I just heard Bob Costas of NBC talking about the Governor General, Michaell Jean. He said she is the head of state because Canada is in the the CW, Harper is the PM. Not so, India is a republic and they are in the CW and do not have a GG. :?:
Bob Costas, Error on the Commonwealth and GG
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Well, he was almost right, the G-G is the head of state and Harper is the PM, he just doesn't know why. But you can't really expect a foreigner to understand the subtleties of our constitutional arrangements, we don't really understand them ourselves. What, for instance, is the status of the G-G when the monarch is in the country? Can the G-G sign bills into law, dissolve or prorogue Parliament, ask someone to try to form a government? Nobody knows, it's never been tested. And probably never will be.
We just thrashed this out in the media a few months ago. Canada's head of state is the British monarch. The GG is the monarch's representative in Canada, not the head of state. If the monarch is actually in Canada then she takes precedence. However, no monarch has ever been in Canada when a bill required royal assent or when any other official duties were required of the GG.
I didn't hear him say the the GG was head of state, I heard him say the the Queen was invited to the ceremony as Canada's head of state but declined the invitation, and the GG as her representative was attending. The mistake I did hear him make was when he said our flag "was adopted in 1965; until then Canada's flag was a variation of the British union jack". Canada's (unofficial) flag prior to 1965 was a variation of the British red ensign, not the union jack.
Bar Sinister, I agree with you: I thought the Queen took precedence when she was in Canada, but on her last visit to Alberta (2005?) it was hoped that she would open a session of the provincial legislature, but the Speaker or Premier was told that this would not be in accordance with the present state of Canada's constitutional development. Or words to that effect. So I'm not altogether sure anymore. Maybe the feds didn't want her opening a provincial legislature rather than Parliament?
Bar Sinister, I agree with you: I thought the Queen took precedence when she was in Canada, but on her last visit to Alberta (2005?) it was hoped that she would open a session of the provincial legislature, but the Speaker or Premier was told that this would not be in accordance with the present state of Canada's constitutional development. Or words to that effect. So I'm not altogether sure anymore. Maybe the feds didn't want her opening a provincial legislature rather than Parliament?
Not quite. The Red Ensign contains the Union Jack:
Gee, thanks, I never would have known.:roll:
To lend some clarity to the issue, it was the case at one time that the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors held authority only when the Queen was absent from Canada (that is, the Queen’s representative would have no place on the order of precedence during a Royal visit). This has fallen into disuse, and the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors may now exercise the royal prerogative even when the Queen is standing right beside them. I disagree with the suggestion, however, that it would be inappropriate for the Queen to read a throne speech or open a legislative session; I feel that this would be entirely in keeping with our constitutional arrangements.
The Queen is the head of State, and the Governor General is Her Majesty’s representative.
The Queen is the head of State, and the Governor General is Her Majesty’s representative.
Sometimes I wonder why Canada doesn't just ditch the monarchy and keep the Governor General or create another office with the same attributes and job...you know, make Canada more self sufficient lol. Idk, just an idea, but who am I to say anything lol
Not quite. The Red Ensign contains the Union Jack:
I really liked the old flag.........very nice, especially when compared to what is essentually a dead maple leaf.