Listening to Charles Adler rant a little today about the brazen politics involved in the selection of “black Haitian immigrant who came to Canada fleeing oppression” Michelle Who?” as new Governor General – I was struck with a realization.
All of her commendable talents aside, this marks the first time in Canadian history that the most symbolic patronage appointment in government has not been bestowed on a person who has, as in the words of the late US President John Kennedy, demonstrated “what you can do for your country.”
Instead, it has gone to an individual who brilliantly showcases the new Liberal Party version of citizenship; “What your country can do for you!”
At one of her first news conferences a reporter asked Michelle Jean if she thought she was a “token”. Well, that she isn’t.
She’s a poster child.
And the real funny thing is…she is a FRENCH citizen,by way of her marriage to her FLQ supporter hubby! ummmm….a French citizen,from a dictatorial country reprensenting the Queen of England in another dictatorial country.It is to weep.
So why is she a bad choice again? Is it because she worked for the CBC, rather than the Fraser Institute?
I would rather not ask what I can do for my country in Kennedy’s sense (he actually meant government when he said country).
Instead I expect a country to provide me with the freedom and security to thrive. Canada gave that to Michelle Jean and she is right to be grateful for it.
In Canada government does mean “country”. That’s rather the point.
That is what the Liberals have done to Canada–they have made themselves synonymous with ‘country’ and there is not much we can do about it unless we have the cajones to vote them out big time and once again turn Canada into a real country.
Jean is a French citizen because she took out a citizenship, not because of her marriage.
She is touted as a poverty stricken refugee to Canada, but this is far from the truth. Her family was closely associated with Duvalier and left when he was overthrown. Poetiv licence being practised by the PM and his spin meisters.
Jean is a puppet who was appointed to secure more power in the PMO. Little did we know that getting rid of the democratic deficit meant getting rid of democracy.
MoreStatism, can you explain why she’s the BEST choice? Can you please tell us, if you can, what HARD QUALIFICATIONS does Mme. Jean have for the critical-to-the-nation core functions of the position? What does her resume say about what she has that is directly germane to being the Queen’s Representative? Please don’t parrot the leftist line about irrelevant characteristics such as skin color or gender or living in Quebec or coming from Haiti. Those things, while interesting, have no bearing on anyone’s fitness for the country’s top appointment.
Also, can anyone make a convincing case as to why Mme. Jean is a better choice for GG than Steve Smith, the dude who plays “Red Green”? Why, he’s a pretty nice fellow. He makes Canadians laugh. Why not him? Why couldn’t he be GG?
“In Canada government does mean “country”. That’s rather the point.”
In Canada. Right. The gov’t is Liberal. The Liberals claim they ARE Canada. Therefore, gov’t=country. That IS logical, captain. The Liberals are at the center of it all.
So, to keep a healthy separation between gov’t and country, we must therefore remove the Liberals from the formula. Otherwise, having gov’t=country means we’re all Liberals by default. That cannot stand!
Ed Schreyer… Jeanne Sauv�… Romeo LeBlanc… Ray Hnatyshyn… Kate’s right again. Before now, the job always went to the most impressive person in Canada.
An article on the Globe & Mail site: Separatist says “come clean Jean”, makes for interesting reading.
MoreStatism: The position of de facto Head of State should not be an entry-level job in the government. Unless you’re to the palace born, in which case at least you’ve had some training all your life.
As a matter of curiosity, can anyone document an instance of the GG-designate referring to herself as “une canadienne”?
Something interesting: it would seem that if the French government ordered Mme Jean to step down as GG and she refused, her French citizenship could be revoked:
“Article 23-8: Perd la nationalit� fran�aise le Fran�ais qui, occupant un emploi dans une arm�e ou un service publie �tranger ou dans une rganisation
internationale dont la France ne fait pas partie ou plus g�n�ralement leur apportant son concours, n’a pas r�sign� son emploi ou cess� son concours
nonobstant l’injonction qui lui en aura �t� faite par le Gouvernement.”
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dap/entreelibre/Laurette/country/francete
xt.html
Mark
Ottawa
And note this slight problem. The French government, over the last 40 years, has from time-to-time meddled in Canada/Quebec politics (“Vive le Quebec libre”) and even, at times, tried to promote separatism.
Read what Parizeau himself has written and draw you own conclusion as to the French President’s attitude in 1995:
http://www.uni.ca/forasov.html
‘THE KEY IS FRANCE: excerpts from For a Sovereign Quebec, by Jacques Parizeau
…
On the occasion of an official visit to France in January 1995, I set in motion for the first time my game with respect to the countries of the francophonie. The recognition of Quebec by some of these countries, at the same time as by France, would add additional pressure on the Americans. As Canada had, in francophone Africa in particular, used money to create some solid links, it was time to fight against any move to call in IOUs.
It was during that trip that Val�ry Giscard d’Estaing raised an important issue that, until then, I had not fully understood. The drift of what he said was that it was necessary, in the hours or days that followed a Yes victory in the referendum, for Quebec to make a solemn gesture to proclaim its sovereignty. Without that, no foreign country could provide speedy recognition that is to say, within a week or 10 days.
If the proclamation of independence were suspended, say for six months or a year, to allow time for negotiations with Canada to succeed, or to draft jointly with Canada a partnership treaty, fine. However, France, or any other country, can only recognize a country. It does not recognize an intention.
…’
This my interpretation. According to M. Parizeau, the French President very clearly implied that if Quebec made a rapid declaration of independence after a referendum, then French recognition of that independence would likely follow soon after.
Imagine the position of a citizen of France, also Governor General of Canada, if France rapidly recognized a Quebec declaration of independence after a referendum. Surely that person would be in an impossible position to continue as Governor General.
Mark
Ottawa
A separatist assuming the GG role to appease separatists proper, infuriate true monarchists and everybody who hates the CBC generally, and effectively kills off the role entirely when people would prefer doing away with the position than continue with the charade of having a Royal’s rep in Canada. Methinks this was calculated to appease/offend.
Appease, offend… Mad Man Martin must be evilly cackling as we speak… perhaps that’s the secret formula to winning… appease Quebec, offend the West (and please Ontario in the process). That would explain voting patterns over the past decade, wouldn’t it?
If Mme Jean is indeed a separatist, or at least sympathetic to the movement (she married one, after all), then what further proof do Canadians need that the Liberals are the enemy of national unity?
Come to think of it, Mad Man Martin is always cackling. Does he know something he’s not going to tell us ’till he’s already done it? It’d be deja vu all over again. Talk about hidden agendas!
Every move that Dithers and his strategists make is another nail in Canada’s coffin. Michelle Jean’s appointment was a political move, designed to GET VOTES, not an appointment that had anything to do with merit or suitability to do the job. I think most of my fellow Canadians have more of an opinion on Bertuzzi than they do about Jean. Sad.
In the end, does any of this really matter? The GG position matters to me as much as the price of rice in China. He/she is an anachronism with little if any powers. Yes, they can empower a government to stay or leave but when was the last time this was ever done? I say the position should be done away with. I like the monarchy (indeed, I went to Buckingham and Kensington palaces the last 2 times I was in London), but I prefer the monarchy in Britain, not here.
Todd, I, too, prefer the Queen of England to the Mad Dictator of Canadahar.
Further to the comment by roger:
This Librano$$$$$$$$$ attempt to buy Quebec votes will be ugly. When does the House resume sitting? Will AdScam Martin prorogue & go for an election soon before Judge Gomery’s report is sent to the Librano$$$$$$$ caucus?>>>
NELSON WYATT 2 hours, 33 minutes ago
MONTREAL (CP) – An outspoken Quebec sovereigntist wants Gov. Gen.-designate Michaelle Jean to say how she voted in the 1995 referendum.
The call comes after an article in a sovereigntist publication that says she and her husband supported Quebec independence and that Jean’s spouse, filmmaker Jean-Daniel Lafond, was friendly with former Quebec terrorists.>>>
http://www.rapp.org/url/?1D1HJ5TW
Paul, where exactly did I say “the most impressive” or anything remotely related? I said, as have many – that a person who attains the position of GG should be a person who has had a national stature, and demonstrated achievement beyond that of personal betterment.
I have to admit – the appointment while wholely political is being describe in terms whole irrelevant to the debate. The appointment was made to show Canadians just how irrelevant this position is. The total lack of qualifications required for job of GG prove that. Both Mme Jean and Clarkson were chosen with the simple goal of removing the position from the Canadian political landscape.
Yes, this appointment has become irrelevant. The position of GG has no meaning to virtually any Canadian. Why do we continue with this charade?
Time to leave the queen to England and shed this dead weight. Time to reform our system of government. Truly, this was the final straw for me.
Instead of free flags courtesey or the former Sheila Copps, we should be given free shovels so we can start digging ourselves out of the all the shit that is spewing from Ottwa.
This is not a country it’s one big high school cafeteria.
I formally request Dubbya to send in the Marines and free this gulag.
Adrienne Clarkson had, by any reasonable standard, a distinguished career at the CBC when the network still meant something. She also served, in the mid-1980s, as Agent-General of Ontario (i.e. provincial ambassador) in Paris which gave her experience in government and foreign relations. And she clearly has always considered herself above all else a Canadian (not an “Ontarian” or “Chinese-Canadian”).
While at the time of her appointment she was considered a surprise choice, she had a clear record of accomplishment and relevant experience.
None of which can be said for Michaelle Jean.
And yes, GG Clarkson did over-spend on the circumpolar nonesense but she also clearly cared for the Canadian military and took many steps to demonstrate that.
I shudder to think how Michaelle Jean will approach her (symbolic and ceremonial) role as Commander-in-Chief.
Mark
Ottawa
Team Martin is continuing the tradition of picking some whiny hoser with no more appreciation for what this federation has been through than Joe Clark has an understanding of math….
It should have been a veteran.
Big Paulys choice of Jean was greatly influenced by the need to show the remaining CBC moonbats that looking the other way and reciting endless reams of P.C. , multiculty , lefty socialist, anti US garbage like one of those talking “Billy The Bass” pays off.
Great analysis Kate. You are bang on.
I don’t understand. Why is it that she has done nothing for our country? Because she is a refugee, because she worked for the CBC or because she is from Quebec? The reason I ask is because I am really hoping that you are not saying that she has done nothing for our country because she is an immigrant.
In your assesment what does someone need to do in order to “do something for their country?”
And yes, her appointment is a great example of what a fantastic system we have when it works properly. We provide people from poor countries with opportunities that they would have never had before. Isn’t that something that we should be proud of? Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world and she has become a well-respected and well known journalist across the world. She is a great representative of what Canada can be. Canada would not be the nation it is today without refugees.
Also, I really hate it when people from either size of the political spectrum criticize the other for acting in their political interest. I mean, isn’t that the point? Wouldn’t the Conservatives be acting in their political interest if they were to appoint the GG? Of course they would because that’s what you do in politics – you act in your own interest in order to maintain power. It’s like criticizing someone for being greedy in monopoly.
I’ve noticed an absense of commentary here from our American posters, who may be a bit bewildered. Let me give you a short summary:
A woman has been appointed Governor General. Although the post is considered ceremonial, in certain circumstances she could end up deciding the fate of parliament, and therefore the nation. Our new GG is probably most notable for her work as a media host on CBC, where she introduced anti-American documentaries in that Maya Angelou style of precise diction and moral certainty.
Her filmmaker husband moves in the circle of those who want to break up the country — we call them separatists. One of his filmic collaborators is one early-paroled Francis Simard, who was sentenced to life for taking part in the kidnapping and murder of a Quebec Justice Minister named Pierre Laporte, whose body was found in the trunk of a car in October, 1970, only days after pleading for his life in a letter to the premier.
I hope that helps. Oh, and she is a citizen of France.
EBD, I want to thank you for helping clarify the situation for those of us who live lower on the map.
In fact this matter is completely confusing to Americans. First, everybody knows what the Attorney General does. And here we have a “Postmaster General” who basically runs the post office. It’s kind of a silly name, but the appointee does have an enormously important position.
We also have a “Surgeon General” and he or she actually runs around in a military uniform. It’s a little weird, but in fact the Surgeon General does officiate government policy in respect to health care and acts as a liaison between government and the private sector in respect to medical affairs.
So when we hear “Governor General” we immediately start trying to figure out what they do. Then we find out they’re not a general in any sense of the term. No military capacity. So then we think, ah ha! It’s a GOVERNOR general. Well, ok. We have governors, so then we assume that this gal must have something to do with governors as we understand them in the States.
Then we find out that Canada doesn’t have any governors. You’ve got something called Premiers, which for us has some association with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
So then we say if they are not a general and the are not a governor, what do they do? The answer comes back, “she represents the Queen when the Queen is not in the country.” To which we reply, “Queen?” You mean they are gay or something?
The Canadian replies, “No, the Queen of England.”
OK now about this time our mind is orbiting around Neptune, because wait a minute, what does Canada have to do with the Queen of England? Then we’re told Canadians are kind of like the subjects of the Queen of England.
Jaws hit the floor. “I thought you were in Canada!”
“Yeah, we’re Canada, but we’re also subjects of the Queen of England, but not exactly.”
“I thought some of you people were French.”
And this is all before we even get around to thinking about the fact that she’s some Haitian TV celebrity, and why on earth would such a person hold an office, etc., etc., so we’re really confused, you know?
Dear Abby,
WTF is going on here? More debate? The appointment of M. Jean should have caused a general strike and tax revolt in the West. Are we going to discuss this until we all die from Altzheimers?
Revolutions begin with violence. In all the years living under socialism have we not learned that? That’s what the grade 1-12 system taught me! What did the rest of you get outtavit? Duck and cover? Fight, F**k, or go for yer Guns. Give your heads a collective shake and realize some of us may have to die for our children to live. Is it not that simple?
Why I even bother to continue breathing if no one has balls to act I dunno. Nevermind. I suppose i’m preaching to a choir of sopranos. Smokey… R.I.P.
Signed,
Frustrated ; – )
Ah, yes, the Governor General War of 2005. Button down, and straighten those ties.
So Michelle Jean was appointed because she achieved “personal betterment,” rising from a low position to a lofty one?
I suppose it has nothing to do with her being a visible television personality with a talent for connecting with her viewers, an intellectual, and someone who could carry out her duties with dignity and grace. Why should that be qualification for a figurehead?
Just look at the arduous qualifications needed to be a politician who weilds real power–oh wait, there aren’t any.
You’re whining because she’s not a conservative; get over it, it looks bad for the movement. When Harper forms a government he will be able to appoint a conservative.
You might think that the appointment of the GG is, when properly done, a mere partisan cockfight. Well speaking of that, if she and her husband are separatists, are you still okay with her being Canada’s Governor General? Presumably so.
“a visible television personality with a talent for connecting with her viewers…”
Oh.
She had viewers?
My bad.
I thought she worked for the CBC.
She did, and she was visible.
LOL Kate.
Greg (outside of Dallas) – Canada is a member of the Commonwealth (I believe, for the most part, ex-British colonies). Queen Elizabeth is the ceremonial head of state for countries of the Commonwealth, hence the need for a Governor General.
In case you were wondering, in 97, about all the hoopla over Diana’s death, as I explained to my American friends, she is/was the mother of our future King, which, to someone who likes the idea of the monarchy, a big deal. Regardless of whether she had divorced Prince Charles or not.
My friend argued with me over whether or not her death was “bigger than JFK” but, afterwards, conceded the point. You and others may not.
“MoreStatism” she is a bad choice because roughly (I’m guessing) 80% of Canadians didn’t know who she was, didn’t recognize her and say “oh, HER” etc etc etc.
Yes, she pulled herself up by her bootstraps and made a life for herself. So have I (although I’m not a public figure) and have many, many others. Note that I never got a call from PMPM, nor did I expect one.
Of course, I’m not from Quebec, nor am I married to a French director, nor do I have dual citizenship with any other country. Maybe that’s where I screwed up.
I have read a book of comments about Paule’s Choice – for GG. As yet, I have read no evidence that she is a distinguished Canadian who would be capable of acting impartially in any political, economic or natural emergency. I am not aware of any real reason for her appointment. This country has produced some extraordinary people who have served and sacrificed FOR this nation and the people who live here. For example, Mr Granstine (I hope II have spelled his name correctly, he is the historian who co-hosted the VE Day cermonies with the Liberano Lad, Peter Mansbridge.). Mr. Granstine is a humble intellectual who always knows what he is talking about – he kept having to correct Mansbridge in Holland and at Normandy, he corrected the latter politly but with authority- he has impecable manners and he is wonderful to listin to because he endevours to inform with facts. His demeanor is perfect for a job like GG; authoritative without being brash and pushy.
Another good choice would have been Lee Morrison, former M.P. from Cypress Hills Grasslands – very knowlegeable, very balanced, very astute… Andrew Coyne, Kate, even me!! We KNOW our country, we could represent it with assurance. Can you imagine Japan appointing a Russian immigrant to be an ambassador, never mind Head of State.
Paule has made a grave error in judgement – the Canadian people will not be ‘happy’ with his Choice. This gal might be a fine person, I do not know her, but I know that given she is a CBC mouthpiece I KNOW that she will never represent me! She could represent the people from Haiti in Canada, since Haiti is her homeland and that is the country she knows – this type of an appointment would have been appropriate and acceptable to most Canadians.
Adrianne did not represent Canada in any real way, most Vets were ashamed of her for the way she was constantly trying to upstage Queen Elizabeth II. She had very poor manners and no understanding of proto-call – essential for the GG position. M. Jean cannot represent me because she had no involvement in my history. How could she – her people were living in Haiti. The GG job is a job for a distinguished Canadian – born and raised here. There are plenty of patronage jobs for ‘new Canadians’, the GG is not one of them. For the ‘nay sayers’ who will jump on me for my opinion since I am an immigrant too and they contribute and they are Canadains too ….ad nausium, I say ‘Go ask the citizens of this country what they think’. It is my opinion that a Hatian/French/Canadian ‘multi-citizen’ cannot speak for the Canadians of Canada with any authority.
Well put, Jema. She wasn’t appointed to speak for all of us as Canadians, she was appointed to be the poster child for the Liberal cause, like Kate said.
I am still amazed at how credulous people are about the nature of the appointment.
Mark Collins writes: “And yes, GG Clarkson did over-spend on the circumpolar nonesense but she also clearly cared for the Canadian military and took many steps to demonstrate that.”
Well, Mark, perhaps Mme Clarkson cares for the military, I wouldn’t know for sure, but whatever she may have said or done, I see no actual real-world tangible positive effects stemming from anything she did. The Forces haven’t really advanced any further overall in terms of strength and combat-readiness. Too bad she couldn’t really accomplish anything meaningful in the real world, except give out the Order of Canada to lots of people on a very frequent basis and play footloose and fancy free with our money…
“George” (4th poster) above wrote: “She is touted as a poverty stricken refugee to Canada, but this is far from the truth. Her family was closely associated with Duvalier and left when he was overthrown. ”
Does anyone know if this is true? Just curious.
I would also like to recognize Red Green as a possible GG. After all, it looks like the government is being held together by duct tape! Rideau Hall can move to Possum Lodge. Oh the mental images this idea brings forth…
“If they don’t find you handsome at least they find you handy.”
The aptly named “morestatism” opined: “Instead I expect a country to provide me with the freedom and security to thrive. Canada gave that to Michelle Jean and she is right to be grateful for it.”
Typical venal welfare statist mewling….get this: he thinks “freedom and security” are entitlements…as if these flow from government benevolence and not those who fought tyranny…or those who are civilly vigilant in opposing tyranny in their own governance (and if neccessary depose tyranny if it strangles freedom and security as all statist governments are habitually to do.)
Pathetic!
I see the Michelle goupies are a patriotically vacant as she is.
Priority too low. No comment. 73s TG
I don’t think Michaelle Jean is the best choice for GG, but I’m not sure your insinuation here is a fair one, Kate. From what I understand, she’s worked extensively with women’s shelters for years now, among other volunteer and charitable endeavours. She may not be the most qualified choice for the position, but that doesn’t make her a selfish, me-first, suck everything out of the system that you can sort of a person.
To imply that she’s more of a taker than a giver in public life is a stretch.
Julia: George couldn’t be more wrong. Papa Doc Duvalier was dictator of Haiti until 1971. Jean left in 1968. Furthermore, Duvalier’s regime was carried on by his son, who ruled until 1986. So, George is either off by 3 or 15 years. I guess that’s close enough in the blogosphere.
I hope all of you would have been criticizing Ray Hnatyshyn as a clear partisan choice, chosen to appease the Ukranians of the prairies.
Guess what folks. The position is appointed, and it’s partisan. Get over yourselves. Jean is more accomplished than any of you. If it bothers you that someone who’s had such few advantages in life can outrun you then it’s your fault, not hers.
To all the liberal brain dead asking why not Jean? As the Queens representative, the GG should at least have some relevance. The person selected does not. She is from a french colony, living in a french province and she has done nothing for this country or our inclusion in the commonwealth. Therefore, it stands to reason that she has no allegiance whatsoever to the crown. In fact, according to some knowledgeable sources, she’s a french separatist.
Her new job represents nothing more than another offensive action against the citizens of this country, perpetrated by the criminal currently occupying the prime minister’s office.
Having said that, it really has nothing to do with her. She may very well be a fine person. However, it does say a lot about what sort of country we are living in today. No history. No identity. No relevance. And under the current circumstances, no future.
Peter Loewen, you wrote:
“Jean is more accomplished than any of you.”
Come again? How do you know? Are you somehow omniscient? You realize the above is an opinion, not a statement of fact, right?
Besides, how do her specific accomplishments, while certainly interesting, translate into actual qualification for the job? What about many, many other Canadians of as much and much more accomplishment? Were they even considered? Don’t you ever ask these kinds of questions? Or perhaps you could care less? Whichever it is, that’s ok; it’s your liberty to do with as you please, as it is mine. Our choices are equally valid.
You also wrote:
“If it bothers you that someone who’s had such few advantages in life can outrun you then it’s your fault, not hers.”
Sounds as if you’re psychoanalyzing people you’ve never met, let alone had the opportunity to study. A little presumptuous, maybe? And, in my case, believe it or not, I’ve had far fewer advantages in life than Mme Jean. Yet I ask: what specific, directly germane qualifications does she bring to the job?
Yes, you’re correct that the GG is a partisan appointment. But doesn’t that therefore effectively make the GG partisan? This is the perception of many Canadians today. I really don’t think too many Canadians who understand and care about these things approve of the way this and other important positions are filled. Perhaps it’s time to reform some appts. to make them truly nonpartisan? After all, QE2 herself is nonpartisan and I’m sure Britons appreciate that fact. Is it too much to ask that the GG be truly nonpartisan, rather than only in theory?
Of course, you’re free from coercion to dignify my questions with any kind of response… 🙂
Yep.
Hit the nail on the head Kate.
She could have been anyone, the qualities of the candidate was moot though because qualities or intellegence where not what Paul was looking for.
She is living in denial if she doesn’t realize she’s just a token.
If Mrs. Jean had any principles at all she would have refused the appointment.
Now that I posted that last line, a thought occurred to me.
What if she wasn’t the first choice?
What if Paul went calling to somebody like Marc Garneau and knowing full well Paul was only looking for a token appointee to win votes, said no thanks.
Paul would stammer a bit, feint some thanks for the prompt response while muttering under his breath, and then realize he was in a pickle…again. In a panic he would pull his “fixer” Murphy aside and instruct him to find “his” next selection and damn sure its looks good.
Murphy wouldn’t have a clue what a fit candidate for GG would even look like so he uses the current one as a template, knowing all he has to do is vary one of her physical attributes.
So he tunes in CBC and waits for his suitable candidate to show themselves.
My guess is that Rough Cuts was on at the time.
He takes one look at M Jean and yells “BINGO”.
One phone call later an invite to 24 Sussex and M Jean decides she can (like Scotty turncoat and Belinda the poor little rich girl) not be burdened by such banalitites as principle and takes the role of token minority chief rubber stamper.
Damian: “that doesn’t make her a selfish, me-first, suck everything out of the system that you can sort of a person”…Unless she made the effort to get French citizenship mainly with a view to getting grants from the French government (and perhaps elsewhere in the EU as she in now also a EU citizen and entitled to a EU passport–they exist) in order to further her career.
I would think she should explain to the public why she chose France.
Mark
Ottawa
Stephen, I think we’d both agree that reforming the appointment process would be ideal. But, that aside, I think Jean is a fine choice. Here’s why: the crown has always been symbolic, expecially in that it symbolizes everyone’s status as a subject, and all thus equal. Similarly, I think Jean’s appointment is important symbolically. I think we really are an open country, and a tolerant one, where people can expect to accomplish more than in any other country. And these are not just Liberal values. Indeed, I think Conservatives, especially through Mulroney and Dief’s terms, have represented them as well as Trudeau and the rest. I think Jean symbolizes this very well. She fled another country and chose Canada as her home, and she has flourished here. She can make refugees, minorities, french speakers, and women feel particularly attached to the Crown. This is no different than how Hnatyshyn’s appointment symbolized the importance of Eastern Europeans in Canada’s history and politics. I realise this GG as symbol game will always have those who don’t get represented, as well as those who feel it’s all a little distateful, but I think it’s a logical part of having a symbolic head of state.
As for whether she will make a correct choice in a constitutional crisis, I am not sure. Arguably, what occurred in May was a crisis, but I think Clarkson handled it fine, leaving the government a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate confidence (Indeed, the manner in which they did it is an indictment of them, and not of her). And she didn’t have any special qualification either.
Finally, I wish Paul Martin had done the following: collected together the heads of each party, and asked them to come up with a choice from his own list with whom they were all satisfied. This would do a lot to stem the democratic deficit. And, who knows, they may have chosen Jean anyway.
peter
It should go without saying that tolerance is not a Liberal policy. How many visions of burning crosses and Klan gathering have we heard from the mouths of Libs?
Even if Jacques Parizeau was nominated as GG, would it really matter? Really?