Posted by Edward W on June 11, 2009, 10:29 pm, in reply to "Rideau Hall"
24.83.2.191
The Interpretation Act states that Her Majesty, His Majesty, The Queen, The King, The Crown, or The Sovereign means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada, and her other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth.
Despite this, many constitutional scholars, both in Canada and in the United Kingdom (and in other Commonwealth realms), believe that the notion of the Crown goes beyond simply the Sovereign. These scholars believe that the Crown includes not only the Sovereign, but also the instrumentality of government, that is, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, as well as the Privy Council.
If Rideau Hall wishes to state that the Governor General represents the Crown, that's totally fine, as long as they use the definition of Crown layed out in the Interpretation Act. The Governor General cannot be the representative of the wider notion of the Crown, because the GG simply does not represent the PM, the Cabinet, or the Privy Council.
Madame Clarkson in an interview with the CBC after she left office declared that it is time that the Governor General, and not The Queen, be considered as "direct representative" of the Crown. I don't know which interpretation of the Crown she is using, for it appears that she equals the Crown with something like the office of the head of state of Canada?
Don't expect much from e-mailing Rideau Hall, I mean this is the same office that replied back in 2004 referring to Her Majesty as "The Queen of England".
Responses: