Reevaluating the Canadian Governor General's Appointment Process

1012 Words3 Pages

As it stands, the Governor General is chosen by the Prime Minister, to be appointed by the Queen, where as before the Governor General was chosen by a council of Canadian citizens. The Governor General cannot remain impartial in a system where they are chosen by a prime minister: “The Governor General is appointed by The Queen upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister” (Monarch And Commonwealth, n.d, para 6). The Governor General's duty is to ensure that Canada always has a prime minister and acts as a fail safe in the case that the prime minister loses the support of parliament. The continued procedure of appointment in this way may corrupt the role. The would-be-Governor General may act in way to enforce a prime minister's wishes rather …show more content…

Despite this, in Canada the true purpose the Governor General serves is to make sure Canada always has a prime minister. While the Governor General does not typically interfere with Canadian parliament, it is well within their power. Canada does not need a non-intrusive monarch figure, it does however need a Governor General but only for the purpose it serves not the purpose it could theoretically serve. For this reason the Governor General's power should be limited to that which allows them to provide Canada with a prime minister:
In representing the Sovereign in Canada, the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors have duties that cover a broad range of responsibility; among them are: the summoning and dissolution of Parliament / Legislature, the swearing in of the Ministry, the reading of the Speech from the Throne, the granting of Royal Assent and the use of reserve powers (Monarch And Commonwealth, n.d, para 2).
To avoid the corruption of this role, the Governor General powers should be limited to that which aids the fulfillment of their duty to ensure that Canada has a Prime Minister. Even though their power is theoretical and rarely exercised, the Governor General holds to much power for an unelected member of parliament:
Laws do not get …show more content…

This allowed him to continue to act as Prime Minister. After a series of scandals, King lost the progressive party’s support. Because the Prime Minister was worried the would lose his position in a vote of non-confidence he asked Julian Byng to call an election so that he would have a chance at remaining the Prime Minister . The Governor General refused, instead giving the position of Prime Minister to Arthur Meighen, the Conservative leader that had won the election. King says that the actions of Julian Byng were undemocratic and uses the situation to gain the support of the voters in the 1926 election: “King took advantage of the situation to argue that he, the elected Prime Minister of Canada, had been overruled by the representative of the Crown. Britain was interfering in the affairs of a country”(King-Byng, n.d, para 4). If a situation like this were to happen again, it would end differently. If Canada had another prime minister that desperately grasped at power despite the fact that he didn't actually have a seat in parliament or the support of parliament but this time had the full support of the Governor General, they could be in power for a very long

More about Reevaluating the Canadian Governor General's Appointment Process

Open Document