Canada doesn't have a real head of state. We have a foreigner as head of state, the Queen of Britain, and a governor-general who represents her in Canada.
Canada has, in other words, a faux head of state, a kind of papier-mâché institution that leaves other countries, to say nothing of Canadians, confused. The confusion explains in part the tempest-in-a-teapot controversy over Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson's $1-million trip to Iceland, Finland and Russia.
[. . . .]
You've got to jazz up a governor-general abroad, to make the bother worthwhile for the host country, and to make an impression for Canada. Hence the nature of Ms. Clarkson's trips: to expose other countries to talented Canadians, and to expose them to other countries.
[. . . .]
Of course, Ms. Clarkson's critics are after her personally as a so-called elitist. A certain, shrinking newspaper with a right-wing editorial position has made taking potshots at her and husband John Ralston Saul a substitute for journalism. The same people who slaver over the foreign Queen and think every penny Canada spends on her Canadian extravaganzas worth the coin go purple when the Governor-General spends $1-million overseas. Do they expect the British Queen to represent Canada when she travels overseas?
The $1-million tempest, however, is framed by something else distinctly Canadian: a fascination in the English-language media with the expenses of all those in high places. (The country's French-language media cares little.) [There is so much sluicing of government money to Quebec—as there has been for 40 years—that Quebec is not about to stop the Liberal fount. NJC]
[. . . .]
It's hard to explain where this deep-seated fascination comes from, since it does not exist elsewhere. Every day, the government spends hundreds of millions of dollars on policies that go without any scrutiny at all from MPs or the media. But send the Governor-General to countries that the Foreign Affairs Department wants her to visit, build a trip that might have an impact beyond her travelling alone, let that cost be $1-million out of the federal government's yearly budget of $185-billion, and watch the fur fly.
The reaction to Ms. Clarkson's trip is therefore part of a curious streak in the English-Canadian political culture that goes beyond the complaints of some critics who don't like her style, personality or previous politics.
The reaction also speaks to the strange papier-mâché nature of the governor-general as institution in a country that doesn't fully have its own head of state.
My Commentary: Note these comments:
***Canada doesn't have a real head of state. We have a foreigner as head of state, the Queen of Britain, and a governor-general who represents her in Canada. Canada has, in other words, a faux head of state, a kind of papier-mâché institution***
Next week, we'll get an article on how we need our own head of state--Perhaps Adrienne? Perhaps a Liberal king?--no, a a republic?
*** A certain, shrinking newspaper with a right-wing editorial position has made taking potshots at her and husband John Ralston Saul a substitute for journalism.***
Nasty comments, Jeffrey, about the only Canadian newspaper—my favourite, The National Post--that seems interested in bringing us news of the corruption and waste of our government--and now this profligacy of our GG! This is so ridiculous! It is Canadian taxpayers who pay the expenses of our faux monarch – and she has been profligate as Canadian taxpayers can see with any perusal of how GG expenses have risen since since she was appointed by her political buddy, JC. Jeffrey, apologist for Liberal/GG waste!
[. . . .]
Canada doesn't have a real head of state. We have a foreigner as head of state, the Queen of Britain, and a governor-general who represents her in Canada.
Canada has, in other words, a faux head of state, a kind of papier-mâché institution that leaves other countries, to say nothing of Canadians, confused. The confusion explains in part the tempest-in-a-teapot controversy over Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson's $1-million trip to Iceland, Finland and Russia.
[. . . .]
You've got to jazz up a governor-general abroad, to make the bother worthwhile for the host country, and to make an impression for Canada. Hence the nature of Ms. Clarkson's trips: to expose other countries to talented Canadians, and to expose them to other countries.
[. . . .]
Of course, Ms. Clarkson's critics are after her personally as a so-called elitist. A certain, shrinking newspaper with a right-wing editorial position has made taking potshots at her and husband John Ralston Saul a substitute for journalism. The same people who slaver over the foreign Queen and think every penny Canada spends on her Canadian extravaganzas worth the coin go purple when the Governor-General spends $1-million overseas. Do they expect the British Queen to represent Canada when she travels overseas?
The $1-million tempest, however, is framed by something else distinctly Canadian: a fascination in the English-language media with the expenses of all those in high places. (The country's French-language media cares little.) [There is so much sluicing of government money to Quebec—as there has been for 40 years—that Quebec is not about to stop the Liberal fount. NJC]
[. . . .]
It's hard to explain where this deep-seated fascination comes from, since it does not exist elsewhere. Every day, the government spends hundreds of millions of dollars on policies that go without any scrutiny at all from MPs or the media. But send the Governor-General to countries that the Foreign Affairs Department wants her to visit, build a trip that might have an impact beyond her travelling alone, let that cost be $1-million out of the federal government's yearly budget of $185-billion, and watch the fur fly.
The reaction to Ms. Clarkson's trip is therefore part of a curious streak in the English-Canadian political culture that goes beyond the complaints of some critics who don't like her style, personality or previous politics.
The reaction also speaks to the strange papier-mâché nature of the governor-general as institution in a country that doesn't fully have its own head of state.
My Commentary: Note these comments:
***Canada doesn't have a real head of state. We have a foreigner as head of state, the Queen of Britain, and a governor-general who represents her in Canada. Canada has, in other words, a faux head of state, a kind of papier-mâché institution***
Next week, we'll get an article on how we need our own head of state--Perhaps Adrienne? Perhaps a Liberal king?--no, a a republic?
*** A certain, shrinking newspaper with a right-wing editorial position has made taking potshots at her and husband John Ralston Saul a substitute for journalism.***
Nasty comments, Jeffrey, about the only Canadian newspaper—my favourite, The National Post--that seems interested in bringing us news of the corruption and waste of our government--and now this profligacy of our GG! This is so ridiculous! It is Canadian taxpayers who pay the expenses of our faux monarch – and she has been profligate as Canadian taxpayers can see with any perusal of how GG expenses have risen since since she was appointed by her political buddy, JC. Jeffrey, apologist for Liberal/GG waste!
