget has increased and yes it may appear extravagent to the average Joe, but the fact remains that we need a Head of State and we either do it right (as I think she is) or we give up the game and go back to being a British colony or annex ourselves to the US.

For all of you who have spoke out of your a**es, I invite you to actually look into the GG's schedule and her budget and tell me where you think the cuts could be made.

Pro Patria

MG


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Nov 2004)

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> She went to show the Russians, the Finns and the Icelanders that we are a great country full of talented people. You may think that this isn't important I'll ask you this: how do you want the world to see Canada? As a bunch of cheap penny-pinchers with an immature attitude towards culture, diplomacy and international relations? Or as a world leader in arts, literature, democracy, federalism, etc?



Shouldn't promoting culture, arts, and literature be the job of our artists?  They're the ones creating it and making a living from it, why do we need a person spending $30 million a year to advertise them?  Don't we have diplomats and politicians to handle matters of "diplomacy and international relations"?  Isn't that part of THEIR job description?

Don't get me wrong, I like our current GG, and I even like having the connection to the British royalty that the GG represents, I just think that half the things she's doing are better handled by others.




			
				Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Yes her budget has increased and yes it may appear extravagent to the average Joe, but the fact remains that we need a Head of State and we either do it right (as I think she is) or we give up the game and go back to being a British colony or annex ourselves to the US.



Call me crazy, but wouldn't it make more sense to have an ELECTED head of state?  Like, oh, I don't know, the Prime Minister maybe?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Nov 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Shouldn't promoting culture, arts, and literature be the job of our artists?



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA

Like the one referenced in this very thread??



> Call me crazy, but wouldn't it make more sense to have an ELECTED head of state?   Like, oh, I don't know, the Prime Minister maybe?



Call me crazy, but isn't that off topic?  There are other threads devoted to electing a head of state.


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Nov 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA
> 
> Like the one referenced in this very thread??



    Yes, exactly.  Why should we as taxpayers give any money towards getting him reckognition?  What do you think presents a better image of Canada, a guy like that promoting himself, or him being promoted and reckognized by our highest official?  And even when she's reckognizing artists with actual talent, it's still something that'd be better off being done by the artists themselves.



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Call me crazy, but isn't that off topic?  There are other threads devoted to electing a head of state.



Just attempting to answer the statement that "we need a Head of State and we either do it right (as I think she is) or we give up the game and go back to being a British colony or annex ourselves to the US".  Saying that without the GG as a figurehead, we might as well be part of the UK or US is a little extreme don't you think?  The position holds no real power.  The GG is just a figurehead, the REAL head of state is the PM.  Also, now that I think of it, the reason we HAVE a GG is because we WERE a Brittish colony, so I don't know how Mortar guy equates getting rid of the GG with becoming a colony again.....


----------



## RCA (26 Nov 2004)

Sorry Michael for moving more off topic but:

Look at most successful (read democratic) nations and you will see that the Head of State and Head of Government are separate.

 As for artist looking after themselves.. a bit myopic isn't it. A guess we should have told the GG to stay at home, we'll see the wounded ourselves. Or northerners, have elected officials, let them look after themselves.

If you look deep enough, you will probably find that the GG had clearances from External Affairs and the PMO to go to Russia. They could have vetoed. So the presumption that the GG gather all the artists together and jump on a plane to Russia and merrily burned taxpayers dollars is naive to say the least and unfair at best..


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Nov 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Yes, exactly.  Why should we as taxpayers give any money towards getting him reckognition?  What do you think presents a better image of Canada, a guy like that promoting himself, or him being promoted and reckognized by our highest official? .



You have a solid point here, however, the GG's budget is not the problem, it is the quality of our artists!



> Just attempting to answer the statement that "we need a Head of State and we either do it right (as I think she is) or we give up the game and go back to being a British colony or annex ourselves to the US".  Saying that without the GG as a figurehead, we might as well be part of the UK or US is a little extreme don't you think?  The position holds no real power.  The GG is just a figurehead, the REAL head of state is the PM.  Also, now that I think of it, the reason we HAVE a GG is because we WERE a Brittish colony, so I don't know how Mortar guy equates getting rid of the GG with becoming a colony again.....



As they say in the last half hour of Law and Order - "I'll allow it."  RCA addresses this point well in his last post.


----------



## pbi (26 Nov 2004)

Our GG may have caviar tastes, but let those of us in uniform not forget who our friends are. I have never seen a GG who stood by the military as closely as Mme Clarkson. She has taken it upon herself and her office to provide a leadership presence to the military that our elected leaders have chosen to abdicate in favour of fatuous comments and wandering about with their helmets on backwards. Previous GGs have done no better by us and in some cases have done nothing. Before we start slandering her and her very good intentions, I suggest we think on that for just a moment. It is a pity that a non-elected HOS does it for us when it shoud be our PM, but there you are. As she spends the public money she must of course be pubilcly accountable but I do not buy this venom I see dripping here, including from several of us who owe a personal allegiance to her as the rep of HM. We may question the eventual future of the Monarchy in Canada (I know I do) but for now it is our system and some of us have sworn an oath of loyalty to it. Loyalty does not equate to blindness but it normally includes a modicum of respect.

As for the statement that in most successful democracies the HOG and HOS are separate-where does that leave the US?

Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Nov 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> As for the statement that in most successful democracies the HOG and HOS are separate-where does that leave the US?
> 
> Cheers.
> Cheers.



Or Germany in 1933.....


----------



## pbi (26 Nov 2004)

Michael I think I know what you're driving at but Germany in 1933 wasn't, IMHO, an example of a successful democracy, although the President(HOS) and the Chancellor(HOG) were separate offices prior to Hitlers accession. IMHO Hitler got to power because he was able to exploit some of the failures of the Weimar Govt and some of the systemic weaknesses of the Weimar Constitution that allowed for very abitrary powers to be used. One might argue that if Germany had been a truly "successful democracy", Herr H might have died a poor artist in Austria. Cheers.


----------



## RCA (26 Nov 2004)

Head of Government (Legislative branch) in the US is The Speaker of the House and the Head of State is The President - separation of powers. If I remember correctly the Speaker is next in line after the Vice.

As for caviar tastes, this maybe true, maybe not, but as I said above, you hears something often enough it tends to become fact for those you don't care to look any further then a sound bite (and PBI I do not include with that bunch and no slight intended.)

What are caviar tastes. I've been around long enough to know, the higher you get, the better perks there are. (ie Fort Garry over 17 Wing)


----------



## Mortar guy (26 Nov 2004)

I am not here to debate the need for the office of the GG or even the need for the seperation of powers between the HOS and HOG. I don't give a rats about that debate and I don't think its relevant to the discussion. All I am saying is that in my opinion (and personal experience) the current GG is doing an outstanding job and we get far more out of her than we pay into the office. I would just like to clear up a few points:

1) The artist who used blood as a medium was not chosen by the GG, he was selected by the Canada Council for the Arts. So, if you have a problem with him receiving the Visual Arts award, I suggest you bitch to them. Did you think the GG sat in her office and reviewed the works of every artist in Canada and then selected her favourite?

2) 





> The position holds no real power.   The GG is just a figurehead, the REAL head of state is the PM.


 Actually, the REAL head of state is the GG. I don't mean to embarass you but I think it is shameful how little most Canadians know about their system of government. The position holds considerable power - she signs all bills into law, she appoints the PM (very important in a minority government), she dissolves parliament, she signs commissioning scrolls, she is the CinC of the Armed Forces. All of these things mean power and influence (not as much as the PM or the US President but pretty decent by international standards - as far as HOSs go). Just because it is rarely used does not mean it does not exist.

3 





> If you look deep enough, you will probably find that the GG had clearances from External Affairs and the PMO to go to Russia. They could have vetoed. So the presumption that the GG gather all the artists together and jump on a plane to Russia and merrily burned taxpayers dollars is naive to say the least and unfair at best..


 You are absolutely correct RCA. Of course the GG doesn't just go wherever she likes, whenever she likes. The planning for the trip was done mostly by DFAIT with input from PMO, Rideau Hall, RCMP, DND etc. I was the ADC responsible for planning the Finland and Iceland portion of the last state visit and I can tell you it was no junket. 16 hour days were the norm and many of the delegation found it difficult to keep up with the pace the GG sets. I don't know about you but I am not fond of 16 hours of back to back meetings, speeches, roundtable discussions, and cultural events! Hardly a vacation! It is true that there was a very short period of down time in Finland at the halfway point but, the GG chose to forgo the break and fly to Germany to meet the bodies of Cpl Beerenfenger and Sgt Short and the injured soldiers on their way back to Canada.

Before anyone gets worried, I am not divulging any Rideau Hall secrets. All of this information is (or was) available on the Rideau Hall website or in various newspaper articles of the time.

Finally, I want to clarify my previous point about reverting to colony status. All I am saying is that if we see no need to strengthen and promote canadian institutions and culture, why bother remaining a country? If we can't be bothered to spend a measly $19 million to preserve our form of government and to showcase all the best things about Canada, then we do not deserve to be a sovereign country. Why continue to be Canada when we show no pride in things Canadian (sorry, hockey and healthcare do not a country make)? If people feel that money is more important than history, tradition or culture then we are a sorry excuse for a country. Of course, this is not how most Canadians feel. Despite what a few blowhard columnists write, most Canadians recognize that this kind of thing is necessary and important. Most people who can think for themselves (and that's most people) realize it is good to have something to be proud of and are incredibly patriotic people. We are not a sorry excuse for a country but, in my opinion, the best place in the world to live. All the GG is trying to do is make it a little better and show us off to the world.

MG


----------



## bubba (26 Nov 2004)

heyyy nobody anwsered my ques on how to get the job.come on troops take the  knot out of your knickers, that incident in VAN was a pretty  stupid thing to do weither her reps had something to do with it or not.made her look like she was above the comman people.throw in the fact of the govt dissen the vets on dday by not sendin them over for the reunion because the govt is cheap.alot of people down here got pissed off over that,then ya here of her stylin and profilin with enterage. c'mon ya think were gona be good little sheep an say notin.pbi i wasn't tryin to slander her just addin a little sarcasm to there itinery ;D    hey rca, how ya know the perks get better the higher ya go,?????answer/pigs at the trough are fatter.just another sound bight for my collection :-* :-*  i know she is alot better than some of the cardboard gg we had,but with the gov wastin so much of our money with no regard for regular citizens and what we want peaple are gonna vent.i think it's time canada gets it self in order and looks after it.s own first.....


----------



## Acorn (26 Nov 2004)

Do you speak any known language bubba?

Acorn


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Nov 2004)

I personally don't mind her budget, but I did mind the Scandanavian junkit.

In essence the government paid the ticket for a bunch of artist snobs (and even more of her staff if I remember correctly) to take a 5-star trip that most people cannot even fathom.

How specifically did that help average Canadians?

Bottom Line:   I'd like to see her more focused and even a dedicated public advocate of the armed forces and its history as it concerns the security of the state, and less focused on the foo-foo shi-shi world tours promoting Canadian Art to other members of the world community.   If the GG stuck to that and tied it into creating supporting materials for the education system, I'd propose increasing her budget....



Matthew.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Nov 2004)

bubba said:
			
		

> heyyy nobody anwsered my ques on how to get the job.come on troops take the  knot out of your knickers, that incident in VAN was a pretty  stupid thing to do weither her reps had something to do with it or not.made her look like she was above the comman people.throw in the fact of the govt dissen the vets on dday by not sendin them over for the reunion because the govt is cheap.alot of people down here got pissed off over that,then ya here of her stylin and profilin with enterage. c'mon ya think were gona be good little sheep an say notin.pbi i wasn't tryin to slander her just addin a little sarcasm to there itinery ;D    hey rca, how ya know the perks get better the higher ya go,?????answer/pigs at the trough are fatter.just another sound bight for my collection :-* :-*  i know she is alot better than some of the cardboard gg we had,but with the gov wastin so much of our money with no regard for regular citizens and what we want peaple are gonna vent.i think it's time canada gets it self in order and looks after it.s own first.....



You know, the moderator of the Army Cadet forum is insisting that posters do a spell check and use some actual punctuation.  Maybe the grown ups should try doing the same.   :

As for D-Day, that was discussed in-depth here, the government was not "cheap", and in the end, if I recall correctly, promised some money to every vet that wanted to go (though admittedly a bit late in the game).

As for perks getting better the higher you go - it is true, the corollary to that is that they are also often well deserved.  If you work anything like you write, I doubt you will ever know.   Like they say, walk a mile in someone's shoes...I've been in management myself on civvie side, work very closely with civvie management now and also with officers in my Regiment - I think a lot of perks are indeed well deserved, they go hand in hand with great responsibility.  Believe it or not, that is exactly what the GG has - responsibility - and the remarks of some profoundly jealous, ignorant, and uninformed people will do little to change that.

You're an excellent argument for a return to the class system.  Your argument against the Governor General simply smacks of "I'm too stupid to achieve anything on my own, or understand what others better than me strive to achieve so we must level the playing field by given nothing to everyone."   Sounds like Communism to me.  We can see how well that worked out.


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Nov 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> You're an excellent argument for a return to the class system.



Didn't realize we put it behind us. After all, the GG represents royalty.


----------



## Big Foot (27 Nov 2004)

The GG is also a part of our heritage. You look back to the early days of British North America and there has always been a governor appointed by the Regal as the head of state. I for one think that we should be proud of our history and continue to preserve it in any way we can. Adrienne Clarkson, regardless of whether she gives awards to guys for taking pictures of themselves with blood coming out of their asses, is a fine representitive of Canada and therefore should be accorded respect as such. To suggest ditching the position all together would be to ignore where we've come from. Besides, indirectly we do vote for the GG as the government selects an individual, based on their own personal merits, to represent Canada in this capacity. The GG is a part of our identity as Canadians and to abandon it would be to abandon a part of ourselves.


----------



## Torlyn (27 Nov 2004)

Right...  ANYWAY, to get back on topic...

Is 19 million too much for the GG?  My personal feelings towards this particular GG, (expressed in other posts) I don't think that 19 or 34 mil for an entire country to spend on our head of state is too much.  Given that her spending is under a microscope, I can be satisfied provided there are no frivolous expenditures.  I have issues with Clarkson as GG, but not the office of the GG itself.  (I don't like Paul Martin either, but I don't want the position of Prime Minister removed)

Back to the original thread...  I don't see how they can call it "slashing" the budget when they remove 417k out of 19.1mil.  Not much of a slash, IMO.

And we DO need to have some sort of business reputation overseas, and if the office of the GG does that, great.  I know in Alberta we've sent delegations to various countries to increase trade, and by and large, they've worked, and they don't come cheap.  I've spent quite a few years dealing with the oil industry in Calgary, and no one takes to seriously if you don't walk large.  What I mean, is that it takes money to makes money.  If we send the GG overseas business class on Air Canada (using her own frequent flyer miles) and put her up in the skeez-is-us motel rented out by the hour, not too many foreign countries will take us very seriously.  A lot of countries will be more willing to increase/initiate trade if they're treated with the respect of a visit from the Head of State of a foreign country, and treated well by that sovereign leader.  PM PM is too busy, so let's fire off the GG.

Also, insofar as she is the CiC, the office of the GG needs to have the funding to support and perpetuate that role.  If only she'd threaten to remove PM PM if he doesn't start pouring money in to the Military...  Wouldn't that be fun.   ;D

T


----------



## Boydfish (27 Nov 2004)

Just to make an interesting point on the GG, the primary role of the job is *not* as "Canada's head of state", the GG is supposed to represent the Crown in the confederation.  This is extremely important.  It also makes the idea of the GG touring _anywhere_ except the provinces foolish:  If she is not in the confederation, there is no way that she is representing the Crown in the confederation.  

The usual excuse offered is that she can be contacted in an emergency and execute her duties anywhere in the world via modern communications.  If this is true, why not just dump the position all together and have the Crown, read QEII, do this job via modern communications all the time?

If we must have a GG, rather than my preferred choice of simply disbanding the job and evolving the roles of the GG down to the provincial LGGs, then the GG should be held to remaining at thier assigned post, rather than galavanting around the planet, regardless of thier intentions.


----------



## McInnes (27 Nov 2004)

Boydfish, so you are saying that the PM should never leave Canada, as he represents Canada, and has no business galavanting around the planet as well then? Also, the GG IS our defacto head of state whether you like it or not. 

A lot of you are beginning to remind me of school girls in highschool. It isn't necessary to refer to the whole lot of artists as snobs going on pointless trips around the world. Do you personally know each and every one of those artists? NO, so I strongly suggest you give your head a shake and perhaps stop in the rumour/slander mill.

The government is willing to waste 1 billion dollars on gun registry (read: pointless things to spend money on), and millions on the sponsorship scandal/liberal buddy fund. Yet, it is too much to spend 19 million on our head of state. Come on lads, if you're going to bitch about something, i think you could manage to find something with a little more impact. What of that multi-billion dollar surplus?

All of you as CF service persons have sworn to be faithful and bear true allegiance to HM. This also means the GG as HM representative in Canada. To publicly advocate the removal of the GG is a treasonous train of thought in my mind.


----------



## NavyGrunt (27 Nov 2004)

Aquilus said:
			
		

> All of you as CF service persons have sworn to be faithful and bear true allegiance to HM. This also means the GG as HM representative in Canada. To publicly advocate the removal of the GG is a treasonous train of thought in my mind.



then she should be representing the Queen in Canada to the provinces  and not running around representing Canada to the world. We elect the PM and he should be doing this. Since we appoint him to lead and represent us. The GG represents the Queen to us. Not represent us to "them".

So because we waste larger amounts on something else we shouldnt worry about the small amounts we waste? Maybe you should give your head a shake?

I dont advocate the removal of the GG or HM from Canada- but I am interested to see a breakdown of her budget(the GG) and a breakdown of each of those trips-


----------



## McInnes (27 Nov 2004)

My point is that no one really seems to care how much the government wastes. However, as soon as the GG spends money, the drastically small amount in comparison, everyone is all up in arms. Also, the LGovs are responsible for representing the Queen to the Provinces not the GG. I think there is some confusion with the GG being our representative Head of State, and being the Queen's representative to us, as the GG has certain responsibilities to represent Canada to the world much like the President of the US is responsible for representing the US, or the Queen of Great Britain representing the UK. 

The PM does represent Canada, however he is rather busy most of the time I gather, and serves a different function, so I think comparing the PM's duties with the GG in that regard is somewhat a moot point.


----------



## Mortar guy (27 Nov 2004)

OK, I'll make it easy for all of you who keep putting your feet in your mouthes:



> What is the Governor General's position in Government?
> 
> Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. This means Canadians recognize The Queen as our Head of State. Canada's 26th Governor General, the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, carries out Her Majesty's duties in Canada on a daily basis and *is Canada's de facto Head of State*.
> 
> ...



Look on www.gg.ca if you want more info. For those who argue we should just let the Queen take over the role of GG, I say: you have just made my argument for me. If we can't even be bothered to spend $19 million on our HOS, then we might as well cede all sovereignty to the UK.

MG


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Nov 2004)

Aaron White said:
			
		

> then she should be representing the Queen in Canada to the provinces  and not running around representing Canada to the world.   The GG represents the Queen to us. Not represent us to "them".



What on earth are you talking about?  We need the GG, at 19 million, to tour Canada and remind us we have a GG?   Your comments make little sense.


----------



## big_castor (27 Nov 2004)

Boydfish said:
			
		

> If we must have a GG, rather than my preferred choice of simply disbanding the job and evolving the roles of the GG down to the provincial LGGs,



I think we could get rid of the Provincials Lieutenant-Governors and nobody would notice.


----------



## Boydfish (27 Nov 2004)

> Boydfish, so you are saying that the PM should never leave Canada, as he represents Canada, and has no business galavanting around the planet as well then?



The PM and the GG are different jobs.  The pivotal difference is that the PM's job is not to represent the Crown in the confederation, like the GG's is.



> Also, the GG IS our defacto head of state whether you like it or not.



Do you know what "de facto" means?  In really boiled down terms, it means that Queen Elizabeth II _is_ the head of state, but that the offices of the GG and the LGGs represent her in the confederation and in the provinces.  

I'll give you a micro-example: In my job, I am legally defined as a "delegate of the Deputy Attorney General".  I manage the case files, sign off on affadavits and execute lots of legal documents in that regard.  The DAG has met me once and could not pick me out of a police line up, along with the other 60 or so people who do the same job as me.  Just because I do all of his work as part of the law enforcement apparatus of British Columbia, while that gives me lots of de facto authority, doen't change the fact that at the end of the day, me worker drone, him big boss.



> For those who argue we should just let the Queen take over the role of GG, I say: you have just made my argument for me. If we can't even be bothered to spend $19 million on our HOS, then we might as well cede all sovereignty to the UK.



Except that if you can make the arguement that modern technology allows the GG to trapse about the planet and still execute thier authority effectively, we could simply cut out the "middle man" and have the Crown do that.



> What on earth are you talking about?  We need the GG, at 19 million, to tour Canada and remind us we have a GG?   Your comments make little sense.



The Queen is the head of the confederation.  She is also the head of state for each province.  The GG is her representative of the Crown in the confederation.  It is not her job to tour other lands and represent the Crown in Lower Lumpystan, it is her job to represent the Crown in the Canadian confederation.

Having her tour about would make as much sense as if the US Ambassador to Canada started touring Europe on behalf of EU-Canada relations.


----------



## Boydfish (27 Nov 2004)

> I think we could get rid of the Provincials Lieutenant-Governors and nobody would notice.



Except that would effectively neuter the provincial governments.  Since the provinces make the confederation, not the other way around, it makes more sense to keep each province's government intact and trim out the GG instead.


----------



## big_castor (27 Nov 2004)

Boydfish said:
			
		

> Except that would effectively neuter the provincial governments.   Since the provinces make the confederation, not the other way around, it makes more sense to keep each province's government intact and trim out the GG instead.



On a purely practical level, making each provincial Premier a "mini Head of State" instead of just the head of Government for their Province would not make any difference for the Confederation, unless you absolutely want to maintain the fiction that each Province is actually a independent State.   

I dont' now how it is in other Provinces but our LG is just a big waste of taxpayers money, even more so, all thing being equal, then the GG .   Having 11 representatives of the Queen in the country might have been a good idea in the days of dirt roads and horse carts but it's no longer  a necessity.


----------



## GGboy (27 Nov 2004)

First of all, I want to make it clear that despite my handle I am in no way related to Ms. Clarkson.
While I have some problems with the current GG, most of them I think come down to a case of her taking the job just a little too seriously. It's true that she's done wonderful work as C-in-C of the Canadian Forces, but other initiatives like her trans-Polar junket were way over the top. IMHO it's a case of her getting just a little carried away with the regal role.
But to bring this discussion back to the initial story, I find it VERY hard to take complaints about the vice-regal spending seriously when they come from a group of MPs who have the cushiest pay, benefits and pension plan of any elected representatives in the western world. To the federal government, $19-million is pocket change and while I don't always agree with the way Ms. Clarkson spends that money, I feel it's far better spent on her than on the tax-free salary, expenses and etc we waste on a know-nothing windbag like Carolyn Parrish...


----------



## Boydfish (27 Nov 2004)

> On a purely practical level, making each provincial Premier a "mini Head of State" instead of just the head of Government for their Province would not make any difference for the Confederation, unless you absolutely want to maintain the fiction that each Province is actually a independent State.



It's more than simply a question of how loosely or tightly bound the confederation is, but more that the provincial governments are vastly more important than the confederal one.  I also don't think that it's a fiction and can assure that in a strictly technical sense, yes, they are independent states.



> dont' now how it is in other Provinces but our LG is just a big waste of taxpayers money, even more so, all thing being equal, then the GG .   Having 11 representatives of the Queen in the country might have been a good idea in the days of dirt roads and horse carts but it's no longer  a necessity.



I agree that having 11 representatives seems a bit excessive.  The question then comes "Which do we get rid of?".  In the end, the choice is the GG or the LGGs.  Remember, those 11 positions do not sit in splendid isolation, they sit as you've said, the de facto heads of state for 11 different governments.  If you eliminate the LGGs, you'd also need to either eliminate those 10 governments entirely or combine the duties of those LGGs into the GG.

For the first choice, not bloody likely, as the Canadian government appears unable to handle the duties that British Columbians delegate to them now and the provincial government is the only government that I get to actually have a voice in, much like anybody who lives west of the Great Lakes.  The second choice is equally unworkable, as the GG would be run off thier feet and placed in numerous conflicts of interest:  The interests of British Columbia and the interests of Canada are not uniformly parallel, nor are the interests of Alberta or Newfoundland & Labrador, for that matter.  Each province needs a head of state that will put the interests of that province above all else.

On the other hand, the GG is simply the head of one government.  It is far easier to divide up the duties of 1 among 10 than pile the duties of 10 on 1.  Why couldn't the LGG of British Columbia give royal assent to a bill passed by the Canadian house?  The method of how it would be determined which LGG would sign an act of Parliament could be any one of a numerous ways, but my preference would be to have it done by province of origin of the original sponsoring member of Parliament.  For example, if Paul Martin introduces and has passed an Act or Bill, it would be signed into law by the Quebec LGG.  If Randy White introduces a bill and it is passed, the British Columbian LGG gives it royal assent and so on and so on.

The other big duties of the GG, "dropping the writ" and appointing the PM, could also be handled by the LGGs via a simple vote system.  The PM would be elected by the LGGs and the house would be dissolved by a vote by the LGGs to do so.


----------



## big_castor (27 Nov 2004)

Boydfish said:
			
		

> Each province needs a head of state that will put the interests of that province above all else.
> 
> that the provincial governments are vastly more important than the confederal one.   I also don't think that it's a fiction and can assure that in a strictly technical sense, yes, they are independent states.



 « Technically  » independent states who relinquished many of their powers to a central government, who has been, over the last 137 years became the de facto dominant political body instead of just an emanation of the Provinces.   Those 10 independent states still have no way of amending their partnership and look at the fuss when one tries to get away...

I wouldn't personably combine the functions of the LG's   with those of the GG : I would get rid of their function entirely.   I understand the role of the Queen representatives in our political system but   apart from giving assent to bills, is there a meaningful functions for a LG ?   Perhaps the one in Quebec is the worst example of the lot but I don't see do a lot outside her purely symbolical functions.   To paraphrase JKF,  « What can your LG do for you ?  »     Call me too materialistic but is their vice-regal status (and the expenses that go with it) really justified ?      



			
				Boydfish said:
			
		

> The other big duties of the GG, "dropping the writ" and appointing the PM, could also be handled by the LGGs via a simple vote system.   The PM would be elected by the LGGs and the house would be dissolved by a vote by the LGGs to do so.



Isn't that a more complicated system to get to the same result ? Unless you want them to b able to vote against a Bill, in which case you're opening a whole new can of worms....


----------



## RCA (27 Nov 2004)

Sorry for those who are reasoning this through, but I need to go off on a tangent for this post



> hey rca, how ya know the perks get better the higher ya go,??answer/pigs at the trough are fatter.just another sound bight for my collection  ...  but with the gov wastin so much of our money with no regard for regular citizens



 You better explain this one before I misunderstand.

 And in your opinion who "regular citizens" - Archie Bunker.


----------



## Bograt (27 Nov 2004)

My venom isn't directed at the GG. It is directed at wasteful spending. In my opinion, the artist earlier refereed to in this post did not deserve 15 K of taxpayers money. The circumpolar trip was originally budgeted at 1 million, and later was announced that it cost over 5 million.

1 Billion gun registry
1 Billion HRDC misappropriation
1.6 Billion missing in aboriginal affairs
42+ Billion surplus of EI
100 million sponsorship
Atlantic Accord promise, spin and threats,
200+ charges against liberal appointed immigration officials in Quebec, and the most recent "Stripper Gate." 

My frustration does not come from partisanship, but rather naivety. We walk each day amongst heroes. The teachers who do Herculean tasks with famished budgets, volunteers who give their time selflessly and each of us who try to do the right thing regardless of the consequences. It shouldn't be too much to ask that we expect more from elected officials. The GG unfortunately is an innocent casualty of IMHO the government's decline. 

My wife and I paid over 20K in taxes last year. We worked very hard to make sure our family has what it needs to succeed. I find it difficult to comprehend the forementioned budget bylines. IMHO questioning some of these "expenses" including some of the GG's budget is not treachery but rather responsible. The GG is part of the Canada I am preparing to serve.


----------



## bubba (27 Nov 2004)

excuse me boys,mind if me and mike finish are dance.mike your pretty quick on the keys i'll give you that.i have to be honest typin,spellin,aint my strong pts.i went to a battle in the mid 80's before political correctness came into affect,what year did you start secretarial school.you assumed alot about me in your reply so i reveiwed   some of yours.heres what i assume about you,you like to threaten to lock thread if members dissagree with your opinion,try to intimidate an put the run on members.or simply just digrade their charactor.you do contribute alot of good info don't get me wrong,but you can be quite the pompous little ass.i got a serious ques for ya,why did ya tell me what you do for a livin,were you braggin or complainin????i mean rely what do ya gross 40-50 grand, what perks free parkin ???that ain,t much ta live on bye.seriously calgary is not cheap to live in,i been there,i hope you make more.as a matter of fact there's a 5050 chance i'll be workin in fort mac come jan.we'll have to hook up i like the bar thats got the mini put golf in it,can't remember name.(keep reply civil this time,i got feelins)hey acorn you understand this reply or do i gotta get ya a translater??????quick one of you kids do a spell check on olebubba :


----------



## bubba (27 Nov 2004)

rca/ regular citizen is the guy that pays the fiddler so the politicians can have there dance.what did ya think i meant.you and your tangents,what are you havin a fit of nerves.need an explanation for that???


----------



## Boydfish (27 Nov 2004)

> « Technically  » independent states who relinquished many of their powers to a central government, who has been, over the last 137 years became the de facto dominant political body instead of just an emanation of the Provinces.



I don't quite agree with the "dominant" nature of the confederal government, but a great deal of that is likely perspective:   I'm a British Columbian, so the comings and goings of the Canadian government in Ottawa are both distant and irrelevant to me.



> Those 10 independent states still have no way of amending their partnership and look at the fuss when one tries to get away...



I'd disagree with that.   The amount of "fuss" is quite tiny in comparitive terms.   West of the Great Lakes, the perception of Quebec exiting confederation is best described as "We're not letting you leave the table until you settle your portion of the restaurant bill".   In comparison, most other similar political constructs like the confederation would have had a shooting war(Ex. The US Civil War).

Another part of the problem is that even the most ardent Quebec seperatist has to admit that without the billions in direct aid heaped on top of the billions of indirect aid that the rest of the confederation pours into Quebec annually, Quebec isn't viable as a province, let alone a real independent nation state without some pretty major changes in the way they live.   None of that even includes that they would need to take at least a per capita percentage of the debt of the confederation.

Both of the referendums have not asked if they want out of the confederation, instead asking if they can "demand" something called "sovereignty-association".

The speed and ease in which a province can walk out on the confederation will not be shown in a "have not" like Quebec; they lack the ability to even seriously ask for it.   When an Alberta or British Columbia, places that are rich and have established cultures, leave the confederation, it will be blindingly fast and there will be even less fuss than the Quebec song and dance of the last couple of decades.



> I wouldn't personably combine the functions of the LG's   with those of the GG : I would get rid of their function entirely.   I understand the role of the Queen representatives in our political system but   apart from giving assent to bills, is there a meaningful functions for a LG ?   Perhaps the one in Quebec is the worst example of the lot but I don't see do a lot outside her purely symbolical functions.   To paraphrase JKF,  « What can your LG do for you ?  »    Call me too materialistic but is their vice-regal status (and the expenses that go with it) really justified ?



The LGGs have exactly the same role as the GG.   They drop the writ for the Legislatures, Parliaments, etc in each province.   Most people forget that "Premier" is simply the french translation for "Prime Minister" and that the provincial government essentially mirror the confederal one.   In fact, until the 1960's, BC referred to it's as "Prime Minister", not Premier.   In other words, if you can justify a GG, you have automatic justification for the LGGs.   I don't agree that the reverse is true, however.

I know that BC's LGGs have been kept hopping, what with British Columbia's cultural predeliction for "dynamic government"(If you can't see the grin on my face over the internet, rest assured it's there.).   If the PM of BC isn't under arrest, under investigation or under his lawyer's advice not answering questions, they're vacationing in Hawaii.   I know that the LGG in BC hinted strongly to Clark that if he didn't resign, the Legislature would be dissolved out from under him.   Vander Zalm was told point blank get out or get shoved out.

In terms of justification, they provide an apolitical executive authority.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2004)

A bit late on this one, but has anyone pointed out that the GG will be reigned in by a massive...*2.5%* budget cut. Depending on how you do the figuring, DND has seen its budget cut by 23-25%, and the real purchasing power drop by almost 50% in the last decade. (Oh, and we *still* have to provide the Challenger jets as well)

If we want to really get rid of deficits and debts, then ALL government departments need to be put on the same diet, or we have to examine how we do business as a nation very carefully, and decide what we need, what we can do without, and what is the best way to deliver those services that have been marked as needed (hint; government monopoly is the system we need to replace).

While the GG may provide both a symbolic and real role in the Canadian government, she too needs to scale back to something we al can afford.


----------



## RCA (28 Nov 2004)

a-majoor - agree. 

bubba - signal weak and unreadable, unintelligible garble - say again


----------



## bubba (28 Nov 2004)

rca /taxpayer is what i meant by regular citizen.back to topic,a-majoor excellent post could'nt agree more.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (29 Nov 2004)

"The Governor General's role is built on six major themes: 

Representing the Crown in Canada 
Promoting Canadian Sovereignty 
Celebrating Excellence 
Encouraging National Identity, National Unity and Moral Leadership "


Mortar Guy, 

Thank you for posting this. It's good that you have been able to post as an informed insider, and personally reading from you about how hard she works illustrates that she is isn't neglecting some of her duties. I'll just throw this one question out though...which part of the above 6 roles have anything to do with an international 'Aren't we great?" trip? 

Upon further examination of her 'Roles', raises a few other points. (Kinda looks like a PDR, doesn't it?)


- _Representing the crown in Canada_

Kinda says it all there. IN Canada. Do circumpolar trips accomplish this? 


- _Promoting Canadian soverignty _ 

Has she been doing much these days defending our interests WRT our sovereignty disputes? I'm thinking specifically Hans Island and the border dispute along the Yukon/Alaska border. Did she get the opportunity to discuss Hans Island during the circumpolar trip at all? It seems as part of her job she should have. 

- _Celebrating excellence_

This one kinda explains itself. Medals, awards, Order of Canada-type stuff...Was this the part of her job that was used to justify the circumpolar trip?  

- _Encouraging National Identity_

Who is she supposed to encourage...other nations or Canadian citizens?

- _Moral Leadership_

Ah. My favourite. Despite government budget surplusses, cutbacks and 'tightening the belt' are the norm with our government. Shouldn't our own Commander in Chief do the same and demonstrate a little leadership? Whats good for the goose, right? Personally, I feel that if she's supposed to represent and command the Canadian Forces, it isn't right that her budget only goes up while ours goes down. A $400,000 cut is more symbolic than anyhing else, especially when other departments have been absorbing some of her expenses.

My .02. Sir, if I'm off base here, I'd appreciate some feedback. 

Cheers, 

 :dontpanic:
A.A.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Dec 2004)

Actually, the REAL head of state is the GG. I don't mean to embarass you but I think it is shameful how little most Canadians know about their system of government. The position holds considerable power - she signs all bills into law, she appoints the PM (very important in a minority government), she dissolves parliament, she signs commissioning scrolls, she is the CinC of the Armed Forces. All of these things mean power and influence (not as much as the PM or the US President but pretty decent by international standards - as far as HOSs go). Just because it is rarely used does not mean it does not exist.

I don't mean to be picky here, but the GG has absolutely no discretionary role to play whatever. It is true that the GG completes the legislative process, and that under s. 55 of the Constitution Act, 1867 the GG has the power to withold royal assent from a bill which has been enacted by both houses of parliament, and the power to withold a bill for the signification of the Queens pleasure; and by s. 56 gives to the Queen the power to dissallow a Canadian statute. 
The "imperial conference"* in 1930 resolved that the powers of reservation and dissallowance must never be exercised. As long as the cabinet holds the confidence of parliament, there is no circumstance which would justify in constitutional law a refusal of assent, a reservation of a bill, or a British disallowance.** That leaves only confidence motions in the house of commons.  


*The imperial conference in 1930 produced an agreement that changes in royal styles and title could only be made with the consent of the commonwealth countries. 

** [British disallowance stems from the fact that in a strict legal sense, our consitution takes its legal authority from the Canada Act, 1982- an act of the British Parliament!! If the Brits repealed the Canada Act, 1982, we would not have the Constitution Act, 1867 (the BNA Act, 1867 as amended) Since 1982, the Brit parliament cannot amend the constitution, but theoretically they could extinguish it by repealing the Canada Act. We would be an instantaneous republic with no say in the matter.]     

Cheers.


----------



## Spr.Earl (4 Dec 2004)

The G.G. is the Head of State but a powerless and formal one at that but can take power if things fail and can be the Head of Government until an election and a new Government is formed,as did happen in Australia a few years ago.

The G.G. is our safety valve (as I like to call the postion).


----------



## Mortar guy (7 Dec 2004)

Whiskey 601 - OK, you clearly know your constitutional history! However, you didn't really refute what I was saying (if you were trying to refute it). The GG does have authority WRT the forming and dissolution of parliament. Anyway, fly shit from pepper. No, she isn't the equivalent of the US President, yes she is our de facto HOS.

Temperate Acorn - Great questions and I wish I had all the answers for you. I absolutely agree with you about spending and the need to show leadership. As for the rest, I don't know what to tell you except that every other country on this planet conducts state visits. We as Canadians have to decide if we want to continue to do this and how we will do it. If we decide it is something we want to do, then we should do it to the best of our abilities. If we decide not to do it, then we have to be ready to accept the consequences of that decision. I cannot apologize for the way international relations are conducted or the way HOS from different countries conduct themselves. My opinion is that it is important to form strong ties with countries we consider to be our friends and allies and one way of doing this is through State Visits. Just my opinion though, and this is what's great about democracies - everyone gets a say!

MG


----------

