David Johnston will be Canada's new Governor General.

[bankside]

The Globe and Mail reports that David Johnston will be Canada's new Governor General.

Members of the secret and precedent-setting panel created to select Canada’s next governor-general were under specific orders to choose someone who will “serve without partisanship,” according to a new note from the Prime Minister’s Office that offers the first clear outline of the new selection process.

The Prime Minister’s director of communications, Dimitri Soudas, sent a note to journalists Sunday morning that outlines the selection process and names the individuals who served on the panel.

While some of the members’ names became public, the government never formally announced the creation of the panel that ultimately recommended University of Waterloo president David Johnston as Canada’s next governor-general.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...partisan-governor-general-pmo/article1636004/

Do you really think it was a non-partisan appointment? All I know about David Johnston is that he is responsible for writing the terms of reference for the enquiry into former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber.

You may be aware that Mr. Schreiber was recently deported from Canada to Germany, where he faces the legal consequences related to either tax evasion or bribery, I can't remember which, in connection to a C$20 million dollar budget given to him by Airbus to "facilitate business."

Prior to Schreiber's deportation, Prime Minister Mulroney accepted envelopes stuffed with $300 000 in cash from him around the time of Mulroney's retirement from office. If I recall correctly, the two men could not agree on what the money was for. In his testimony, Mr. Schreiber was under the impression that he was purchasing consulting services to promote a pasta company. Mr. Mulroney thought he was offering his services to promote Canadian-made military technology, in which Mr. Schreiber had an interest, to foreign governments.

Either way, Mr. Mulroney broke the tax code by not declaring his envelopes of cash for services rendered in the field of pasta weaponry, but he did manage to avoid penalty by declaring his earnings under a "voluntary disclosure" arrangement with the Canada Revenue Agency. I wonder what the penalty would be for failing to declare $300 000 of income if the Canada Revenue Agency had not been so forthcoming in dealing with the Prime Minister's oversight. (I think he put the figure at a lesser amount, but since he just plum forgot about it, I'm inclined to rely more on the memory of Mr. Schreiber's, who did not forget giving it to him.)

In an amazing coincidence, under Prime Minister Mulroney's tenure and following Mr. Schreiber's support of Mulroney's leadership fundraising campaign, but before their work together on noodle armaments - for which Mulroney would accept the cash-stuffed envelopes, Airbus would "out-compete" Boeing to supply aircraft to the then crown-owned Air Canada which ultimately reported to the Prime Minister.

So when the country demanded yet another enquiry into this Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Johnston was chosen by today's Conservative Prime Minister to write the mandate for the enquiry. Mr. "non-partisan" Johnston determined that the enquiry need not hear any testimony as to why Airbus had given Schreiber a $20 million dollar budget, or what he was expected to do with it. And the enquiry was not allowed to recommend criminal charges. It was allowed to frown sternly at the former Prime Minister's sloppy business acumen, and then make it all go away.

Mr. Johnston now ascends to the governor-generalship, and thus also to the position of Principal Companion of the Order of Canada. He was first appointed to the Order of Canada during - quelle surprise - the tenure of Brian Mulroney, in his first term as Prime Minister.

So what do you think of our new, non-partisan Governor General?

 

[rareboy]

Wow.

Another white guy who helped the conservative party avoid a political shitstorm and preserved the image of Mulroney as the worst business manager Canada ever had.

I suspect though, that Michaelle Jean's days were numbered when she brought Harper into her office for a spanking after he created a constitutional crisis.

 

[laikaNYC]

Wow.

Another white guy who helped the conservative party avoid a political shitstorm and preserved the image of Mulroney as the worst business manager Canada ever had.

I suspect though, that Michaelle Jean's days were numbered when she brought Harper into her office for a spanking after he created a constitutional crisis.

What does the color of his skin have anything to do with this?

 

[torontoboy92]

The Globe and Mail reports that David Johnston will be Canada's new Governor General.

Do you really think it was a non-partisan appointment?

My answer is absolutely not. Logic eliminates the notion that somehow by appointing people to positions such as GG or Senator they will not be influenced by the appointer's political ideas and philosophies.

 

[bankside]

My answer is absolutely not. Logic eliminates the notion that somehow by appointing people to positions such as GG or Senator they will not be influenced by the appointer's political ideas and philosophies.

And yet logic need not eliminate the notion of common ground, or a "consensus candidate," or even a compromise candidate, that can represent the values we share as Canadians regardless of party.

I'd say this one doesn't measure up.

I agree that being white is not at all a problem, neither intrinsically, nor in terms of "being representative." We've just had 10 years and two different Governors General of different minority backgrounds, both female, and this appointment is hardly evidence of "the patriarchy" or "white privilege" or whatever nonsense.

Johnston merely fails to distinguish himself from an ordinary political crony.

 

[rareboy]

I should have said 'another white anglo-centric political payback appointment'.

I suppose I was one of those who had hoped that the appointment might have gone this time to someone of mixed aboriginal heritage or to someone from the west or east coast instead of white bread Ontario.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've never even heard of the guy before.

Two questions:

1. Doesn't the Queen have to approve the choice?
2. Isn't this largely ceremonial anyway?

 

[Callum]

I'm fairly indifferent to this. I'm going to start voting for the best businesspeople to run the country. I was kind of hoping an Inuit or the likes would be appointed...and not another run-of-the-mill Harvard alum.

I've never even heard of the guy before.

1. Doesn't the Queen have to approve the choice?

Yes. But she's never shot down the advice of a PM.

2. Isn't this largely ceremonial anyway?

The Governor General? No, not entirely. The GG has more 'reserve' power than the Prime Minister. You can read all about that mumbo (I loathe the whole 'Commonwealth' tripe) here on the GG's official site.

 

[The_Reaper]

Harper has never appointed anyone without a bit of partisanship in the background...Just look to the Senate for proof of that.

I'll admit Liberals throughout the years also went and appointed their supporters to key positions, but occasionally, a Liberal would actually appoint a Conservative. Paul Martin appointed 1 or 2 to the Senate during his brief tenure as Prime Minister.

Harper, on the other hand, has been more...partisan though. Given that one of the last Senators he appointed donated over $100,000 to Harper's leadership campaign years ago and other donations to the Conservative Party. And before you wonder whether or not the guy had credentials, keep in mind, he owned some CFL teams....

So, other than Johnston's involvement in the Olyphant Inquiry, I wonder what else he's done for Harper in the past...Panel or not, we've seen Harper's management style and he would not allow a panel to make this decision alone; he would have made clear his preferred choice and rammed it down their throats until he got his way.

As for the GG's role...

Theoretically, the GG actually has a lot of power. Harper took a lot of flak over the past few years for proroguing Parliament on a few occasions. But, it's still up to the GG to allow Parliament to be prorogued. A GG can say no to the Prime Minister, but it takes a bit of gumption to do so.

We haven't had a GG challenge a Prime Minister since the King-Byng Affair, when the GG refused to call an election and instead turned to the opposition parties to form a government. A GG still has that authority, and the ability to say no, but we've sort of accepted people into the post who think it is all indeed symbolic and ceremonial...

 

[kallipolis]

^The Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 illustrates that a Governor General of Canada might feel more inclined to enjoy the quiet life, by keeping out of party political politics.

Sir John Kerr's decision was popular with some, and very unpopular with others according to political affiliation.

http://www.squerk.com/p-c_s-14_u-11...ple-and-power/sir-john-kerr-whitlam-dismissal

 

[bankside]

^The Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 illustrates that a Governor General of Canada might feel more inclined to enjoy the quiet life, by keeping out of party political politics.

Sir John Kerr's decision was popular with some, and very unpopular with others according to political affiliation.

http://www.squerk.com/p-c_s-14_u-11...ple-and-power/sir-john-kerr-whitlam-dismissal

I've never even heard of the guy before.

Two questions:

1. Doesn't the Queen have to approve the choice?
2. Isn't this largely ceremonial anyway?

He's been an academic and occasional broadcaster. In a way this continues the "tradition" of appointing a media figure to the post. (3 out of the last 3 is a tradition?)

You might know him from hosting The Editors or The World in Review, which you could have seen on both PBS in the States, or CBC in Canada, back in the day. To be honest, while it sounds right, I scarcely remember that.

The Queen has to approve it in the sense that her approval is not required. LOL.

It is ceremonial so long as Parliamentarians behave themselves and offer responsible government. However on a couple of occasions, the duly elected Members of Parliament have been unable to agree on who the Prime Minister and cabinet should be, and the archaic powers of the GG suddenly become very real (in Canada as well as Australia).

It happened just over a year ago - our Prime Minister earned his government with such tenuous public support that the other parties combined can out-vote him on any issue. Given that circumstance he is obliged to seek out if not consensus then at least something with sufficient support from one opposing party to keep Parliament working and keep his government alive. But compromise is not in his nature; he's truly more of a Newt Gingrich type; perhaps quiet by demeanour but still somehow shrill and strident.

So back in the winter of 2008, he pushed a little too far, and the other parties decided that not only would they vote against him on the budget, but they would make a clean sweep and install their own Prime Minister and Cabinet. In a move of outright cowardice, he went to the Governor General to request termination of the Parliamentary session for a few months so he would not have to face the vote. Granting his request would mean that the Opposition would be prevented from formally voting down his government. The Opposition leaders made it clear that regardless of a vote being held, they had lost confidence and expected the opportunity to propose their own government, and that the Governor General should refuse the request to terminate the Parliamentary session and allow the vote. By custom she would never refuse the Prime Minister's request, however the request has never before been accompanied by a signed demand from the Opposition demonstrating non-confidence in the man making the request.

She ruled in favour of the Prime Minister, in what I view for partisan reasons as a tragedy, but also as a setback for Parliamentary precedent. Vote or no, he had no standing to make the request, and I think the GG made a mistake.

As it happens the Opposition politicians lost their nerve, and the whole thing was deeply unsatisfactory on all sides. Parliament failed to impose their will. The Prime Minister engaged every underhanded slimy tactic to avoid responsibility, and the Governor General engaged her powers without due regard for the substance behind the formalities of the Prime Minister's request.

In other news, Britain used to use the position to supervise Canadian law, instructing the GG regarding which bills to veto, etc. That is no longer possible. In theory the Queen could still instruct the Governor General to refuse to sign a law or something like that, but she would be required reach that judgement independently of the British government, and act only within her role as Queen of Canada. In practise this would be impossible for every imaginable situation except maybe Nazis winning a Canadian election or something essentially approaching civil war.

 

[rareboy]

Thank God we don't have the monarch throwing one of her own kids into the post.

 

[bankside]

In theory the Queen could still instruct the Governor General to refuse to sign a law or something like that, but she would be required reach that judgement independently of the British government, and act only within her role as Queen of Canada. In practise this would be impossible for every imaginable situation except maybe Nazis winning a Canadian election or something essentially approaching civil war.

Thank God we don't have the monarch throwing one of her own kids into the post.

If it ended up being Harry, then even Nazis would probably not faze him.

 

[kallipolis]

Thank God we don't have the monarch throwing one of her own kids into the post.

Queen Elizabeth decided many years ago that a proposal that Prince Charles should assume of the role of Governor General of Australia would pose too many problems when considering how fragmented and highly venemous the Australian political landscape is.

The Queen would appear to better serve her various realms by maintaining a wide berth from party politics.

Prince Charles has reinvented himself as a proactive interventionist in matters that attract much public support, when standing up to a celebrity architect who attempted to impose yet another hideous monstrosity, on a London district that boasts some very impressive and beautiful architecture.

What is the use of having a royal family if they do not use their inherited influence to better the lives of people, without being compromised by political affiliation. I salute the Prince of Wales for his active intervention in this matter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rchitect-hits-abuse-power-Prince-Charles.html

 

[rareboy]

I suppose. Although what Prince Charles has or hasn't made of himself is of little consequence or interest to the vast majority of Canadians at this point.

It doesn't change our relief that we didn't end up with any of the Battenburg's sprog or their relatives as our GG; that this colonial practise died in the last century.

 

[bankside]

I suppose. Although what Prince Charles has or hasn't made of himself is of little consequence or interest to the vast majority of Canadians at this point.

It doesn't change our relief that we didn't end up with any of the Battenburg's sprog or their relatives as our GG; that this colonial practise died in the last century.

Queen Elizabeth was the first to appoint a Canadian Governor General. And I suspect she may be the last. Charles would be no match for a republican push.

 

[BostonPirate]

I don't mind saying I am very confused by alot of this thread. I need to spend an hour or so reading up on canadian govt structure and recent history to really fully understand all of this.

I have no excuse. I am a new Englander. I am as close to canada as an american can get. All I know it as is the plast he eitheen year olds go to for their birthday parties.(drinking age is different) and a few other social kinds of things, but not so much politically.

I probably know europe better than canada and it is literally in my backyard....Although.....

I can't see it from my front porch....lol

 

[bankside]

Here's a bit I wrote explaining it a little while ago. I will adapt it a bit from the original to make it clearer when I'm comparing to the US system than what I originally posted.


Mkay, a few points about government in the commonwealth (by which I mean the Commonwealth, as in the former British Empire, for any of you who may be reading who call it the "Commonwealth of Australia")

We are governed by a Parliament. We vote for it. The Prime Minister is not the leader of the country, the Queen is. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party, and or the party caucus in Parliament. He was elected by the people in his own riding, and then all of the members of parliament have agreed to accept him as Prime Minister. For centuries the Prime Minister has been known as "first among equals." It is a mark of respect, and it gives him practical control of the government, but it is an honour which can be withdrawn by the people's representatives at any time. His job is only secure as long as the other members of parliament agree to it.

If we re-made American government in the Westminster image, Obama is the Queen. His new duties are limited to waving a lot, speaking at charity dinners and cutting ribbons at airports, but never answers policy questions and generally just receives bows and curtseys from foreign leaders when you need a photo op.

Nancy Pelosi becomes the Prime Minister because she is the leader of the biggest party in Parliament. She "advises" Obama on who to pick for Cabinet, and by convention he appoints them without question to the Privy Council. Unlike the current situation, the Cabinet reports directly to Pelosi, however, and is made up pretty much entirely of other Members of Congress. She has all the effective power. However, if her party doesn't want her any more, someone else could be selected as party leader of the Democrats, and would thus automatically become Prime Minister. She could still keep her seat in the House but her leadership lasts only as long as the party permits it, and it can change overnight.

Also, Ralph Nader and Ross Perot would probably have made it into Parliament with at least a few seats, because the rest of the world knows there is more to life than Black and White, Left and Right, Right and Wrong, Donkey and Elephant. So, with more parties filling up Parliament and splitting the vote, you might have no party that can rule the House on its own. So Pelosi could still be Prime Minister as leader of the largest party, but since the other parties could all combine to outweigh her, she would need to cut deals, counting on cross-partisan support to remain in power.

If she was no good at that, they wouldn't wait until the next Congressional election with a useless lame duck government in place, Pelosi would be forced to visit Queen Obama right away and ask him to allow new elections, which would happen a few weeks later.

Harry Reid would be the Leader of the Government in the House of Lords ( in the UK), or Leader of the Government in the Senate (as in Canada), and in the new world he wouldn't be nearly as significant a figure as Prime Minister Pelosi. He would report to her. Mostly because the people don't get to pick the Lords for each state, Pelosi does. Then Queen Obama would appoint them on her advice.

Malia would be next in line to the throne, unless Michelle gives birth to a boy, in which case he moves ahead. Also, the Royal House of Obama wouldn't have to actually live in the United States. They could move somewhere else and appoint a Governor General to "run the country" while they're away. But, Queen Obama would only appoint someone approved of by Pelosi, and since Queen Obama would just do whatever Pelosi wanted anyway, then so would the Governor General.

Just for fun, the line of succession in the House of Obama would be:

1. Any male child born, who would become HRH the Prince of Wales
2. HRH the Princess Malia (who doesn't qualify to become Princess of Wales because she has no penis)
3. HRH the Princess Sasha
4. HRH the Duchess of York (Maya Soetoro-Ng)
5. Any male child born to the Duchess and Lord Ng
6. HRH the Princess Suhaila of York
7. HRH the Princess Savita of York

That's assuming Obama inherited the crown from his Mom, Queen Ann. If it was on his father's side, it gets way more complicated and some of his brothers probably would have had to die for him to ascend the throne.

So the reason we don't elect the Prime Minister is because he or she isn't the leader of the country, they're only the leader of the largest parliamentary caucus. And the reason we don't elect the leader of the country is because Queen Obama isn't actually supposed to do anything; it's all been ceremonial for centuries. We do elect our own Members of Parliament. They're supposed to think for themselves (though they usually toe the party line) and it is they who are accountable directly to the electorate.

Simple?

 

[BostonPirate]

so to maintain a coalition gov't you have to play nice with others...

america needs a bit of this third party... I guess we have it. Joe lieberthug, caucuses with the dems, but if we could get enough third party people in there, then the big two would have to play nice or they would lose their majority.

hmm....

but back to canada... so the governors position fits into this where... he is not a PM... or is the canadian version of a PM a GG?

 

[bankside]

so to maintain a coalition gov't you have to play nice with others...

america needs a bit of this third party... I guess we have it. Joe lieberthug, caucuses with the dems, but if we could get enough third party people in there, then the big two would have to play nice or they would lose their majority.

hmm....

but back to canada... so the governors position fits into this where... he is not a PM... or is the canadian version of a PM a GG?

No, sorry I edited at some point:

Also, the Royal House of Obama wouldn't have to actually live in the United States. They could move somewhere else and appoint a Governor General to "run the country" while they're away. But, Queen Obama would only appoint someone approved of by Pelosi, and since Queen Obama would just do whatever Pelosi wanted anyway, then so would the Governor General.

We only have a governor general because the queen needs someone to stand in for her, since she doesn't actually bother to live in the country. The prime minister is still in charge of everything. The Queen and/or the GG just take care of the formalities. (Except on rare occasions.)