On the same day The Globe published stories (on the cover and a whole page inside) about Obama’s controversial Nobel Peace Prize, it also covered this seemingly inane piece of Canadian politics: the debate about the governor-general’s role. Shouldn’t we, as Canadians, have more important things to talk about than the drawn-out squabble between our leaders? There we have the U.S. president achieving (unwarranted?) international fame and over here we’re still trying to figure out what to do with a Prime Minister and a GG. The article talks about the many faces of the GG: Crown representative, de facto head of state and some would even suggest, plain ‘head of state’ (as former GGs have apparently referred to themselves). There are apparently enough monarchists in this country who would take offense at the GG calling herself ‘head of state’ because she would be ‘usurping’ the monarch’s title. Didn’t we do away with the monarchy a while ago? Why is this colonial relic still a hot topic? The second article on the links talks about this ‘constitutional grey area.’ I still remember last December’s drama in the Parliament, and I wonder what would have happened if indeed the GG refused the PM’s request to dissolve parliament. And it IS a request. If I’m not mistaken, the GG still has the right to call the shots. So I’d like to know, Canadian Politics 101, who are the GG and PM? And what do you think can Canadians do to resolve this ‘grey’ area? Call for an amendment in the Constitution? How can we go about that?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-hot-debate-about-head-of-state/article1319683/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment