Wherein Lies "DUTY"?

[George Wallace]

Wherein Lies "DUTY"?

The question arises, from the recent Cabinet Shuffle of Prime Minister Harper, as to where the sense of Duty lies in our Public figures.  The Governor General did not preside over the ceremonies to present the new Cabinet to Canadians, citing that she wanted to spend time with her family. 

I am sure that as a person appointed to this position, and the subsequent pay and entitlements that she receives to fill that position, she should realize that she must put her "Duties" above all else in her tenure as Governor General of Canada. 

Having paid a Surgeon to operate on you, would you expect him to leave you in the operating room to go spend some quality time with his family?  Would you expect the PM to leave the House to spend quality time with his family?  Would you expect the Commander in Afghanistan to just pack up in the middle of a major operation and go home to spend some quality time with his family?

What kind of reaction would the British Commonwealth have should the Queen pass up the Opening of the British Parliament and her official duties to spend some quality time with her family?  This would do nothing for Monarchists, but give plenty of fuel to those of the Anti-Monarchist League.

Has our current Governor General reneged on her Official Duties and disgraced the Office to which she holds and is paid?

[Edit to add link to photos:  http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media_gallery.asp?media_category_id=96 ]

 

[antique]

Excellent point!Where does duty lies as far as our GG is concerned?
Well maybe spending time promoting herself in Haiti and Africa dancing with the locals.Paul Martin did leave us with quite a number this time.No time for parliament business,not too many visits to the troops...(it could be dangerous)bahhh maybe she should stay home and pretend she is Queen of Canada.
Sometimes actions do not match the speech....she may talk the talk but I wonder why she does not walk the walk

 

[17thRecceSgt]

Anything I say would be disloyal and reflect poorly on my Commander-In-Chief.

I will therefore, muzzle myself by numbers...

:-X

 

[BernDawg]

Oh I'm sorry sir.  I didn't attend your ROE briefing because I decided to spend some "quality time" with my family.  I'm sure you understand.
:

 

[17thRecceSgt]

IIRC, didn't she have something more important to do on the Queen's birthday was well?

:

 

[GAP]

What family?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well, the upside is that these folks got sworn in by someone who actually matters: Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch.

For some of them, especially the junior ministers of nothing much, it may be the only 'face time' he ever gives them! 

 

[The Bread Guy]

- edited to fully attribute attendance of Privy Council Clerk at Kandahar meeting -

Bracing for incoming....

1)  According to The Swearing-In of a New Ministry, from the Governor General's web page....

....The Oath of Office is administered to the prime minister designate by the Clerk of the Privy Council at the commencement of the swearing-in ceremony ....  The Instrument of Advice recommending the appointment of members of the Ministry is signed by the prime minister and presented to the governor general for signature .... Ministers-designate who are privy councillors and who are changing portfolios subscribe to their respective oaths of office in front of the Clerk of the Privy Council before being presented to the governor general by the prime minister ....The Queen is informed by the governor general of the acceptance of the resignation of a prime minister and the swearing-in of a new prime minister and members of the Ministry.

If I read this correctly, GG only receives, signs and informs, s/he DOESN'T swear in.  There's a case to be made that any of these three duties can be carried out without being in the room at the time of the swearing in.

2)  I also note that even though it's been too dangerous for the Commander in Chief to visit the troops in Afghanistan, it's been safe enough for comedians, musicians, academics, elected officials, even the Clerk of the Privy Council (1) (who, according to the above, is more of a "must have" for swearing in ministers than the GG) to drop by? 

Who decides whether the GG should go on such trips or not?  Lest you think I'm an anti-Conservative, here's another hint:  Who asked a former GG to undertake the uber-expensive Arctic nation tour she's been hugely criticized for without defence from them that asked her to go?

Should she have been at the swearing in?  Yes.  Was she critically or constitutionally needed?  Maybe not so much.
----------
(1) - Hutchinson, Bruce.  "Man slain by Canadian an Afghan celebrity", CanWest News Service, 14 Dec 06:    "Joining Karzai (in Kandahar) were tribal elders, religious leaders, and foreign dignitaries, including David Sproule, Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan, and Kevin Lynch, clerk of the Privy Council."

 

[George Wallace]

It was very nice that you highlighted that first half of the sentence, but you should have continued on and highlighted the rest too.  It would appear that, yes indeed they are sworn in by the Clerk of the Privy Council prior to being presented to the Governor General by the Prime Minister.  That sounds like she should have been officiating 'over' the swearing-in ceremony as a whole.  The first stage being the Clerk of the Privy Council swearing them in, and the second stage the official presentation of the Members, by the Prime Minister, to the Governor General as the Queen's Representative.

....The Oath of Office is administered to the prime minister designate by the Clerk of the Privy Council at the commencement of the swearing-in ceremony ....  The Instrument of Advice recommending the appointment of members of the Ministry is signed by the prime minister and presented to the governor general for signature .... Ministers-designate who are privy councillors and who are changing portfolios subscribe to their respective oaths of office in front of the Clerk of the Privy Council before being presented to the governor general by the prime minister ....The Queen is informed by the governor general of the acceptance of the resignation of a prime minister and the swearing-in of a new prime minister and members of the Ministry.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It was very nice that you highlighted that first half of the sentence, but you should have continued on and highlighted the rest too.  It would appear that, yes indeed they are sworn in by the Clerk of the Privy Council prior to being presented to the Governor General by the Prime Minister.  That sounds like she should have been officiating 'over' the swearing-in ceremony as a whole.  The first stage being the Clerk of the Privy Council swearing them in, and the second stage the official presentation of the Members, by the Prime Minister, to the Governor General as the Queen's Representative.

I read it differently (I guess here's where the constitutional lawyers make their money) - I agree with the reading of the sequence as you explain it:
1)  swearing in by Clerk of PC, followed by
2)  "presentation" to GG by PM

According to "Representing the Crown in Canada" on the GG's site:

The Governor General also presides over the swearing-in of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of Canada and cabinet ministers.

Now, does this mean the presiding and/or presentation must happen before the Ministers are really Ministers? Or can that be done, say, when administratively convenient in a reasonably short period of time?  That's something I haven't been able to find information on (and bow to the better digging skills of others).  It all seems to have been done without constitutionalists and monarchists screaming that the newest Ministers aren't reallyMinisters because the GG wasn't in the room (and if there was even a hint at "this can't be done", I think we'd hear it from Stephane's, Jack's or Gilles' crowds).  I take that to mean that the GG is in a "may be present", not a "shall be present" position legally.

While I have an idea of what duty is, some hard-copy definitions of "duty" I've found include:

• "work that you are obliged to perform for moral or legal reasons"
• "An obligation recognized by the law"
• "That which a person is bound by moral obligation to do, or refrain from doing; that which one ought to do; service morally obligatory."

In light of this, I think there is a case to be made that the GG's "legal" duty has been carried out, with the "moral" duty not so much.  For me, "poor form" isn't strong enough, but a blanket "not doing her duty" may be a touch too strong.

 

[George Wallace]

I would read that as being: that she is the Queen's Representative, she is obligated to be there. 

Are we paying her a salary to be the Queen's Representative or a doting mother?  There are responsibilities and obligations that go with the title of Governor General, and they should be filled.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I would read that as being: that she is the Queen's Representative, she is obligated to be there.  Are we paying her a salary to be the Queen's Representative or a doting mother?  There are responsibilities and obligations that go with the title of Governor General, and they should be filled.

All I'm saying is that it appears to me she appears to be morally, but not legally obligated to be there.  Looks bad on her, but if it was a legal obligation/requirement, she would have been there - don't think she would wilfully disobey a legal command, so to speak.  It'll be interesting to see if MSM follow-up on this, too.

BTW, any sense of what kind of censure has been meted out to GG's not doing their job?  I'd be curious to see what (and how often) such sanctions have been dished out.  I'm also guessing such sanctions would be meted out by the Queen???

Now, the interesting question (wish I could read minds/tea leaves):  why wasn't she there?  We've heard the "family time" messaging, but I wish I knew the REST of the story.  Doesn't like the PM?  Upset over not being able to get to Afghanistan to see the troops she's Commander-in-Chief of?  Something else?  Speculation/juicy rumour alert!!!

 

[niner domestic]

One small flaw with your debate is, that the article refers to the swearing in of a new Ministry after an election.  For the most part, the cabinet shuffle already has members that have taken their oaths of office, alliegiance and membership of the Privy Council..  http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1481  The Ministry has already been presented to the GG when they were all sworn in last year.  The SofS appointments only required to be sworn into the Privy Council. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good point - from The Swearing-In of a New Ministry:

"A new category of members of the Ministry, secretaries of State, was added in November 1993. Secretaries of State are not members of the Cabinet. They are sworn in as a group, taking the Oath of Allegiance, the Oath of the Members of the Privy Council, and a general Oath of Office."

Don't even see a call for "presentation" to the GG here, making it even MORE of a case of non-dereliction of legal duty. 

Morally, though, shoulda been there....

 

[niner domestic]

So in effect what you are suggesting is that every time our PM does a shuffle that we taxpayers have to pay for a dog and pony show to have the GG present when she/he is not legally required to be there? 

 

[The Bread Guy]

So in effect what you are suggesting is that every time our PM does a shuffle that we taxpayers have to pay for a dog and pony show to have the GG present when she/he is not legally required to be there?

What I'm saying is that while she didn't appear to be acting outside the letter of the law, there's a case to be made she had a moral obligation to be there.

You raise a good question, though - based on the photo links posted, it appears the only part of the usual D&P show missing from the latest swearing in is the physical presence of the GG.  I don't think they spend any more money with her there, since I'm guessing she's not getting paid OT.

- edited 212027EST Jan for grammar -

 

[George Wallace]

So in effect what you are suggesting is that every time our PM does a shuffle that we taxpayers have to pay for a dog and pony show to have the GG present when she/he is not legally required to be there? 

Are you suggesting we pay the GG to do nothing, or perhaps go on vacation with dozens of her friends in the far corners of the planet?

 

[niner domestic]

George, you don't mean that at the request of the Prime Minister, our GG turned a State visit into a vacation do you? I'm shocked the PM had nothing to say about that except this...

Prime Minister Harper announces State visit of Governor General to Africa
24 October 2006
Ottawa, Ontario


Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that Governor General Michaëlle Jean will represent Canada on a five-country State visit to Africa.

At the request of the Prime Minister, the Governor General will lead a delegation of distinguished Canadians from civil society to Algeria, Mali, Ghana and South Africa, with a final brief stop in Morocco. The visit will take place between November 19 and December 11, 2006. http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=1376

 

[simysmom99]

I'm not sure if you noticed, but the swearing in took place in the Grand Ballroom of Rideau Hall, the official residence and offices of the GG.  Perhaps she was down the hall by 20 odd meters while the TV  cameras were rolling.  Her Aide de Campe was there, as was her head assistant who was showing the ministers where to sign on the documents. 
As far as her not being able to travel, you can link that straight to the PM's office.  A recent conversation with her husband confirmed that on Remembrance Day.  It's not that she doesn't want to go, she is not allowed to go.
I'm sorry if I sound a bit "agitated" but I have great respect for her.