Categories: Polls

Do you take issue with Governor General Michaëlle Jean's recent claim to being Canada's "head of state"?

…

by macleans.ca on Friday, October 9, 2009 5:59pm - 86 Comments

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

this thing needs other categories or an "other" category.

I would peg myself as 'not comfortable with her claim, but also not clear that she didn't just mispeak, and think that that government prob over-reacted'.
Be Gone monarchy

Why do Canadians still put up with this nonsence of having the British Royal Family as our Head of State? This is the 21st century; but we will be spending millions of hard earned dollars to host Charles and Camilla in Nov. Why!!

http://intensedebate.com/people/coastlogger coastlogger

Rather embarrassing isn't it to be ruled by an unelected inbred foreigner in this day and age? As far as I am concerned the PM, who is ELECTED by Canadians is the head of state.

Sunset

The PM is elected by parliament, not Canadians. An important distinction, I think.

http://intensedebate.com/people/coastlogger coastlogger

Depends somewhat on your perspective. All parliamentarians are elected anyway. The PM is an MP that is elected in his or her riding by Canadians and just happens to be the leader. Then it depends on how you vote, if for the party or your local rep. If, as many people do you vote for the party then you are in effect voting for or possibly against the PM.

http://intensedebate.com/people/HueyD HueyD

We need the British monarchy in Canada like a fish needs a bicycle!!
Wake up Canadian politicians. The national polls taken over the past 7 years have concluded that the majority of Canadians do not wish to retain formal ties to the British monarchy. I think that now is the time to Canadianize the office of head of state. Let's get a parliamenatry committee assembled to study the function, duties, and proper title of the current governor general's office.

Dick Richards

The Republic down south has really done well over the years; on issues like slavery, segregation, which wars to start, which to stay away from, who should and who shouldn't own a gun.

Currently now in that republic, a religious cult travels the US picketing funeral of dead solders and is protected by "freedom of speech" while an elected congressman brings upon the scorn of a nation by saying "you lie" to their president.

How do we get a system like that here in Canada?

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

With rights?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

With Individual Rights?

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Agreed.

The only people for whom it should be acceptable to wear crowns are beauty pageant winners and kids celebrating their birthdays at Medieval Times.

Hereditary authority is something that belongs only in ancient history, as I'm sure our elected representatives like Justin Trudeau, Peter MacKay, Dominic LeBlanc, Paul Martin, Dalton and David McGuinty, etc. would agree.
in Ottawa

Actually, it is not the British royal family that is head of state but rather Queen Elizabeth II. Only the king/queen is the head of state and all other royals have absolutely not authority in Canada.
Les

We put up with the monarchy because it would be too divisive to get rid of it. Though I'm not aware of any big movement in Quebec to get rid of the Queen, I can readily imagine the cries of "Kow-towing to Quebec" from parts of English Canada if we started talking about severing our connection with the monarchy. Another reason: most of us cling to anything that makes us different from the USA, not because we're stupid, just because that's the way the human mind works, defining by differences. Australia, being farther from the US and having no French minority, is much more receptive to the idea. Finally, the present system works fine; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm 50.1 % in favor of keeping the connection.
Gilbert B.

Yes you right. We should get rid of the monarchy, the GG should also be scrapped and declare ourself a republic and have a President (old GG position ) and have an elected Senate and remove those sleeping old ANTS that are spending our money.

TedTylerEzro

Why? Because having a monarchy allows someone to be "her majesty's loyal opposition", rather than submit to some sort of authority that demands obedience to an ideology. It is the single best reason to be Canadian rather than American.

Be Gone monarchy

You must have a low opinion of your country, Canada.This institution is an insult to any person's intelligence
Lucien

I bet that's what Duceppe and Bouchard were thinking when they were leaders of HMLO.
Canada

It is sad that anti-Americanism is driving the support for the monarchy in Canada and not the monarchy itself. That some Canadians cannot stand on their own two feet and feel they must cling to an out-dated, expensive symbol of colonialism is SAD. The monarchy cost us $50 mil plus a year to maintain. The head of our state lives in a foreign country, doesn't speak with our accent and doesn't identify herself with us.

If Canada wants a separate head of state, then keep the GG, but sever her ties from the Monarchy of England.
When will these "monarchist" Canadians get some self-respect and start recognizing how silly the monarchy is? They don't care for Canada.

knick

The question should be: 'do you take issue with the PM creating a flap by publicly correcting the GG'

"Former governors-general also referred to themselves as “head of state,” Ms. Blouin noted, as the late Roméo Leblanc did in a 1999 speech in Morocco and Ms. Jean's predecessor, Adrienne Clarkson, did in 2004."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-ho…

If he was asked to comment, he could have simply said that he's not a constitutional expert, and left it at that.
Russ Bogart

Long live the Queen!

http://intensedebate.com/people/coastlogger coastlogger

Down with poodles.
Dan

I agree. Cuz, Charles will never be out King.

http://intensedebate.com/people/geogine geo

SH is still bugged because MJ got to meet with Prez. Obama before him… as she should.
http://intensedebate.com/people/geogine geo

SH is still bugged because MJ got to meet with Prez. Obama before him… as she should.
As long as MJ is the Queens representative with all the rights and obligations that go with that position, yes, she is Canada's "head of state".

Harper is only the PM. 1st among equals. (ignore the coffee that just blew out of my nose!) That position also has rights and obligations, but pouting about his place in the greats scheme of things, too bad. He has plenty he should be doing without posing for more pics and making more of his position than it is. He gets to be "Right Honourable" and that should be good enough…. with emphasis on honourable and less on being right.

Iggyland

OMG….you make no sense at all…grow up!!!

http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

Harper is pointing out that twice the GG has said she is head of state, she should have added de facto.I think she has become to big for her britches. Although, I will take this GG over the last.She took spending money to a whole new level.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

The U of T prof has a good letter in the Globe today. Essentially the GG is e Queens rep and fulfills the function while the Queen is not in Canada….BUT this also applies when the GG is out of Canada, the constitutional role falls to the Head of the Supreme Court. So for her to make the statement that she was even defacto head of state while she was at a foreign gatehring wasnt correct.

The example he used was here rushing back from Prague during the issues last winter. She cant rule over the phone, she has to be present, just like the Queen has to be present, or alternatively the GG means nothign as soon as the Queen (a Canadian) steps off the plane…officially speaking. Why do you think the Queen would never come here during an election or during any kind of crisis.

Petty Titles, perquisites, priveledges and disputes with the PM are the last thing you get involved in. The point, after this incident do you think the MJ is seen as more or less partisan, to the extent that she lost point in the nuetrality department is the extent to which she made a mistake.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

Nelson Wiseman The U of T prof has a good letter in the Globe today. Essentially the GG is e Queens rep and fulfills the function while the Queen is not in Canada….BUT this also applies when the GG is out of Canada, the constitutional role falls to the Head of the Supreme Court. So for her to make the statement that she was even defacto head of state while she was at a foreign gatehring wasnt correct.

The example he used was here rushing back from Prague during the issues last winter. She cant rule over the phone, she has to be present, just like the Queen has to be present, or alternatively the GG means nothign as soon as the Queen (a Canadian) steps off the plane…officially speaking. Why do you think the Queen would never come here during an election or during any kind of crisis.

Petty Titles, perquisites, priveledges and disputes with the PM are the last thing you get involved in. The point, after this incident do you think the MJ is seen as more or less partisan, to the extent that she lost point in the nuetrality department is the extent to which she made a mistake.

Gugs

WOW!!!!!

In a country that supposedly is a democracy, our reality is that we are still ruled by a Monarch! But not even the monarch in power, but that monarch's representative. We are as democratic as Saudi Arabia!

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Have they utterly given up teaching this crap in school?! We are NOT ruled by the Queen, in any real sense. The Queen, or the GG, has neither the power nor the authority to go about running the place. We are ruled by ourselves, via our representatives in the parliament.

Being the Head of State is not the same thing as ruling that state. Yes, there are certain powers that reside in the Crown, but they are limited both by convention and a role designed to provide stability. We have a government that is responsible to the people. And for that matter, the Queen and the GG are ultimately responsible to the people too – not the other way around.

None of this is meant as an argument in favour of the status quo – it's certainly something we should at least reevaluate, from time to time. But before we go charging forth to ditch the Queen, it would be helpful if we at least understood the historical and political background to our current governance, and were versed on the fundamental structure of our democracy.

Ottawa student

The queen and the gg are not responsible to the people in any way shape or form. In fact, the gg is more like the dictator of Canada because technically she could decide to seize ultimate power at any time . That being said, neither the gg or the queen/westminster can make any changes to the Constitution since it was patriated in the Constitution Act 1982.
Sigh

Judging from the first reply to your comment, it would appear that the answer to your question " Have they utterly given up teaching this crap in school?! ", is yes.

Be Gone monarchy

IIt's very insulting to Canadians that the only person who cannot be Head of State of Canada is a CANADIAN.This position belongs to the Windsor family who live in castles in Britain and grew up with a golden spoon in their month.We can only fix the problem when we do away with this useless monarchy.

r.craig

Rules are rules so we go by them, if you do not llike them make every effort to change it.
responder

Queen Elizabeth ll is Canadian.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Where's the, "No, while the Queen is technically the Head of State, the Governor General is close enough that unless the Queen objects, nobody else should bother."

http://intensedebate.com/people/skyroamer skyroamer

Wrong! The GG is only the Queen's REPRESENTATIVE in Canada. Therefore the Queen is Head of State and as the GG only represents her is technically not the head of state. The government thus has the right to object for the Queen.

delford t louis

a dog has one boss that is you if you or is it the other way the dog has chosen you to be the boss…now if an animal can be happy with one boss…why they heck do we need layers and layers of heads of this and heads of that…how many people do the politicians have to brown nose to get things done…huh huh?
let this dubious monarchy fall by the way side before they kill another princess di
Nitab

Was the Queen involved in granting porogue? No! Who grants the Gov't to call an election? The Queen? Not in my lifetime! The PM
goes tp The Gov. Gen. Our head of State!

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

If the Queen was in country then he would have. If the GG was out of country then the PM goes to the next in line, the Head of the Supreme Court.

The rules were established when communication was less instant, so it is geographically based. The GG and the Head of Supreme Court act on behalf in the absence of the actual crown.

I am not saying you shouldnt change it, but you creeping changes to the fundamental source of power and authority wihtout doing it formally are a recipie for confusion and chaos and ultimately legitimacy. Rideau Hall seems to want to build an empire, however the functions of that role arent for it to decide but for the people and practically the members of the political class, the premiers, the senators, MP's etc.

GG MJ made a mistake….one of the PM's roles is to defend the crown to keep them out of politics. If MJ doesnt like her appointed position anymore she can resign….liklihood of her giving up the good life….zero.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

If the Queen was in country then she would have. If the GG was out of country then the PM goes to the next in line, the Head of the Supreme Court.

The rules were established when communication was less instant, so it is geographically based. The GG and the Head of Supreme Court act on behalf in the absence of the actual crown.

I am not saying you shouldnt change it, but you creeping changes to the fundamental source of power and authority wihtout doing it formally are a recipie for confusion and chaos and ultimately legitimacy. Rideau Hall seems to want to build an empire, however the functions of that role arent for it to decide but for the people and practically the members of the political class, the premiers, the senators, MP's etc.

GG MJ made a mistake….one of the PM's roles is to defend the crown to keep them out of politics. If MJ doesnt like her appointed position anymore she can resign….liklihood of her giving up the good life….zero.

Hank

Wow, that's pretty cynical. She says a couple of times that she's the head of state, like previous GGs have done, and suddenly she's trying to build an empire?

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

I think it is more institutional, Rideau Hall, as opposed to MJ herself. Altough I believe she is a willing participant.

Some of he goal is noble, "Canadianization" of the role. Nonetheless, things like this are to be decided by others not by the GG themselves. There will come a time when the system will be reformed, but it wont be by trying to create cute precedents etc that the government either ignores or is too bothered to challenge.

So to repeat, this isnt her idea, it started earlier, but I believe it is more institutional and coming from Rideau Hall itself, say the Office of the GG rather thant the GG.

Once again, I dont quibble with the end point, I do with the timing and the methods. Until the country decides in a broad consensus that they want to change and have a broad agreement what that change looks like then something as fundamental as this should be left alone.

While the job really doesnt require much that is only because Canada is such a placid and relatively stable country. The position holds enormous formal power but they are like the fire axe behind glass that reads break only in an emergency.

Check your grammar

That would be prorogue.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

There was a rather lengthy meeting between MJ and SH before parliamnet was prorogued. Speculation at the time was that the GG admonished him for his confrontational attitudes and not so gently reminded him that he was running a minority government.

SH never forgets a slight and never passes up a chance to get even

http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

No, there was no such meetting Nice try though.He told her what to say, and she did it.

…

Exactly and that's how thing operate in Canada especially when you have an unqualified nitwit (or CBC broadcaster, same thing) like MJ as GG.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

There were three people there that we know….the GG, the PM and the Chief of the PCO (Lynch)

I believe the reports of the meeting were she shuffled off to "consult" with advsors and came back with questions…..those are the only reports, process not content.

So the protocol would have been one of describing the situation, it being explained. My speculation is that the latter is why Lynch was there (an unusal step)….My suspicion is he was there to describe the civil servics progress on budget preperations and what the effect of changing horses mid stream would mean from that perspective. But that is speculation.

Her actions were textbook in that situation.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

The government should mind its own business.
Dick Richards

Do you think Stephen Harper might pay for this one down the road?

http://twitter.com/Rose215 @Rose215

Why? Lots of people agree that Jean has overstepped her position.
Thumper

Nope

Dick Richards

The Republic down south has really done well over the years; on issues like slavery, segregation, which wars to start, which to stay away from, who should and who shouldn't own a gun.

Currently now in that republic, a religious cult travels the country picketing funerals of dead solders, and is protected by "freedom of speech" while an elected congressman brings upon the scorn of a nation by saying "you lie" to their president.

How do we get a system like that here in Canada?

Bill the Brit

We get a "democracy", ruled by the guy with most cash, by getting rid of the Queen and her representative, the Governor General.Her only mistake has been to allow the Rt. Hon. prime minster to prorogue parliament in the middle of a Financial Crisis.
D.W.

It's good to know that you would prefer an oppressive state that would suppress small splinter groups (which is all the Westboro Baptist Church is) instead of protecting free speech.

Dick Richards

That isn't my stance DW or the point that I was trying to get across, I was simply highlighting how hard it is to criticize the American president (though for the record a right to protest and a right to protest at a funeral are two very different things)

Canada

Please tell me what the the U.S. has to do with Canadians wanting a head of state who lives in their country and identifies as Canadian? You're an idiot, if the only reason you can find for keeping the monorachy is "anti-Americanism."

Get it through your skull: it's NOT about the U.S. but Canada. It's time to get rid of an ancient, expensive colonial machine. It's the 21st century.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

"technically she could decide to seize ultimate power at any time"

"neither the gg or the queen/westminster can make any changes to the Constitution since it was patriated in the Constitution Act 1982"

How do you reconcile those two?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Keep up the good fight.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

will do.

Jiminee

The state to the south claims to be the "champion of democracy" for the whole world. Democracy is supposed to be a government BY the people FOR the people, YET the Reps and Senators and President are paid hundreds of millions of dollars by the wealthy Lobbyists to vote in favour of the lobbyists—appears to be a gov't system that caters to the RICH only ! ! and exploits the rest. I prefer Canada.
Peter12

This is all about some Quebeckers who are running the Governor General's office poking a stick in the eye of the Queen. Who in their right mind thinks this is Governor Jean's idea.
CdnRiviera

While I think we should be moving on to a system of government that doesn't involve a foreign monarch (yes, yes, I know she's our Queen, but she's a Brit and not many of us are anymore), we haven't done our homework yet. I have yet to hear or read of a viable alternative, and we have to know where we're going before we abandon a quaint but very serviceable form of government. No political party currently has enough of the public's confidence to proceed down that path yet; the statesmanship requirements are beyond the current batch.
'Abolishing the Monarchy' is a strong phrase that more reflects the attitude of the speaker than the nature of the process we'll have to go through to achieve a made-in-Canada solution. Once Liz hangs up her glove, we're going to realize how shaky the bullpen is. Her kids are an odd lot, and we're going to be facing the heir's (whichever) credibility shortcomings before too long.
Time to start thinking seriously about Constitutional reform.
Teeves

How can there be this much confusion over an issue so clear? No wonder we cannot elect a majority government. We can't even decide what is the right answer to a question when is is written right in the constitution. The queen is the Head of State. The GG is just a representative that carries out the Queen's duty. It should be pretty obvious who is in power when the Queen can fire the GG at anytime and appoint a new one. The Queen has all the power and carries the title. She just does not care enough to do the work herself so she delegates.
browndog

I think it would be a good idea to enroll her in a political science course specializing in the British and Canadian Constitutions, as well as a Canadian Geography course (another subject in which she could use some tutoring!
Cathy

At this point in Canada's civilized development and independence….I see no place for a monarchy let alone her representative. If the Brits wish to pay dearly for this very expensive symbolism, that's there decision. It's time that Canada votes to eliminate it's relationship with the monarchy. It's expensive and a tradition that no longer has any relevancy nor meaningful purpose. Something akin to our senate.
Ron Babula

Down with the parasitic British royal family .They have no relevence in 21st century Canada and almost no support . If they cost Canada a dime this year it's money wasted . Let's vote to give the bums a boot .
JohnH

I used to be for the monarchy but since ‘CHARLES’ arrived on the scene what a joke. Appointing a seperatist was also a stupid move. Let’s save money and get rid of the whole thing.