Talk:List of Governors General of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.
List	This article is a List.
	This list is part of the Government of Canada WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Government of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Please use more caution when making wholesale changes. The term "Governor General" does not contain a hyphen. Please see the official site for the Governor General of Canada to confirm this. - Cafemusique 21:34 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

According to the articles, the second table contains a mix of Governors General of Upper and Lower Canada. Could these please be sorted out? - Montréalais 05:31, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The best I could make of that is that some of them were simultaneously governors of Upper or Lower Canada while they were also governor of Canada. I'll see if I can find some more info about that. Adam Bishop 12:52, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There are lists that don't quite match Wikipedia in Jacques Monet. The Canadian Crown. Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1979. P. 85, 86.

Frustratingly, it doesn't say what their precise titles were: governor, governor general or lieutenant governor. I have arranged the lists into a table for easier comparison:

Governors of Canada 1760 to 1841

Canada		Lower		Upper
Name	Term	Name	Term	Name	Term
Jeffrey Amherst	1760-1763	—	1760-1766	—	1760-1792
James Murray	1764-1768
		Sir Guy Carleton	1766-1768
Sir Guy Carleton, Lord Dorchester	1768-1778	—	1768-1770
		H. Theophilus Cramahé	1770-1774
		—	1774-1784
Frederick Haldimand	1778-1786
		Henry Hamilton	1784-1785
		Henry Hope	1785-1786
Sir Guy Carleton, Lord Dorchester	1786-1796	—	1786-1791
		Alured Clarke	1791-1793
				Col. John Graves Simcoe	1792-1796
		—	1793-1796
Robert Prescott	1796-1807	Robert Prescott	1796-1797	—	1796-1799
		—	1797-1799
		Sir Robert Shore Milnes	1799-1805	Peter Hunter	1799-1805
		—	1805-1808
				Francis Gore	1806-1817
Sir James Craig	1807-1811
		Sir Francis Burton	1808-1832
Sir George Prevost	1812-1815
Sir John Sherbrooke	1816-1818
The Duke of Richmond	1818-1819			Sir Perigrine Maitland	1818-1828
The Earl of Dalhousie	1820-1828
—	1828-1830			Sir John Colborne	1828-1836
Lord Aylmer	1830-1835
		—	1832-1867
The Earl of Gosford	1835-1838
				Sir Francis Bond Head	1836-1838
The Earl of Durham	1838			Sir George Arthur	1838-1841
Sir John Colborne	1838-1839
Lord Sydenham	1839-1841

Indefatigable 18:49, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wow...well that's probably more accurate than the websites I gleaned info from (and which I gathered together mostly through educated guesses, I must say). I haven't had a chance to look for any printed sources myself, yet. Adam Bishop 20:55, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Actually, I'm a little chary about including anyone in this list who did not have the title Governor General of Canada. I would prefer that the governors of New France, for example, be at List of Governors of New France, with appropriate links. Discussion? - Montréalais 04:53, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I suppose so...I think the government considers them all to be a continuous line (they are shown as such in Rideau Hall, I believe), but there is a Governor of New France page that redirects here, so they could be moved there. Adam Bishop 04:58, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I took off the redirect and put the list on Governor of New France and made a little stub. It is really confusing for someone reading about New France to end up on a page about the Governors General of Canada even if there is some claim to historical continuity. I doubt if anyone would agree that the Governors of New France were Governors General of the British Crown. N'est pas? — Alex756 |talk 23:57, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense :) Adam Bishop 23:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

"The Viscount Monck" --- I thought that noble titles only have the article when they are of the form "The (peer) of (place)," not when they're "(peer) (surname)." That's the form the GG's website uses: "The Earl of Minto" is followed by "Earl Grey". Please advise. - Montréalais 04:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's correct usage for the descriptive title of a peer (i.e. the form that shows his exact rank in the peerage) to be preceded by the definite article. Forms like "Earl Grey" and "Earl Spencer" are incorrect, though common in informal usage. The proper way to mention the Earl Grey without using "the" is to call him "Lord Grey", just as the Earl of Minto is "Lord Minto". (This doesn't apply to Dukes, of course, since they can never be called "Lord Title", but they always have "of" in their title anyway so the problem never arises.) Proteus (Talk) 13:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. I obviously haven't explained it very well. The formal style of writing a peer's name always includes "The" at the beginning: "The Duke of Norfolk", "The Marquess of Winchester", "The Earl Mountbatten of Burma", "The Viscount Stansgate", "The Lord Falconer of Thoroton". The informal way leaves it off and prefixes the title with "Lord" for all ranks except dukes, who stay the same: "The Duke of Norfolk", "Lord Winchester", "Lord Mountbatten of Burma", "Lord Stansgate", "Lord Falconer of Thoroton". So when full titles are used, barons (like Lisgar, Byng of Vimy and Tweedsmuir) are indeed "The Lord Title". Lord Lorne's situation is more complicated, in that he was a courtesy peer (i.e. he was the eldest son of an actual peer using his father's next-highest title by courtesy). It's Wikipedia policy (and a policy I disagree with, but that's neither here nor there) to leave out "The" for courtesy peers, even when they are "Rank of Place". Proteus (Talk) 18:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Was Lord Durham (and, for that matter, Lord Sydenham) "Governor General of Upper and Lower Canada", or "Governor General of British North America", or "Governor General of the Province of Canada", or what? The Act of Union was in 1840, so it's not the third option. The second option seems a bit odd, considering that "British North America" consisted of "Canada" - "Upper Canada" and "Lower Canada" until 1840. The first seems the most accurate, but that's a handful for a succession box. Opinions? – ugen64 01:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Good question! I have yet to see an authoritative reference to what the exact titles were during that era, and in fact even the list of governors and dates are inconsistent from one reference to another. If anybody has all the details, please let us know. As to "British North America", wouldn't it have included the four Atlantic provinces? Indefatigable 00:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lieutenant Governor of New France?

The introductory section seems to imply that there were Lieutenant Governors of New France before there were Governors General of New France. Is this true? QuartierLatin1968 00:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see now it was a typo for Lieutenant General of New France. QuartierLatin1968 19:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Ministers

It's worth noting the Prime Ministers of Canada who actually hand-picked the recent Governors General of Canada, so I added a column of them to the "Canadian" chart. The Prime Minister chooses the Governor General and the Queen formally appoints them. Gavin wants to use the term "advised by Prime Minister" instead of "chosen by Prime Minister" but I think that's misleading, as it creates the illusion that the PM simply counseled the Queen in some vague way, rather than explicitly telling her who to appoint. There's a difference between appointing and choosing, and it's not unconstitutional for the PM to choose the GG. That's why it happens in reality. J.J. 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that constitutionally the Queen governs the country. The Prime Minister is merely the most important of her ministers, who all advise her in her governance. Thus, whether or not the PM only chooses one name to offer the Queen as a recommendation, the Queen is not forced to accept his "choice." She can, if need be, reject it. Therefore, the Queen is still following the advice of her PM, not being told to do something, as though the PM were her superior.

Further, Senator Eugene Forsey, a constitutional expert, stated: "The Governor General, who is now always a Canadian, is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister." Note: "on the advice of," not "as told to do by..." --gbambino 18:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the difference between a useful legal fiction and the way it happens in real life. What about "chosen on the advice of [PM]" as compromise language? By the way, do we know how long the Prime Minister has had the effective choice? Surely 'counselling' must have shaded into 'telling' gradually. QuartierLatin1968 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how it most often happens, the legal reality is that the Sovereign maintains the right to disregard the Prime Minister's reccomendation. That right is an important part of the constitutional structure. "Chosen on the advice of" says the same thing using different words.

Further, why does only one chart have a list of the Prime Ministers who advised the Monarch? Who recommended the names for Governor General before 1952? --gbambino 16:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You're the monarchist, you figure it out.

As far as your earlier comments go, I would just like to quote you Her Majesty's own words on the matter, as quoted by the deeply monarchist former Prime Minister of Australia, The Right Honorable Sir Robert Gordon Menzies:

I agree that the legal reality is the Queen appoints the GG. But one can very, very easily appoint an individual chosen by someone else. You want to basically pretend the PM has no role whatsoever in the process, and if you had your way I have absolutely no doubt there would be no column of Prime Ministers at all. With all due respect, I think contributors like you are what is wrong with Wikipedia. You have systematically inserted countless examples of purposefully distorting and misleading language simply to serve the interests of your own organization and its agenda. If you want to make the Canadian Monarchist Encyclopedia and fill it with your own fairy tales and half-truths that's your business, but to keep adding this sort of nonsense to what is supposed to be a factual, academic resource material is doing a profound disservice to Wikipeida's quest for integrity.

J.J. 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! I remember that quote coming our during the Republic debate in Australia in 1999. I would add that Menzies very much represented the stolid post-war conservatism of Australia... and wait for it, Gavin will say that that quote only relates to "Australia", not Canada. Could the Queen be wrong? --Lholden 05:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you two make such a cute couple!

Anyway, John (seeing as we're all on a first name basis here), your quote is charming, but irrelevant. Not because it only applies to Australia, but because it is a quip, apparently said somewhat in jest (after all, what other relevance does the "twinkle in her eye" part have?), taken out of context, and which has nothing to do with legal realities. The Queen can refuse the advice of the PM if it is so necessary - that's an important part of the constitutional structure. It also doesn't address the fact that prior to 1967 the Prime Minister of Canada forwarded more than one name to the Queen.

Don't think you're the first republican to come in here ranting and raving about people pushing an agenda - I, and others, have been through it all before. If you want to see examples of distorted language, POV, misinterpretation, original research, and even flat out lies, being inserted into Wikipedia, look through some older edits by some of your fellow republicans to various articles. Though, you're doing not a bad job, so far, of maintaining the same level of distortion and hypocrisy. I mean, the PM appoints the Governor General? Can you actually provide a credible source that contradicts the Constitution of Canada?

See, there's the kicker - the republican bluster of bias and a monarchist agenda always dies out when the factual evidence is presented, and shows their edits for what they are - dripping with personal, republican POV.

But hey, no hard feelings, and happy editing! --gbambino 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Gavin.

Honestly here, do you think it's a coincidence that when Liberals are in power Liberals are appointed to these various Vice Regal positions, and when Conservatives are in power the same happens for them? Iona Campagnolo for example became Lieutenant Governor of BC during Prime Minister Chretien's tenure. She was a former president of the Liberal Party of Canada and a former Liberal MP. Romeo LeBlanc was likewise appointed Governor General during Chretien's term, and he served in two Trudeau Cabinets, as well as being a long standing pundit and backroom strategist for the party. Ray Hnatyshyn was Energy Minister under Prime Minister Clark and Justice Minister under Prime Minister Mulroney and, coincidentally enough, became Governor General while Mulroney was PM. Are these all coincidences? Was Her Majesty perhaps just trying to pair up the Governor Generals with people who the PM liked? Obviously not. The Prime Minister of Canada appoints the Governor General of Canada as well as the Provincial Lieutanant Governors, aswell as every single Senator and every single member of his Cabinet. The Queen rubber stamps it.

For you to somehow claim that when facts are presented the republican argument crumbles is a bloody joke. We are presenting facts right here, the reality on the ground, and you're putting earplugs in and locking yourself in an ivory tower. As much as the US Constitution might claim that blacks are only 3/5th of a total person that's simply not true. The same principle of antiquety rings true here, Gavin. The Prime Minister of Canada is the supreme authority in this land, and every Vice Regal appointment is subject to his or her whim. While the Queen can theoretically block appointments, and I assume has in the past, this Queen hasn't because it simply doesn't mesh with 21st century democracy. For her to do so would just give ammo to the republican side. Face facts here man, the Queen does little more than rubber stamp these appointements and as much as you and your friends might like to think she exercises any sort of power she doesn't. Period. --SFont 07:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"I mean, the PM appoints the Governor General? Can you actually provide a credible source that contradicts the Constitution of Canada?"

Um, hello Gavin, when did I say that? Did you even read what I said, and what word I italicized? You are uncomfortable even admitting that the PM chooses the Governor General. That to me is a much more profound statement of ignorance. Well maybe not ignorance, because I know you know it's the truth. Weird warped fairy tale denial is more like it. J.J. 07:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are forgetting this edit? --gbambino 14:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I admit "chosen" is a more accurate word. But even then, I'd say it's still more accurate to describe a Governor General being "appointed by" the Prime Minister than to ignore the role of the Prime Minister in making the selection altogether. J.J. 16:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Gavin, your claim that Her Majesty's quote only applies to Australia is simply wrong; moreover your claim shows that you don't want to accept that the appointment of the Governor-General in other Commonwealth Realms could possibly be the same as in other Commonwealth Realms. Furthermore, your claims about republican POV is a nonsense, given that it is your desire to ensure that the mention of the part about the role of a Prime Minister in the appointment of the Governor-General is not stated.

As for your question "Can you actually provide a credible source that contradicts the Constitution of Canada?" I can indeed: Deirdre McKeown, a researcher for the Australian Parliament, said following the resignation of Governor-General Dr Peter Hollingworth in May 2003:

"Since 1930 the Prime Minister has, in effect, selected the Governor-General. Although there are no barriers to the Prime Minister seeking advice he/she is under no obligation to consult Cabinet, the Opposition or the Parliament on the appointment.

However, the Australian Constitution (section 2) states that:

"A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth".

Oh dear, we republicans must be *wrong* then. Or perhaps not, given the fact that Since 1930 the Aussie PM was the one submitting names to the Sovereign, therefore they had the sole right to tell HMQ who to appoint. Thus, the Governor-General is appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister. The fact that a list was submitted means nothing; it only shows that the office was an English gentry country-club extension; the list probably had to do with the fact that - as was the case in Australia and New Zealand - the Governorship was used as a way to 'retire' members of the British Old Boys' Club and they had to find who was availiabe. In any case, the case post 1967 in Canada tends to show that the advice of the Prime Minister carries somewhat more weight than simply a 'recommendation'; moreover by constitutional convention, the Queen can only refuse the advice of a Prime Minister if the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of their Parliament. If you want to dispute that, you obviously havn't read anything about the British Constitution. Oh yeah, conventions matter more than legal fictions. --Lholden 00:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"...your claim that Her Majesty's quote only applies to Australia..." That is not what I said.

"...it is your desire to ensure that the mention of the part about the role of a Prime Minister in the appointment of the Governor-General is not stated." Again, that is not what I stated. I have no objection to the mention of the role of the Prime Minsiter, as long as it is factually accurate, which saying he appoints the Governor General is not.

"Since 1930 the Prime Minister has, in effect, selected the Governor-General." That was never denied. However, this does not contradict the Canadian Consitution. --gbambino 00:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This argument is really tiresome. It's just a list! Obviously we should explain both aspects of the issue; which one is constitutionally correct and which one is actual practise is hardly in dispute. Adam Bishop 01:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is; however there is an important difference between the legal fiction of whether the Queen can reject the advice of her Prime Minister and the actual constitutional convention... in any case, the constitutionally correct position is that the appointment of the Governor-General is made by the Queen soley on the advice of the Prime Minister; it is advice that due to constitutional convention is binding on Her Majesty; if not for constitutional convention then for constitutional reality. --Lholden 02:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there's room for debate (dare I say hair-splitting?) here... But are Wikipedia discussion pages the best place to do it? As far as I can tell, nobody's voiced any objection to the phrase "chosen on the advice of [PM]", so what are you all arguing about? QuartierLatin1968 02:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (PS: I'll be happy to see yez in the bloggosphere!)

I think using the word "advice" is quite misleading, as it implies subjectivity and free-will on the Queen's part, when there is none in practice. "Upon the advice of the Prime Minister" evokes a situation like:

Queen: Hmm, who should I appoint as Governor General...

PM: How about Michaelle Jean? She seems pretty cool.

Queen: An interesting idea. I will research her and see if she would be a good candidate.

(Hours later)

Queen: She sounds like a very cool woman indeed, what a good suggestion Mr. Prime Minister, I am glad I took your advice!

Where as in reality it is like:

PM: Appoint Michaelle Jean.

Queen: Okay.

J.J. 05:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're privy to the discussions between the Queen and her Prime Minister, that is, of course, merely your opinion. --gbambino 21:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

One would assume that if such intense dialogues actually took place, we would a) see historical records of such episodes, in Prime Ministerial memoirs and other primary sources, and b) see evidence of the Queen's influence over who does and does not become Governor General, as a result of her active involvement in the appointment process.

Someone who follows another person's "advice" 100% of the time is a person without free will. When do we cross the line from "advice" to an "order"? J.J. 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

One can assume all sorts of things, and stating the dialogues were intense is just another assumption. Conversations between the Queen and all of her Prime Ministers has always been kept confidential. Occasionally a comment or two will emerge in the memoirs of an indiscreet ex-PM, but there's no way of knowing whether HM does follow the advice of her PMs 100% of the time or not, or how much sway she has in the lead up to a decision. Some coincidences caused suspicion that she had a part in the stepping down, and eventual dismissal, of Australian Governor General Peter Hollingworth, but no documented evidence exists.

But, any speculation is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that, whether the Queen has ever exercised her Royal Prerogative under her free will, or involved herself in discussions, or not, she retains the ability to reject a PM's reccommendation on any matter. As long as she has that ability, the PM will always be her advisor, not her commander.

Anyway, QuartierLatin is right - there's no further objection to the wording of the article now, so why does this discussion persist? --gbambino 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The article needs to note that, by "On the advice of x PM" actually means that the advice is basically nothing less than a formality; the advice is really "Appoint person X". This debate is really about the extent of the Royal Prerogative; or whether the Queen has the right to reject the advice of her Prime Minister. In the instances where a Prime Minister advises the Queen, the Royal Prerogative is a nullity. The Monarch doesn't have any prerogative to reject the advice of Her Prime Ministers, unless, as I said above, they do not enjoy the support of Parliament. That is the iron hard rule in the Westminster system; anything less denies the outcome of the Glorious revolution and the Act of Settlement 1701. The Royal Prerogative is now restricted to the Royal Prerogative of Mercy and the "reserve powers" which are only qualified to extreme instances, usually where a PM looses the confidence of the House. Of course, the Royal Prerogative is unwritten and governed by convention; but I am yet to read any constitutional lawyer willing to abandon the clarity of constitutional conventions for some speculation that in the age of democracy some sort of arcane feudal Royal Prerogative on appointments still exists. It simply doesn't.

Thus, the Queen's understanding of the constitutional rule, as exposed in the Sir Robert Menzies quote, (and of course by the Sir Alec Douglas-Home appointment) is correct. Gavin will probably tell us that because the Queen had a 'twinkle' in her eye, (and probably had her fingers crossed behind her back) the Queen didn't mean it. That's not relevant; HM's observation of the constitutional convention is correct. She does not have the prerogative to reject the advice of Her Prime Minister. Parliament disposed of that power over three hundred years ago. To claim otherwise is to serve monarchist arguments that somehow the Monarch is a constitutional bulwark, when they are not.

So, I propose that the constitutional convention on appointments be mentioned: Something like "The Queen is bound by convention to implement the advice of her Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen is thus binding so long as the Prime Minister enjoys the support of the House of Representatives"

--Lholden 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That information, correctly worded, would go in Governor General of Canada, not a list of Governors General. --gbambino 01:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this is really not the place for that. In fact, we don't even need "appointed by" and "chosen on advice of" here; it is sufficient to simply note who the monarch and PM were, so I have removed that wording. Adam Bishop 01:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)