Posted by Ian McKechnie on November 5, 2009, 11:05 am, in reply to "Op-ed from The Star regarding the monarchy"
38.117.68.220
"Admittedly, much of this advantage of the monarchical system is lost in Canada when prime ministers recommend partisan colleagues to be appointed governor general and represent her here."
I have always found this practice to be rather distasteful, so I propose this:
Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir. John Macdonald, eloquently described the Canadian system as such:
“By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle—the sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized so that we shall have a sovereign who is placed above the region of party—to whom all parties look up; who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another; who is the common head and sovereign of all.”
In agreement with Macdonald, I understand the Canadian monarchy to signify the reality of Canada’s apolitical aspirations. The Sovereign is much more than a figure; he or she is a living constitutional necessity. Employing this interpretation then, I find it particularly unfortunate that the Sovereign has been reduced to a mere instrument employed in the appointment of a Governor General. Frank MacKinnon, one of Canada’s foremost constitutional scholars, noted that the theory of the Sovereign acting as a “rubber stamp” conveys a false idea of reality. In keeping with this idea, I propose that the Sovereign, upon the advice of his or her Canadian ministers, be permitted absolute discretion in the appointment of a Governor General. The current practice involves the Prime Minister selecting but one name and then proceeding to request the Sovereign’s approval. Though straightforward as a convention, the practice is rather odd. If the Governor General is going to be the Queen of Canada’s personal representative, should not the former be permitted some participation? I understand the current practice to be rather foul; indeed, many Canadians see the Governor General as being nothing more than a patronage appointment. Such appointments are common in other jurisdictions of the federal government; particularly in the Senate, and are more often than not frowned upon by the electorate.
If the Sovereign has ultimate discretion, I believe Canadians would be more than likely to see the Viceroy as being a representative of not only the Sovereign, but also of the Canadian citizenry as a whole. A Governor General nominated by a partisan Prime Minister is nothing more than just that, a nomination. The Sovereign’s approval is required for obvious legal purposes, but I think if the appointment process is to have any substance, the appointment must, in the fullest sense of the word, be that of the Sovereign’s. The Governor General serves, after all, at the Queen’s pleasure, not at the behest of the Prime Minister. Where then does the process of nomination fit? The Prime Minister of Canada, as the Sovereign’s foremost advisor, ought to remain a conduit of advice. However, this practice need not involve the rigidity of what is currently acceptable. The Prime Minister ought to select a variety of nominees; each bearing characteristics definitive of an acceptable Governor General. He should not, however, carry out such a significant task alone. It is imperative that the wisdom of such figures as the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and constitutional scholars be sought out.
Having selected an appropriate series of names, the Prime Minister should then formally request the Sovereign to appoint, at his or her discretion and under the royal seal and sign manual, the Governor General. In this manner, then, the Governor General becomes more than the nominee of a temporary first minister. He or she becomes a true Viceroy; one especially selected and distinguishably appointed as the Canadian representative of the Monarch. The Prime Minister remains, as is normal, the means of communication between the Canadian government and the Canadian Monarch. The Sovereign, however, is spared the reductionism exemplified by the rubber stamp theory so prevalent in modern constitutional monarchies.
Indeed, it has been pointed out that the Crown represents the Canadian people as citizens, as opposed to elected parliamentarians who represent the people as voters. It would not be unreasonable, I think, for the partisanship found in the selection process to be replaced with the discretion of an impartial monarch. As Sovereign of all Canadians and not merely a faction of the electorate, it is only appropriate that the Queen be permitted actual power of appointment as opposed to purely perfunctory appointment as is the current practice. Although officially appointed by the Sovereign, the Canadian Viceroy will continue to be seen as an individual appointed by a highly partisan government so long as the appointment process remains an exclusive chore for the Prime Minister of Canada. It is high time the Governor General authentically represented the Queen rather than representing the wishes of a partisan Prime Minister.
This is not likely to be taken seriously, but I can dream, can't I? 
Responses: