Apparently the GG did not sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. A Supreme Court judge gave royal assent. The official party line, bolstered by the judge signing other bills, was that the GG was recuperating. The Queen remained mute on the matter.
-----------------------------------
Does the Queen have final say on who will represent her in Canada? Yes, she approves the PM's recommendation. But why is this important appointment left solely up to the PM? Should not Parliament decide, through a rigorous committee review of candidates (offered by the PMO perhaps)? Or is that considered too raucous for Canada? What if the committee reviewed them privately as the PM currently does? As Paul Wells asks about the latest selection process in the August 29th issue of Maclean's, "...how rigorous was the process?"
------------------------------------
I am not interested in Jean-Daniel Lafond's views. He is not the GG-designate, and husbands and wives can live in harmony while having completely differing views, even on separatism. It is interesting to note he became a Canadian citizen 6 years after immigrating here. Pretty fast. Yet he obviously wanted his new wife to become a French citizen years later.
------------------------------------
What is our upcoming GG's views on separatism? Hard to tell, except she did say she never belonged to the separatist movement. I don't think a committed separatist would work for English TV, as Jean did for CBC Newsworld. Isn't that considered treasonous? Or is it OK if they're sipping from our tax dollars a la Lucien Bouchard? Still, she didn't limit her work in establishing emergency shelters for battered women to just Quebec. She was also concerned for women across Canada. And she worked for EIC.
The big problem is her French citizenship. She is to become Canada's head of state, representing the Queen (of Canada and England, not France). It is multiculturalism run amok to have a citizen outside of Canada and Britain to head up our country. (Possible conflict of interest here: I hold dual citizenship in Canada, by choice, in Britain, by birth.) It is one thing to be a dual or triple citizen as an ordinary person, but another when you decide to become part of the leadership of Canada. Jean is already hobbled by questions of her loyalty. For her to be a citizen of a country that has poked its nose into our affairs to agitate for separatism is insulting to us. She is not a citizen of France by birth. There is no sentimental attachment from having grown up in that country. She only became a citizen when she got married (why, eludes me). Just as Clarkson had to marry in order to become GG without the country having complete hysterics, so too should Jean give up her French citizenship -- something that is a far worse threat to our sovereignty than living in sin. As our head of state, she cannot be seen to have and cannot have divided loyalties.
Tags: Governor General, Sovereignty, Canada
-----------------------------------
Does the Queen have final say on who will represent her in Canada? Yes, she approves the PM's recommendation. But why is this important appointment left solely up to the PM? Should not Parliament decide, through a rigorous committee review of candidates (offered by the PMO perhaps)? Or is that considered too raucous for Canada? What if the committee reviewed them privately as the PM currently does? As Paul Wells asks about the latest selection process in the August 29th issue of Maclean's, "...how rigorous was the process?"
------------------------------------
I am not interested in Jean-Daniel Lafond's views. He is not the GG-designate, and husbands and wives can live in harmony while having completely differing views, even on separatism. It is interesting to note he became a Canadian citizen 6 years after immigrating here. Pretty fast. Yet he obviously wanted his new wife to become a French citizen years later.
------------------------------------
What is our upcoming GG's views on separatism? Hard to tell, except she did say she never belonged to the separatist movement. I don't think a committed separatist would work for English TV, as Jean did for CBC Newsworld. Isn't that considered treasonous? Or is it OK if they're sipping from our tax dollars a la Lucien Bouchard? Still, she didn't limit her work in establishing emergency shelters for battered women to just Quebec. She was also concerned for women across Canada. And she worked for EIC.
The big problem is her French citizenship. She is to become Canada's head of state, representing the Queen (of Canada and England, not France). It is multiculturalism run amok to have a citizen outside of Canada and Britain to head up our country. (Possible conflict of interest here: I hold dual citizenship in Canada, by choice, in Britain, by birth.) It is one thing to be a dual or triple citizen as an ordinary person, but another when you decide to become part of the leadership of Canada. Jean is already hobbled by questions of her loyalty. For her to be a citizen of a country that has poked its nose into our affairs to agitate for separatism is insulting to us. She is not a citizen of France by birth. There is no sentimental attachment from having grown up in that country. She only became a citizen when she got married (why, eludes me). Just as Clarkson had to marry in order to become GG without the country having complete hysterics, so too should Jean give up her French citizenship -- something that is a far worse threat to our sovereignty than living in sin. As our head of state, she cannot be seen to have and cannot have divided loyalties.
Tags: Governor General, Sovereignty, Canada
Comments