Do We Need A Governor General?

Perhaps the governor general has a role separate and apart from the ceremony of Rideau Hall.

Do we really need a Governor General, or is the office an unnecessary holdover from our British colonial past? This question gets re-asked and re-answered whenever the time arrives to appoint the Queen’s local representative in Canada. Given our current national addiction to minority governments and the recent prorogation crisis, however, the inquiry has taken on a new urgency.

Before we answer, a quick constitutional history lesson is in order. The powers of both the Queen of Canada (yes, she is our queen too, although she’s often referred to as the Queen of the United Kingdom) and the Governor General look sweeping to the uninitiated observer of Canada’s founding documents. The Canadian Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British North America Act) talks a lot about the power of the executive, though it’s silent on the key office of contemporary Canadian politics: that of the prime minister.

The Governor General has the power to appoint senators, judges, the Speaker of the Senate, and provincial lieutenant governors, must give royal assent to all legislation in order to make it effective and recommend money bills to the House of Commons, and is the commander-in-chief of the Canadian Forces. Most critically, the GG has the power to summon and dissolve parliament.

However, even early on, it was assumed that the GG would act with the advice of cabinet and in particular at the request of the prime minister. An additional document, the Letters Patent, grants the Governor General all the powers of the monarchy in Canada, and the GG additionally has residual, or “leftover,” authority in prerogative powers that, if not formally restricted by parliament, appear pretty impressive.

The reality is quite different. Even back in the 1860s and 1870s it was understood that the actual job involved doing what the “governor-in-council” wanted – meaning in practice, both then and now, that the PM and the Cabinet get to call the shots regarding most of the powers ostensibly accrued to the GG. Moreover, because not all the rules and practices of government are expressly defined, convention and custom are equally important. It would be downright unconstitutional for a GG to refuse royal assent to a law or to refuse to appoint a prime minister.

Nonetheless, there is some wiggle room, as Canadians found out in the big “will-she-or-won’t-she” moment when Stephen Harper asked Michaëlle Jean to prorogue parliament. The situation even threatened to repeat the famous King-Byng crisis of 1926, when then GG Lord Byng refused to accede to then PM Mackenzie King’s request to dissolve parliament. Byng saw in King’s request a rather unsavoury effort to get around a motion of censure and the GG was mindful of the fact that there had been an election just eight months earlier.

The extent to which Byng’s decision either tainted the GG’s office with politics or proved the necessity of the GG as a “constitutional fire extinguisher” is still debated today. But that was in the 1920s, and in the hyper-democratic reality of the 21st century, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which any GG would override the popular will. And make no mistake, popular will is interpreted as Canada’s elected rather than appointed office holders, whether the government is a minority or a majority.

Such an interpretation risks characterizing the GG as no more nor less than a political toady dressed up in ceremonial garb, which would also be unfair. Symbolism has its place in every polity, and Canada is no exception. Not only does the GG routinely perform all the usual functions such as reading the speech from the throne and entertaining dignitaries, but he or she is increasingly expected to personify what Canada is to the rest of the world. Put simply, the GG is the face on the brand. And in this crucial task our last two GGs have done exceedingly well. Both Adrienne Clarkson and Michaëlle Jean have provided exemplary moral leadership, especially regarding issues that transcend the narrow partisanship of “normal” politics. Their backgrounds, their public stature, and the causes they have championed – from climate change in Canada’s Arctic to domestic violence against women – illustrate a full palette indeed.

In particular, our departing vicereine has a biography that says much about what it means to be Canadian today: she is multilingual, from a family that fled to the safety of Canada to escape an authoritarian regime, committed to social justice, an adoptive parent, and in a relationship with Quebec filmmaker Jean-Daniel Lafond that personifies her own chosen motto: briser les solitudes, breaking down solitudes. Even the early controversy over her dual citizenship with France spoke volumes about the cultivation and lived experience of flexible and chosen identities, which don’t have to be construed as contradictory, but rather are complementary.

Jean’s meteoric rise to Canada’s highest office says something about us as a state and a people, something increasingly important in a global community that has all too often been torn apart by conflict based on race and ethnicity. Literally tens of thousands greeted her during her 2006 state visit to five African states, and former South African president Thabo Mbeki overtly stated what was obvious to onlookers: that Canada’s decision to appoint Jean set an example for European countries as to how African immigrants could expect to be treated.

This is perhaps the newest role of the GG – one separate and apart from the ceremony of Rideau Hall. Canada’s GG can and should represent to the world and reflect back to Canadians our many faces, identities, and achievements. What we are and what we most want to be. Our own Canadian dream.

Check out The Mark contributors' suggestions for who should get the keys to Rideau Hall.