Governor General Jean steps out of Line????

Sorry Kate, you are wrong on this one. Jean is right on substance but wrong on protocol. This is a precedent and not a good one. The GG should talk about what a great place Canada is to spend your tourist dollars, and little else.

If I understand correctly, The GG is the Commander - In - Chief of the armed forces. What could be more natural than support for the forces and their mission?
Protocol notwithstanding, I am glad she expressed her opinion. Honesty beats PC(ness) every time.

Lee is correct.

but to be fully correct shouldn't she be the Governess General?

It is disappointing that Mr. Brun doesn't have a better knowledge of her functions, because the monarchy IS accorded political powers. Also, he called her statements "incorrect" - thank's for YOUR opinion, Mr. Brun.

And didn't George VI ever say anything favoring the Allies against the Nazis?

GG Jean's critic is apparently a left-wing professor of constitutional law; which means tht he knows nothing about constitutional law, but is full of "good ideas" about rewriting the constitution as he wishes.

As Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed (again) Forces is is her duty to support her troops. Canadian troops in Afghanistan is the official position of Canada and as such she is free as also the Queen of Canada's representitive to state that fact.

It is also interesting to note just who is making these bone-headed comments and from where. Back in '95 mr brun was co-author of a preliminary draft of law on the sovereignty of Quebec . A frikkin' separatist explaining the role of the GG. Priceless, eh.

The import part of this is that the Star dug up a professor spouting those words.
There would be many “experts” to take the opposite track if that was the Stars agenda.

Here’s something about hiring “expert” witnesses- The further that they travel to testify, the more credence the jury will give them.

The Star should have gone to an English University for their guy, as a bonus there are lots of them there with those Fancy Nancy hyphenated surnames.

cal2 - I figure Governess could be the proper term.
It's the name used for a posh super nanny.

This just in (off topic, yes...but big story): Tories announce entire $13.2B surplus to be applied to debt. Whew!! Can't wait to hear Layton go off about this.

Good move on the part of Flaherty.

Expert, schmexpert.

Now I go OT:

Sex ed. "experts," say the answer to the epidemic of (over 50) STDS (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) is 'just use a condom," when it's clear this isn't true. Teens and young people have been encouraged to use condoms for over 25 years and the advice has made matters worse, not better.

The answer, of course, is abstinence and only one sexual partner--aka marriage.

Back to the GG...

Henri Brun is a constitutional expert, but as Texas Canuck points out, he has a decided bent for the separation of Quebec. As Brun remarked, the validation of Quebec's right to separate is 'if it works'. That removes the action of separation from a legal procedure to a pragmatic action, i.e., outside of the law. Hmmm.

Now, if he considers that Mme Jean's action, of supporting the Canadian military in carrying out their activities, as authorized and ordered by the Canadian government, is 'unacceptable' because it is 'outside of political tradition' - then, I have several questions.

Why is support for the Canadian military carrying out a task as ordered by the Canadian gov't - why is this unacceptable?

Is it 'outside of political tradition'? Proof? Did our previous G-G show no support for the Canadian military during WWI and WWII? No support? Indifference? Why would you, M. Brun, support the G-G's indifference to the activities of the Canadian military?

And, following up on your claim that Quebec sovereignty is legitimized by its actualization (if it works), even though such separation is 'outside political tradition', why are you against the G-G's support for the military. Does a legitimate action always have to be 'inside political tradition'? Wouldn't that make your support for Quebec separation invalid?

Hmm. I suspect he's a thorough Quebecois, who is always opposed to support and assistance for the international world.

As the Queen's representative for Canada and also Commander in Chief of Canada I can only applaud her forthrightness in supporting the troops in the field.

Parliament has given the marching orders first by the liberals and again most recently by extending Canada's mission in Afghanistan. The Governor General is merely supporting the troops under her direct command; as expressed by the direct will of Parliament.

One would hope she wouldn't be calling for their hopeless loss in a 'quagmire'.

The learned professor is 'off his nut'. As the section 15 of the Constitution Act clearly shows command of the Armed Forces is vested in the Queen ie. Govenor General. Notice also that the residual power of the Queen ie. Govenor General may in some cases authorize her to act alone.

One such circumstance might be the dissolution of Parliament when such luminaries as Karen Redmond said on May 25, of 2005 "The government is considering not observing future losses of confidence votes, between now and the end of the spring session." So we have the then Liberal Leader of the Government suggesting that confidence of the House is optional. I would hope that the Govenor General would exercise their authority under section 12 to quash any such other
interlopers of dictatorial authority. Given that the SINE QUA NON in a parliamentary democracy is CONFIDENCE of the House of Parliament, what in God's Good Name was Karen Redman thinking?

See for example the discussion on the confidence of the House of Parliament below:

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/conventions.html

cf: Also the King Byng affair.

Why are we continually surrounded by amateur hour?

No wonder that the government invokes the help of Divine Providence with luminaries such as Karen Redman and the learned professor to help us out of the 'softwood forests'.

All Powers under Acts to be exercised by Governor General with Advice of Privy Council, or alone 12.

All Powers, Authorities, and Functions which under any Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in or exerciseable by the respective Governors or Lieutenant Governors of those Provinces, with the Advice, or with the Advice and Consent, of the respective Executive Councils thereof, or in conjunction with those Councils, or with any Number of Members thereof, or by those Governors or Lieutenant Governors individually, shall, as far as the same continue in existence and capable of being exercised after the Union in relation to the Government of Canada, be vested in and exerciseable by the Governor General, with the Advice or with the Advice and Consent of or in conjunction with the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, or any Members thereof, or by the Governor General individually, as the Case requires, subject nevertheless (except with respect to such as exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) to be abolished or altered by the Parliament of Canada.

Application of Provisions referring to Governor General in Council

13. The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor General acting by and with the Advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.

Power to Her Majesty to authorize Governor General to appoint Deputies

14. It shall be lawful for the Queen, if Her Majesty thinks fit, to authorize the Governor General from Time to Time to appoint any Person or any Persons jointly or severally to be his Deputy or Deputies within any Part or Parts of Canada, and in that Capacity to exercise during the Pleasure of the Governor General such of the Powers, Authorities, and Functions of the Governor General as the Governor General deems it necessary or expedient to assign to him or them, subject to any Limitations or Directions expressed or given by the Queen; but the Appointment of such a Deputy or Deputies shall not affect the Exercise by the Governor General himself of any Power, Authority, or Function.

Command of Armed Forces to continue to be vested in the Queen

15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Well done, Rupprecht.
You always do an excellent job, but you've exceeded on this one!

What this oxygen thief meant to say is that the GG can only expouse opinions that agree with his self destructive, myth ridden, ass backwards, ostrich-like ideas of foreign policy.

So many asshats, so little time... :-(

Henri Brun has been cited by the Bloc, in support of their '50% plus one' Right to Separate. Hansard No 28, Nov 25, 1999, 36th parl't, in an exchange with Dion and the Bloc. So, Brun is a Quebecois separatiste - and that means he's anti-Canadian, and anti-helping any international peoples.

Her Majesty is fully supportive of HM Forces and it is fully apprpriate for HM'S REPRESENTATIVE TO SUPPORT HM SOLDIERS. IT IS HER DUTY!

"Break-Down-Solitudes" GG has a new chat site

..The site was the brainchild of Mr. Lafond and a team of young collaborators...

tinyurl.com/zd8fy

Her Majesty is fully supportive of HM Forces and it is fully apprpriate for HM'S REPRESENTATIVE TO SUPPORT HM SOLDIERS. IT IS HER DUTY!

I read a canada.com version of this off your MediaRight link yesterday (Canada's Timorous Allies thread). It's a slightly different version, a little more criticism from Mr. Brun;

"It is disappointing that Ms. Jean, after only a year in her position, doesn't have a better knowledge of her functions," he said."

and: "He also said that public opinion in Canada wouldn't be affected much by Jean's statements."

Public opinion will be affected even less from your statements Mr. Brun. You Sir are out of line.

I can't believe I'm cheering on and defending Jean; but way to go. My opinion of her is very much influenced, for the better. I doubted her allegiance to Canada, along with a good many other Canadians I'm sure. I'm glad to see her laying it on the line.

All of the people who have held the position of the Governor General are referred to collectively as Governors General regardless of gender.

Lowell Green And I - The Red Friday Video And My Idea To Sell Prints Of The Parliament Hill Photo
Filed under: Personal, Podcasts, Armed Forces — TrustOnlyMulder @ 3:32 pm

The one benefit I have when I work from home is the luxury of recording my calls to Lowell Green whom I respect to no end for his service to our community.

Today, after hearing how Le Droit Newspaper in Montreal was reporting only 2000 people on parliament hill and the CBC and CRV reporting that there was only 3000, I called Lowell to

a) tell him that the number was far greater. (He confirmed that the official count was close to 30,000)

b) tell him about the hundreds who had viewed my video already over the internet

and

c) resuggest that CFRA sells prints of the photo with proceeds going to the Legions or to some sort of fund that supports the families of soldiers who have died overseas.

Lowell thought it was a great idea. He also was incredibly generous and let me say my website name online.

As many of you are here specifically to view the videos, I have put a set of links to the right under the Red Friday’s ribbon so you can view the 7 parts. The granularity of the video is not that great as I tried to keep the file size down for those who may not have a good high speed connection.

I do want to take this opportunity to apologize about the shakiness in the videos as well. I had no tripod with me and with the crowd, it wouldn’t have done me any good anyway so what you see is basically the camcorder on my hand being held up in the air for approximately an hour straight. (my arm paid for it the next day)
Listen Now:

icon for podpress My Call To Lowell Green-September 25, 2006:

http://www.officiallyscrewed.com/blog/

speaking of women, the CPC have cut the arrogant Status of Women funding by 5 million! About time. Now, watch the ladies start to scream, froth and hurl insults.

Raymond, that was last year's official surplus...it is required by law to always goes onto the debt in its entirety. The liberals did the same thing.

GG Jeans public display of support for our military is probably the first appropriate act out of that office in many years.
A far cry from our last GG whos sole purpose seemed to be entertaining friends and busting the budget.

Jean is smart, she can do anything, thumb her nose at the public but in the end she knows who the real power is in this country and she does what it takes to make Israel happy and its friends.

If the Governor-General had spoken against the mission most of us would be furious. She is an appointed figurehead who is paid to smile and pat children on the head and say nothing controversial.

And all this talk about the GC being Commander-In-Chief is embarrasing. Presumably, if she's CIC she can order the troops home if she changes her mind about the mission regardless of what PMSH wants?

Is that what you want? I prefer to live in a democracy. Canada is no longer a colony of Britain- even if we have to live with this reminder of our former status.

Terry, as a matter of law, the Queen (in her "patriated" capacity as Queen of Canada, not as Queen of the UK) IS Commander-in-Chief of Canada's armed forces, with the GG acting in her stead. If you're "embarassed" about that, feel free to change your constitution: it's not written in stone, though since you prefer to live in a democracy, I suppose you'll defer to the democratic majority of Canadians who prefer to retain the monarchy?

The military swears allegiance to the Crown, not to the government of the day. In practice, in accord with convention, the GG acts on the advice of the government, but extraordinary circumstances could warrant otherwise. Think of Spain in 1981: the civilian government probably could not have withstood the attempted coup, but King Juan Carlos's orders to the military did, and prevented the country from reverting to a Francoist dictatorship.

Terry:

Of course in practice the GG usually works with the advice and consent of the Privy Council as set out in S.12 of the Constitution Act 1867.

If NDHQ gets wiped out, an unlikely circumstance, the default goes to the GG.

On confidence of the House of Parliament, however, the GG could still act alone if circumstance warranted it. IE a government saying they won't observe the confidence rules; which is why Karen Redman got me rather irritated. So I sent off a rather pointed letter to every MP and cc'd the GG and QEII for good measure.

Just what we don't need if for 'amateur hour' to hijack Parliament. Shades of Oliver Cromwell:

Select sections of my letter to the PMO dated June 1, 2005

No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

The Constitution Act 1867 suggests that per s.91 that the House of Parliament has the power to make laws in respect of “Peace, Order and Good Government”. One might reasonably make the case we have been delivered unto “War, Chaos and Bad Government”.

Most recently we have had non-confidence motions passed which suggested that due to the lack of progress with Liberal Party and governmental corruption that “… the government should resign.” This was subsequently reaffirmed in 3 motions to adjourn the House. What part of the statement “get ye gone” does the government have such great difficulty in understanding?

Evidently, we are rewriting Westminster Parliamentary tradition; now to be replaced by the dictum “Government will enjoy the Queen’s pleasure to govern; so long as it is politically convenient to delay, through whatever means necessary legal or not, until suitable defections are secured, from members of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”. Ostensibly, this new precedent will be extended into the future by months and years. I congratulate the government on overthrowing Parliamentary convention, not to mention laws against bribery, and replacing it with, in the words of historian Michael Bliss, “proto-tyranny”. The current Liberal Party, as practiced, has crossed the democratic version of the river Styx. Welcome to Hades, ladies and gentlemen, the temperature should be rising shortly.

Indeed, now we have president Chirac suggesting he will resist the democratic will of the people, in the event they vote “No”, in a referendum on the European Constitution. How far will this poison to democracy spread? So this is democracy, only accepted when it accords with the will of the elite?

Moreover, we have the following announcement made on May 25th, 2005: The federal Liberals would consider ignoring a House of Commons defeat should they lose any of the several coming votes that are matters of confidence between now and the end of the spring session, Chief Government Whip Karen Redman says. !!! We won’t be taking any lessons from the Parliamentary pedants who inhabit the government benches.

The aforementioned statement in effect suggests that we will inaugurate a period of ‘taxation without representation’. I congratulate the Chief Government Whip for renewing and modernizing the 1837 Rebellion. Perhaps we should be loading our muskets with ball and shot right about now; given the government has departed the democratic mortal coil.

I gather we now have the rationale for the ill reputed gun registry.

Ms. Redman’s statement has to number among the most inflammatory and incendiary since the demagogues mounted the Bema on the Pynx, Acropolis.

But an attempt to turn the right of election into such a farce and mockery as a fictitious fine and recovery, will, I hope, have another fate; because the laws which give it are infinitely dear to us, and the evasion is infinitely contemptible.

…. I see no other way for the preservation of a decent attention to public interest in the Representatives, but THE INTERPOSITION OF THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ITSELF, whenever it shall appear, by some flagrant and notorious act, by some capital innovation, that these Representatives are going to over-leap the fences of the law, and to introduce an arbitrary power. This interposition is a most unpleasant remedy. But, if it be a legal remedy, it is intended on some occasion to be used; to be used then only, when it is evident that nothing else can hold the Constitution to its true principles. Edmund Burke, THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT DISCONTENTS

This government has passed on! This government is no more! This government has ceased to be! This government is expired and gone to meet its maker! This government is a stiff. This government is bereft of life, this government rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed the government to the perch it would be pushing up the daisies! The government’s metabolic processes are now history! The government is off the twig! The government has kicked the bucket, the government has shuffled off it’s mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisibile!! This government has had its lot, it is no longer, it is expired, it has departed. THIS IS AN EX-GOVERNMENT!! (With apologies to Monty Python’s parrot sketch.)

Auguring the potential establishment of a dictatorship, per the residual power of the crown per S. 91(29) Constitution Act 1867 to suspend all Charter Rights per S.33 of the Constitution Act 1982 is hardly in keeping with the Westminster Parliamentary tradition. As the Queen and public might be want to say: “WE are not amused.”

To paraphrase one Globe and Mail editorial: The government would spit in the face of the Queen, Parliament and the people and call it respect.

Edmund Burke might make this observation: "Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it, even though but for one year, can never willingly abandon it."

Some Internet bloggers, have even gone so far as to suggest: “Where is Guy Fawkes when you really need him?”

Perhaps a more apt description of our government is “Rump Parliament” harking back to Oliver Cromwell. The only difference being that now one must adhere to a corrupted secular rather than religious orthodoxy.

My family has over the course of five generations variously survived the machinations of Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Erich Honnecker. We will be taking no more lessons in despotism and blind stupidity, as we have completed our historical tour of duty. We have greater self respect than mere cannon fodder of ages past and have the medals to prove it.

Well if the unlearned government has passed into the self-styled role of the Philistines of Parliament; we will simply have to declare ourselves “freemen and freewomen” of Canada. So government now proposes taxation without representation; or rather simply theft of democracy itself. By the Chief Government Whip’s own statement to defy future confidence votes, we have become a stolen nation. But seeing as the government has been doing this on the sponsorship file it comes as no surprise. Quite frankly, you can take this proposition straight to Hell.

So let me recap my family’s experience of government under the Liberal Party rule:

1. They failed to provide funding for adequate health services for my mother, and required notice of supervised neglect before accepting her as a patient. (Year 2000)

2. The government through the offices of Canada Revenue Agency, has suggested by logical inference, that I kill my son to secure the Disability Tax Credit. (Year 2003) To date I still await an apology for CRA’s venture into criminality. Further CRA has again failed to approve the DTC for my son Nicolaas notwithstanding the recommendations 2.5 of the Technical Advisory Committee on Tax Measures for Persons with Disabilities and a $9-22.5 Billion spending spree to secure a “cats claws in the wooden panelling” margin in the House. (2005)

3. The government has allowed systematic corruption of the electoral process in my home province Quebec;

bringing the spectre of the break up of the country, due to its fundamental inability to believe in a balanced federalism. (1994 – 2002) It has further tainted its authority by circumventing a free and fair electoral process.

4. The government has demonstrated that it was willing to entertain assisted suicide through offices of the

Attorney General demonstrating it’s general low regard for the security of the person and or human life.

(Fall 2004)

5. The government has failed to pursue a substantive “boots on the ground” effort to avert a 2 million person

human disaster in Darfur, Sudan. We have about two weeks to cobble something together, before it all just slips away. Planting season is not coming back. Despite my pleading back on December 10, 2004 and the urging of numerous others, such as David Kilgour MP to name but one, we have failed to adequately redress the appalling conditions present. Indeed, UN Secretrary General Kofi Annan has described conditions as “heart wrenching”. While funding is welcome, the time to act is now.

6. The government now proposes further undemocratic behaviour, with respect to further confidence votes

under cutting the notion of democracy itself; advancing in effect the proposition of taxation without representation. So much for the promise of correcting the democratic deficit; it would appear to have rather significantly increased to the point of disenfranchisement.

7. The government through the office of the PMO has perniciously pursued patronage appointments in consideration of abstentions on the May 19th, 2005 confidence vote.

When the government comes to its senses please let me know. I await your considered reply.

One regrettably has to come to the conclusion, that we have been led by rogues and fools.

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say;

and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" Oliver Cromwell

Yours sincerely,

Hans Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

I still think the GG is a closet separatist and was not the right choice for the job. Her husband has been known to have separatist leanings in the past. Perhaps being GG she has learned a thing or two and not all Canadians living outside of Quebec are bad. As for her speaking up about the military and its mission I have no problem. However, would we say the same thing if she was against the military mission in Afghanistan? The government would certainly have something to say about any negative comments.

DaveJ

I don't need the lesson in Constitutional law. I'm a lawyer, which is probably why this idiocy bothers me more than others.

As to your statement. " I suppose you'll defer to the democratic majority of Canadians who prefer to retain the monarchy?"

On what basis do you say the majority prefer to retain the monarchy? I don't remember having a vote. But even if the vast majority of us wanted to get rid of this ancient unjustifiable relic what could we do about it.

I bet that not one Canadian in a hundred is aware of the amending formula.

'In the case of an amendment related to the Office of the Queen, the number of senators, the use of either official language (subject to section 43), or the composition of the Supreme Court, the amendment must be adopted by unanimous consent of all the provinces in accordance with section 41.'

We were had by that charismatic Quebecker and the Canadian power structure.

It is "this ancient unjustifiable relic" that has assured stability, continuity and democracy for Canada.

Compare that to the track record of most of the world's "republics."

By the way, some of the remarks I've read here about the Governor General would suggest more than a few Canadians desperately need civics and citizenship training.

For a quick and dirty overview of the function of GG try the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada

Pathetic some of the stuff coming out of law schools these days. Insufferable know-it-alls who rudely condemn other's opinions.

JJM: You are right, our Monarchy has "assured stability, continuity and democracy for Canada".

"I'm a lawyer, which is probably why this idiocy bothers me more than others."

I'm a lawyer, too, Terry, and as a former staff attorney for one of the judiciary committees of a state legislature in the US it's probably fair to say I've practiced comparative constitutional law pretty extensively. I don't need the condescension, counselor.

"On what basis do you say the majority prefer to retain the monarchy?"

Polls pretty consistently indicate majority support for the monarchy in every province except Quebec. Whether you recognize it or not, Terry, you're faced with the conundrum that republicans consistently face in constitutional monarchies: how can you square the circle of your abstract support for what you believe is a more democratic form of government with the fact that the monarchy remains a very popular institution? Even you certainly wouldn't deny, would you, that it garners more affection than any elected politician?

"I bet that not one Canadian in a hundred is aware of the amending formula."

If that's true, that doesn't speak too well for Canada, now does it? If it's not true, of course, it doesn't speak too well for your own opinion of your fellow Canadians.

Thanks Dave j:
You are right, there is majority support for the Monarchy across Canada, except, no surprise, in Quebec.
The Monarchy is our Saving Grace. The very thought of a Republic in to-day's Canada is a scary thought.