GG Should Decide Whether to End Term
- Thread starter FiveParadox
- Start date
The G/G's salary is paid from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada (that is, the crown's general revenues) and is, according to section one hundred something-or-other of the Constitution Act (1867), the third charge thereon, after the costs of collection and the debt payments of the original provinces. Or something like that. Don't care enough to look it up. If you want to make the effort it's in the "Revenues, debts, assets and taxation" section of the act.
Yes, the payment of the salary of the Governor General is the third charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund pursuant to s. 105 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (very nicely cited, cdarro). Since the Governor General is representing Her Majesty The Queen of Canada and performs Canadian constitutional functions of State, it makes perfect sense for Her Excellency’s salary to be paid thusly.
In the strictest of constitutional senses, of course, the Governor General continues to be paid by The Queen since the Acts of Parliament that authorise Government expenditures are entitled “An Act to grant to Her Majesty certain sums of money”.
In the strictest of constitutional senses, of course, the Governor General continues to be paid by The Queen since the Acts of Parliament that authorise Government expenditures are entitled “An Act to grant to Her Majesty certain sums of money”.
This is the section you two are on about?
So in other words, we the Canadian citizens pay the Queen's Head of State here in Canada', salary.
Why? She's the Queen's rep. Not ours.
Another fine reason to dump the pompous post and the Monarchy with it.
... Yet, according to the OP, Canadians ought to allow her to determine when she's good and ready to give up the post.
I can't even begin to get my head around that logic.
Scary ain't it?
It's kind of like being invited to a dinner party and saying you'll leave when you feel like it, lol.
The article posted on the first page suggested that the Governor General should decide, in this instance, whether to end the term only because (a) we continue to have a minority government and the constitutional duties of a Governor General or heightened at such a time; and (b) the prime minister has abused the Governor General’s office and should therefore not be in a position to decide whether Jean should keep her job.
The article upon which you refer represents a circular argument and partisan politics. Ultimately, the article employed in the OP is based on watery and prejudiced opinion.
The author questions Harper's "moral authority" in forwarding their position... That logic is not only highly subjective, it also opens the door to questioning the judgment and morality of the PM that appointed the GG in the first place.
Further, the article suggests that our current GG has developed a sound understanding of the actual role she is/was to play because of her "travels in murky constitutional waters".... Here's a thought - She was woefully under qualified in the first place.
As far as the PM "abusing" the GG's office; many/most PM's have prorogued government for political ends. In the end, the role of GG is ceremonial at best. Pretending that Michele Jean is some kind of necessity is laughable... really, why do you think that the last few PM's have not hesitated to appoint individuals that have zero knowledge of the post or government?
The author questions Harper's "moral authority" in forwarding their position... That logic is not only highly subjective, it also opens the door to questioning the judgment and morality of the PM that appointed the GG in the first place.
Further, the article suggests that our current GG has developed a sound understanding of the actual role she is/was to play because of her "travels in murky constitutional waters".... Here's a thought - She was woefully under qualified in the first place.
As far as the PM "abusing" the GG's office; many/most PM's have prorogued government for political ends. In the end, the role of GG is ceremonial at best. Pretending that Michele Jean is some kind of necessity is laughable... really, why do you think that the last few PM's have not hesitated to appoint individuals that have zero knowledge of the post or government?
But in reality Canadians pay for the useless GG, through taxes. It's as simple as that. Not some stranger across the ocean. If a constitution does not reflect the reality of a the country, then it's in trouble.
Lately William Shatner's name has popped up. This is a disgrace to Canadian politics as showmanship prevails over good governance. The GG job is a joke, its clapped out. Now the GG is just a pawn of the PM because the PM is elected. Remember this is a democracy. Let the GG die with some semblance of dignity.
I can't agree with you more.. Adrienne Clarkson and Michele Jean have tipped the balance on this office.
Dissolve the post and let these wannabe jet-setters save the world on their own dime.
Dissolve the post and let these wannabe jet-setters save the world on their own dime.
No doubt.. That said, I don't begrudge anyone that accepts a government sponsored "free lunch", but I do draw the line when these folks begin to think and act with an assumed air of self-importance and entitlement.