[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: How to be governor-general (click to view)
Date: October 3, 2010
Former University of Waterloo president David Johnston was inaugurated as the 28th governor-general of Canada on Friday, in a predictably lavish ceremony. A fairly drab white guy, he now faces the uphill battle of trying to outshine his glamorous predecessor, the very stylish and popular Michaelle Jean.

Though not popular with everyone! Unlike most governor-generals, Governor-General Jean was forced into some political hot water in the winter of 2008, when Prime Minister Harper asked her to suspend the Parliament of Canada, out of fear that he would lose an imminent vote of no-confidence. Stephane Dion, the Liberal opposition leader of the time, in turn demanded that Jean ignore Harper's plea, and instead install him as prime minister, since Harper, in his mind, had clearly lost the moral authority to govern.

Jean ultimately sided with Harper, which was treated as a big deal in the Canadian press, even though it is an extraordinarily well-established precedent in Canada that the governor-general always agrees with anything the prime minister requests. As an unelected figurehead, that's just what Canadians have come to expect from the office, and I would argue rightly so.

According to a new biography of Harper, however, the Prime Minister was actually somewhat nervous during the '08 crisis that Jean would defy him. The book Harperland, by Lawrence Martin, claims that Harper was considering all sorts of contingency plans in the case of such insubordination, including firing Jean outright, and installing some other governor-general in her place.

This, of course, highlights the great paradox that defines the office of governor-general. My friend Lewis Holden, who heads the republican league of New Zealand, refers to it as the dilemma of "mutually assured dismissal." The theory goes something like this: the governor-general is supposed to hold the prime minister accountable, and fire him if he does some sort of crazy, dictatorial thing. However, the governor-general is also appointed single-handedly by the prime minister, and can be recalled by him as well. Therefore, any tension between the two offices will turn into a mad rush for both individuals to fire each other; or, in other words, a conflict of mutually assured dismissal. We don't know if this played any role in Governor-General Jean's decision to not fire Harper, but on some level, every governor-general must be aware that acting independently of the will of the PM threatens his or her own job security.

Hardcore monarchists will be quick to point out that, in formal constitutional theory, the PM does not actually appoint the GG, but merely "recommends" a candidate for the office to Her Majesty the Queen. The prospect of the Queen vetoing a GG pick, however, no matter how ill-timed or cynical the appointment, seems even less plausible than a governor-general vetoing a prime minister, and has even less precedent.

If we do desire to keep the office of governor-general for the near future, and if we would like to see the incumbent hold greater sovereignty from the office of the prime minister, then why not make the position elected in some form? In the editorials greeting Dr. Johnston's inauguration, many praised his sound scholarly mind and past legal experience as evidence of his supreme "qualifications" for the job. But qualifications are only useful if one has the mandate to exercise independent power. At present, the governor-general only has the mandate to obey the man who gave him the gig — in this case, Mr. Harper.

[FuManchu]

I feel I ought to quickly point out that, in formal constitutional theory, the Prime Minister does not actually appoint the Governor General; he merely recommends a candidate for the office to Her Majesty the Queen.

[Dragom]

I always thought that appointed representatives like the GG should just do their job to the best of their ability as some random guy and not worry about the popularity of Elected over Appointed.

[DrHobo]

Discussions of the Canadian Governor General always interest me, as I've come to see the position to be a bit of an antiquated holdover from an age where royalty still held real power.

As an American, my understanding of the office is as follows (much of which was gleamed from JJ's cartoons & editorials):
- Created to represent the sovereign of Great Britain in Canada's government, in the absence of said sovereign.
- Position is appointed by said sovereign, with recommendations made by the Prime Minister of Canada. Technically speaking, the sovereign may appoint whomever they choose.
- Is granted some very powerful abilities, similar to what the sovereign themselves might hold. This includes the ability to effectively call a halt to legislative and executive government activities, as well as dismiss certain members of government.

Please let me know if I'm wrong with anything there.

Where I find this topic so fascinating is in the transition to modern times where the sovereign of Great Britain has become loathe to utilize his/her abilities in any situations of a divisive nature. In effect, the British crown maintains the right to power as long as they do not use it. Due to this, an office or system created to serve the interests of the crown, such as the GG, becomes something other than intended in practice, as the only ones practicing power no longer represent the crown.

In the case of the GG, it certainly appears that in practice the Prime Minister has taken complete control of the office. The 'recommendations' made by the PM's of late are so routinely and automatically approved by the crown that the man on the street might assume that it is the PM's sole duty to appoint the position. The PM may also fire the GG (I assume through the appointment of a new GG). Its quite clear whom is currently holding whom's leash.

This whole situation leads to several different trains of thought, all interesting to me. Can the GG be used as a tool by the PM to obtain more powers than his position was designed for? Could the political opposition to the PM sneak in a 'sleeper GG' or something like that which could dismiss the PM and abuse their power for the oppositions benefit? Could an unscrupulous individual become GG, throw the unspoken rules to the wind and, perhaps with a willing PM partner, go seven shades of dictatorial on an unexpecting Canada (unlikely, but humorous and very cheesy-movie-ish)? Or my personal favorite: what sort of abuses of power by the GG, PM or combination thereof would be required before the crown would step in again and lay down the divinely mandated law?

I suppose though, above all, there is one question that I wonder about the most. Why, if the position has changed so dramatically as to practically become the puppet of another position, does Canada still have a Governor General?

[Kjorteo]

From what I understand, the GG is a representative of the Crown, and just like the Crown, has a bunch of powers on paper that will never be used in practice because society at large has so thoroughly outgrown the idea of the institution doing anything. Over in the UK, it is probably theoretically possible for the Queen to disband Parliament and start running the country with an iron fist like she was one of the actual potent royals from medieval times, but we all know that even though she could, she is never actually going to, because that would be stupid.

I find it hilarious to go over the new GG's qualifications, as though this were a particularly strenuous job that would require his expertise. The modern-day GG does what, exactly, signs stuff that Parliament passes, and does ceremonial stuff like giving medals and cutting ribbons, right? I'm pretty sure I could do that, but thank goodness you guys have someone with scholarly credentials and legal expertise and experience to do it... better... somehow.

Regardless of where most Canadians stand on the monarchy debate, I think things like the 2008 Parliament scare prove that they should at least get the issue figured out one way or the other once and for all, because this whole "well technically yes, but...." system with antiquated powers from a bygone era that are just completely ignored today clearly isn't doing anyone any good if it leads to alarm and turmoil like that. You can't treat the GG as an antiquated useless relic that's only still there because no one wants to be bothered to actually do anything about it, and then turn around and base political intrigue and maneuvering around the idea that the GG is a key important player. Either have a monarchy or don't, you guys.

[Dragom]

The power of the GG is limited to dismissing Parliament and calling for a new election.

One of those push button in the event of monstrously corrupt government powers, that is also handy for regular elections.

But because the outcome of the dismissal is always election... No one really knows whats going to happen.

[DrCaleb]

DrHobo wrote:

- Created to represent the sovereign of Great Britain in Canada's government, in the absence of said sovereign.

Please let me know if I'm wrong with anything there.

Just a slight nuance here. The "Queen of Canada" is the head of state the GG of Canada represents, not that of Great Britain. They might be the same physical person, but the "Queen of Great Britain" has no power in Canadian law. The tradition of pluralis maiestatis holds that Queen Elizabeth is also "Queen of Australia", and in her capacity as such holds no sway under British law.

She must be able to work as any of those sovereigns in exclusion to all others when acting as a particular head of state. Which is why she gets the big bucks. Oh, yea . . .

[bootlegga]

I don't see how electing the GG is worthwhile at all. He/she is the Queen's representative, not the people's, so it's appropriate that they are appointed if you ask me. Given that the GG (and the province's Lieutenant Governors) are just supposed to rubber stamp the government's decisions, what's the point of an elected GG? The only time it might make sense is in a minority government situation, but that's usually the exception, not the rule as it has been for the past five years.

What I'd like to see is an elected senate. After that, we can worry about electing the GG, judges, sheriffs and everything else like in the USA.

I didn't have a problem with either Clarkson or Jean (though Clarkson was the better of the two IMHO), and given that Jean fell in line with Harper, there was no reason for him to either. Frankly, having a woman (as well as minority) as GG raised its profile quite a bit higher than when it was the old white guys club, so I'm not so sure that Johnston is a step in the right direction or not. I guess time will tell.

[JJ]

Dragom wrote:

The power of the GG is limited to dismissing Parliament and calling for a new election.

One of those push button in the event of monstrously corrupt government powers, that is also handy for regular elections.

But because the outcome of the dismissal is always election... No one really knows whats going to happen.

Technically (ugh, so many discussions about the powers of the Crown begin with this word) the assent of the GG is required for hundreds and hundreds of government acts to become legally binding; everything from turning bills into law to the appointment of judges and generals. That being the case, a governor general could at any time, in theory throw a wrench into the operation of any number of government functions simply by refusing to assent, or outright vetoing some decision he was expected to approve.

What you are describing, Dragom, are the only powers the political scientists consider appropriate for a governor general to use in some circumstances (although along with dissolving parliament and calling an election, firing a prime minister mid-term or appointing a new one is also generally considered within their mandate, in an emergency).

Kjorteo wrote:

I find it hilarious to go over the new GG's qualifications, as though this were a particularly strenuous job that would require his expertise. The modern-day GG does what, exactly, signs stuff that Parliament passes, and does ceremonial stuff like giving medals and cutting ribbons, right? I'm pretty sure I could do that, but thank goodness you guys have someone with scholarly credentials and legal expertise and experience to do it... better... somehow.

I find this amusing too, but it's taken bizarrely seriously in the Canadian press and Canadian academia.

Since 1926, the governor general of Canada has only once acted in defiance of the prime minister. Every single other time he or she has done what the prime minister asked. But people have still written long articles, and indeed, entire books, about the "relationship" between this-or-that PM and this-or-that governor general. And the analysis is never any deeper than:

"The Governor General thought long and hard about the decision before him. It was clear there were many important factors at play. But then he ultimately decided to go with what the prime minister wanted, as that was the precedent."

It's also worth noting that along with being the puppet of the PM, the modern governor general is also very much the puppet of a highly conservative and risk-adverse staff of professional advisors, who very much caution the incumbent against any sort of bold actions. So really, with all these forces at play, why not just appoint some pretty CBC starlet to the job, rather than some dumpy law professor? The practical result will be identical, but at least one will look better in a dress.

[Kjorteo]

JJ wrote:

It's also worth noting that along with being the puppet of the PM, the modern governor general is also very much the puppet of a highly conservative and risk-adverse staff of professional advisors, who very much caution the incumbent against any sort of bold actions. So really, with all these forces at play, why not just appoint some pretty CBC starlet to the job, rather than some dumpy law professor? The practical result will be identical, but at least one will look better in a dress.

Because the pretty CBC starlet might be less risk-adverse? (Jean ultimately wasn't, but Harper was allegedly worried for a second there in 2008, and we can't have that.)

[Khar]

Keeping in mind, of course, that while some people may scoff at the idea of qualifications for the position, the person is representing Canada to the international community, gets media attention easily and can make use of their position besides dissolving parliament (and other constitutional powers) as a result. Keep in mind that Jean managed to wander into political entanglement fairly frequently, but also used her position and the respect it brought to bring key issues to light, especially her fight for feminism on an international scale. For a woman who didn't have much "real" power, she did manage to have some sway and get herself into some fairly hot water.

While sure, we could put a hockey player or something up, the role, and ideal of what it once was, it's position in Canada and the ceremonial duties do prescribe the need for someone with a little more "unf" than your average Canadian. I would rather have someone of fairly good standing representing Canada to England, as well as various other nations, than otherwise. I would rather someone who has contributed a lot to Canada got a position of high ceremonial standing. Plus, I suppose for those instances where "acceptable" use of their powers must be exercised, someone like Johnston would make people feel more secure -- since he has a legal background, and has shown that he's well respected in that regard. When people look at a newspaper and go "the Governor General has to do something," public perception is likely better served by someone who looks to be massively experienced rather than someone who looks to be present purely for figure head purposes. Let's face it, in the event there's an emergency which actually requires a GG to act, like JJ mentioned, I have a feeling people would be more receptive to Johnston than to Jean, but that's my guess. The coalition brought up a number of potential questions which would be broached to the GG, and who would you prefer answer and decide part of the future of the nation? The non-partisan (considered to be) academic dean of law turned president or the politically troubled linguistics/writing major turned journalist (who some thought was there for her looks)?

When people point out that the new GG is a well respected academic, with tons of experience in positions of academic importance and frequent forays into political moderation, it's to point out that we're getting someone who will understand his spot, use what "celebrity," constitutional and ceremonial powers he gets to the best of his ability, and put on a good face for Canada. Unlike Jean, Johnston is unlikely to get himself into political problems, commit embarrassing gaffs, and the like because his education and past work experience indicates a predilection towards more knowledge of how to avoid those problems. Plus, some people just like the idea of the representative of Canada's HoS being a well respected Canadian academic and the meanings it brings to those people. Some also believe that the person must be inspirational to Canadians in some form, and embody a direction of success or commitment to certain goals. Anyone can cut that ribbon, but they'd prefer it'd be someone of significance.

In any case, kinda wanted to go Devil's Advocate a bit in this thread and get a different opinion out there, not saying what I wrote above is my opinion verbatim (or at all, sorry, I'm gunshy with my views). I see a lot of mentions of his experience, but I honestly rarely hear anyone say it matters -- in fact, I hear a lot more people laughing about people who think it matters than ever actually hearing it does. I'm not saying Jean was good or bad specifically, one cannot deny she had some unique experiences and enjoyed a variety of public opinion flung in her direction.