OGGO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 25, 2004

0905

The Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.))

Mr. C.E.S. Franks (Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Queen's University, As Individual)

0910

0915

0920

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC)

0925

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

0930

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, CPC)

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

0935

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Mr. C. E.S. Franks

The Chair

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

The Chair

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

0940

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

M. C. E.S. Franks

The Chair

Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

0945

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

0950

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Hon. Don Boudria

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ)

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

0955

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

1000

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.)

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

1005

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

1010

The Chair

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

1015

The Chair

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

Hon. Don Boudria

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd

1020

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

The Chair

Mr. C.E.S. Franks

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 005

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 25, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying and reviewing the budget and estimates of the Office of the Governor General.

This morning we welcome Professor C.E.S. Franks, professor emeritus of political science from Queen's University. Professor Franks is well noted for his expertise in this matter.

We're very pleased that you could join us this morning. I know that you've prepared a paper, and I'm going to leave it to you. It has been circulated to members for their reading in advance. We look forward to your words of insight and wisdom on the Office of Governor General. I'm sure the members will have questions for you.

Welcome, and please proceed.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks (Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Queen's University, As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm almost tempted to read the paper, because it would take up the full hour and I wouldn't be facing questions, but I won't do that. I really prepared this as a background paper because as I looked through the literature on the Governor General in preparation for this I found that nothing really has been written on the modern Governor General's office, so I thought that something should be.

It's a very interesting story that, as far as I'm concerned, is far from over at this point in time—and you'll see what I mean as I go on. What we are faced with now is a Governor General, Her Excellency Adrienne Clarkson, who has been more active and more energetic in giving visibility to the Office of the Governor General than most of her previous incumbents in the office for the last several decades. Of course, it costs money to do things like that; but also, because of the higher visibility, it raises questions.

What I must say to begin with is that in my description here, I'm doing my best to explain really the role and functions of the office. But I think it's very important that the office gets discussed, because what has happened in the last fifty plus years is that the office has gradually become Canadianized. We have the office, but it has not received any serious examination of its functions, the method of selection of the Governor General, and what sort of Governor General we want, for well over fifty years. I'm very happy to see that Parliament is looking at it.

What I shall do mainly is to describe the role and the functions of the office, which I'll do under three headings. First is the constitutional role of the Governor General; the second is the role of the Governor General as the head of state; and the third is the role of the Governor General in representation of various sorts, or the representational role of the office.

The formal constitutional role of the Governor General is as the embodiment of the Crown in the business of Parliament, or the business of government. The Crown is one of the three parts of Parliament: there's the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Crown. Legislation does not become legislation until it's assented to by the Crown. There are many other acts that the Crown performs as part of Parliament, or as the head of the executive in a formal sense, including orders in council, or orders of the Queen's Privy Council. And in that sense, those are Crown orders, just as the law courts in Canada are the courts of the Queen, and the cases in them are the Queen versus somebody—if it's the government on the prosecuting side, and so on. So the Crown has an abstract meaning, but then it also has its personification in the Governor General.

Most of the constitutional functions of the Governor General are purely formal. They're carried out simply on the advice of her advisers, who are the ministers of the Crown, the cabinet ministers, expressed through the orders of the Privy Council Office, or in the sense of giving assent to legislation. This is something that is never refused. These functions could be performed by other people in other ways; at times, the assent is given to legislation by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but it's in the name of the Crown of Canada.

The other function, which is usually purely formal in the constitutional sense, is that the Crown—that is, the Governor General as a person—must ensure that there's a Prime Minister. That means that when a Prime Minister resigns, the Governor General must ensure that another Prime Minister is appointed immediately.

That one appointment is not made on the advice of outside bodies. The appointment of ministers of the Crown, apart from the Prime Minister, is made on the advice of the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister himself or herself is appointed by the Governor General. Normally this is purely a formality, but there are times when it becomes more than that.

A famous case in Canadian history is the King-Byng dispute of 1926. There was a very interesting issue in Australia in 1975, which I could go into during our discussion if you want.

An interesting one occurred in Ontario in 1985, when the Conservative government under Frank Miller was returned with a minority of the seats in the Ontario assembly, but with more seats than either of the two opposition parties. Mr. Miller met the legislature, and the two opposition parties formed an agreement that they would not defeat the Liberals, when they came into power, for two years. Mr. Miller very quickly lost a vote of confidence in the House. He seemed to feel he could call an election at that time. If he had asked for an election, the Lieutenant Governor was entitled to say no, and to see if there was another member of the assembly who did have the confidence. It would have been the leader of the Liberal Party. That did not happen because Mr. Miller was disabused of his notion that he could call an election whenever he wanted. He resigned, and the Liberal government under Mr. Peterson took over.

There was some discussion last fall of this happening when then Prime Minister Mr. Chrétien made the Election Financing Act a vote of confidence. Conceivably, if many of the Liberals had voted against that on a vote of confidence and Prime Minister Chrétien had asked for an election on that, the Governor General would have been entitled to see if somebody else would have enjoyed the confidence of House. Somebody else might have, and an election could have been called. Fortunately, in my opinion, we missed that circumstance. It would have been a very messy one.

The Governor General, as head of state of Canada, performs many ceremonial functions: presiding at state occasions; delivering the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of a new Parliament; formally receiving dignitaries; holding state dinners; receiving ambassadors from other countries, etc. The Governor General, as head of state, is also Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces.

What we saw over the centuries in Britain, and over a shorter period of time in Canada, was a gradual movement of the office of governor or Crown--the King and Queen in England--from an actual hands-on position to a constitutional position. The office moved--in Bagehot's terms--from being effective to being dignified. The Canadian Governor General is now more of a dignified position than an effective position, and that's common to all the heads of state in the Commonwealth countries based on the Westminster model. The rule is that the Governor General must, with these very rare exceptions, act on the advice of ministers.

On the Governor General as head of state, in Canada the positions of head of state and head of government are separated. This is often not appreciated, nor even the significance of it. The best way to explain the difference is to compare the Canadian situation with the American, where the President is both head of state and head of government. It means that most of the time, when President Bush or any other president is speaking, he's not speaking in his own right as an individual, an elected party leader, or a head of government, but as the head representative of the country.

¿ (0910)

In a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government in it, like ours, the head of state is separate from the legislature in its day-to-day workings. The government is something quite different from the formal state itself, as embodied in the Crown, the Governor General.

You can see the difference in the actual day-to-day operations of the two systems. In our system, the head of government, the Prime Minister, whenever Parliament is sitting, faces a barrage of questions in the House of Commons every day and must respond to those.

The question period has many functions. The main ones are in the context of an ongoing competition between the political parties, the opposition, and the government. In that, the opposition does its best to cut the Prime Minister and government down to size, sometimes very effectively, as we all know. On the other hand, the Prime Minister tries to defend the government, its record, and its proposals, and by surviving this onslaught in Parliament proves that not only does he or she have endurance, but also the best of the argument. Then, on we go to the election.

This gives a very secular sense to Canadian politics in Parliament. There's nothing in them of the formality of the appearance of a head of state. Again, let me offer you the contrast with the United States, where when the President comes before the Congress it's a formal state occasion. The President gives a formal address, everybody claps politely, and the President leaves. There's no debate, no question period, no cutting down to size. There's something beyond the secular in this notion of the President embodying the state itself.

I must say that I prefer the give and take of Canadian politics. I prefer the separation of the position of head of state from the head of government to the system of unifying them in one person. As I say, that gives very much the flavour to Canadian politics, which often isn't appreciated.

On the representational role of the Governor General, there are the attending functions, visiting parts of the country. Visiting the Canadian troops in Afghanistan was a remarkable recent example. There are state functions, again, at Government House, welcoming people from across Canada to Government House.

It also goes beyond that. There's the entire honours and awards system in Canada, including the Order of Canada awards, the Governor General's awards in the arts, and the recognition of achievement for bravery and many other fields of Canadian public national life. These reward systems are a way of recognizing outstanding achievement by Canadians. In this, the Governor General acts on behalf of, speaks for, and represents all of Canada.

Though the benefits of this sort of activity are not tangible, they are far more than purely symbolic. It does matter to people who earn such awards that their contributions to Canada have been recognized. It does matter to others working in the arts, social development, research, industry, charitable organizations, and countless other areas that make up a complex modern society that the nation as a whole formally and openly expresses its appreciation for their dedication and commitment. I think this is a very important part of Canada's national public life.

Another aspect of the representational role of the Governor General is as head of state to represent Canada in visits to other countries. That is a very important but not very well understood and sometimes neglected role. I gather that is one of the issues that drew attention to the functions and role of the Governor General.

I'll leave that. It will probably come up in questions.

¿ (0915)

I should also add, there's another role of the Governor General that is not that well understood, on representation. That is, the Prime Minister of the day does meet privately with the Governor General; these meetings happen. There's nothing written in the scholarly literature about them, but they do happen. The Governor General is a very useful sounding board for a prime minister—somebody apart from politics. The Governor General, through the activities of visiting Canada and Canadians, through contacts made through state functions, and others, also has a great deal of knowledge and understanding of Canada to bring to bear in those discussions. Even when the Governor General and the Prime Minister are of different parties, this activity still goes on.

According to Bagehot again, the British sovereign has three rights: “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn”. Our Governor General has those three rights too. As you can see, they're very moderate rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. Nobody would claim the Governor General has the right to refuse legislation, or the right to dissolve a Parliament on his or her own whim, or anything like that. These things that constitutionally look like the function of the monarch belong to the monarch's adviser, but there is that relationship between the Governor General as a person and the Prime Minister that is very important.

I'll raise two questions to end my remarks here. One is that although we have had a process of “Canadianization” of the position of Governor General, I don't think it's over yet. I am not satisfied that we have a proper method for selecting the Governor General. I prefer the Indian method of selecting a president—that is, the country of India, where the president is elected through a vote of all the members of the two houses of the National Assembly and the members of the state legislatures. India has succeeded in producing outstanding people as their presidents, which is their equivalent of the Governor General. There's a great deal of respect for the office and a great deal of legitimacy and support for it, partly because of the method of selection.

That, it seems to me, fits into the same category of issues as the ways of appointing judges, of appointing senators, of appointing members of boards of commissions in Canada, and so on. I think that whole area needs review.

So legitimacy and setting up a process is one issue. The final one on which I wanted to offer a thought is that as I was preparing these remarks, I started to think about countries in the world I admire and respect for their social policies, for their economic development, for the quality of life within them. I made a list. Four of the most outstanding, in my view, are Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Holland. I sat back and thought about them and said, each of these four is a constitutional monarchy.

There's some reason for that, for the mixture of what one might consider an old Tory or feudal institution like a monarchy and a very progressive modern state. It comes, it seems to me, in philosophical terms from the role of a monarch in being a link between past, present, and future, of having some ability to express a care for the future and respect for the past in the present.

They've often said that a week is a long time in politics. Sometimes a day is a long time in politics, as we see sometimes in the House of Commons. The Crown as an institution, as a monarchy, stands for something on a much longer time scale. It seems to me we have to think in those time scales if we're going to deal with the kinds of problems the world has: leaving the world a decent place for our children, the next generation, the one after—the environment; having the social policies that assure that Canadians, not just this generation but the ones to come, have the kinds of rights and programs and privileges we think they should have.

¿ (0920)

I think there's a curious mixture there between respect for the future and the past as embodied in a monarchy and politics on this day-to-day, very secular basis.

At that, I shall end my remarks. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Professor Franks.

I think we're going to move straight to questions. I'm sure there's great interest.

We'll start with Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Franks, welcome to the committee.

I think your ending comments anticipated the question I was already planning to ask you. First of all, I wanted to know how much is actually written down about the Canadian appointment process for deciding who's going to be our Governor General, and for the length of office, and so on. You talked about election in other jurisdictions, but tell us what we have. I know there's a fair amount of academic literature and there are opinions about what is commonly accepted, but how much do we have actually written down?

¿ (0925)

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: It's a good question. The office is mentioned in, I believe, the Government of Canada Act—and I must confess I did not look at it in preparing my remarks—and not much else. I believe the salary of the Governor General is mentioned. It's a statutory one, though it changes with the cost of living. I think it's somewhere slightly over $100,000 a year at present.

The term of office I'm not sure about. It's a standard six years. Oh, it's five, is it? Thank you.

The method of appointment is fairly clear. It comes partly through the Statute of Westminster, which is from a long time ago, and partly through the reforms of the 1940s that the Prime Minister nominates a Governor General to the British Crown, and the British Crown makes the appointment.

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's interesting. That may be how it's done, but it's interesting to understand that perhaps we're operating a lot in the area of convention rather than of anything actually written down.

Concerning another convention—or perhaps there is some further specificity in law or statute—you talked about the Governor General being the titular or nominal head of the military. Could you ever foresee, because of that position, that the Governor General, in the right of his or her own office, could deny the use of the armed forces to a rogue government in the Canadian context?

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I think it would destroy the office, and it's most unlikely to happen. This is the kind of thing that occurs in day-to-day politics: you get into an area where British statutory law was brought over and became part of the Constitution of 1867 and of a huge number of constitutional conventions that would be recognized by the courts of law as having the same power as our written constitution. I think the answer winds up as being no.

But I draw your attention to the Australian experience of 1975, where there was an impasse between the House of Representatives and the Australian Senate, both of which are elected, on supply. The government was going to run out of money, and the Senate wouldn't agree with the House, and the House wouldn't agree with the Senate. The Governor General, rather than let this play itself out, fired the Prime Minister and appointed the leader of the opposition as Prime Minister, and the leader of the opposition immediately called an election.

Unlike the case with the Canadian Constitution, it's written in the Australian Constitution that the Governor General can only call an election on the advice of the Prime Minister. That's not true in Canada, but it is in Australia. That's why he had to do this. And the leader of the opposition won the election.

We could conceivably have something that strange happen in Canada. We really haven't had since Mackenzie King and Arthur Meighen in 1926.

The Chair: Almost everyone wants to ask a question, and we're going to try to get them all in, so we can all cooperate by being crisp on answers and questions.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Is there anything written down formally now, beyond academic opinions, about the actual rules of conduct of a Governor General, perhaps getting involved in the commentary of political affairs or other rules about what is or not within the role of the Governor General? I certainly know a lot is by convention and understanding passed on to generation after generation of parliamentarians, but what about a formal job description by statute? What do we have?

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: We have precious little. The academic literature on the office and its role and functions is so small as to be almost useless. The last decent thing I've seen on it was written by Eugene Forsey many years ago. That's one of the reasons I wrote out the notes that I did, because there's something needed there. This was an effort to start filling that gap.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Paul Forseth: I take your note that something is needed. Thank you.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome. I have a couple of areas of questions. The first is the selection process for the Governor General, and the second is the budget.

In terms of the selection process, if we want the Governor General to be held responsible for spending, it seems to me that the appointment process isn't the best process for that, that the election process that's used with the Indian president would certainly be a better process to allow the people to hold the Governor General accountable. I'd just like your thoughts on that.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I must confess that I don't get excited about the budget. I might be waving a red flag here in saying that, but there's the budget for the Government House itself, the Governor General's budget, as you might call it, and that covers a huge range of the ceremonial and honours activities, representational activities, and so on, the head of state activities that I describe. A large part of the rest of the budget comes from other departments and functions that are going to be performed anyhow.

It seems to me that what we really need to do in Canada is have a serious discussion about the position and role and what we want of it, because again, every remark I make is in the context of the present Governor General, who has done more and worked harder to make the role visible and to be active than previous incumbents for as long back as my memory goes, and in raising the visibility, it has raised the questions.

We're perfectly entitled as Canadians, and you're perfectly entitled as parliamentarians, to ask, what do we in Canada want in the office of a head of state? As far as I know, that question has never been asked or answered.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I tend to agree with you on that.

If this committee were to move to cut the Governor General's budget, the issue of interference in the responsibilities of the Governor General would come up as a serious issue, I think. You're saying, though, that really the responsibility of the Governor General isn't that carefully laid out anyway. So maybe it isn't something the committee would have to be particularly concerned about, whether we went to having an overall budget that the Governor General would be held within or whether certain areas of the budget would be cut because we determine that we don't think that's money well spent.

I'd like just a comment on that.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: It's such an interesting question. You could conceivably have a Governor General who lives in a rented house and does the official functions at Parliament and almost nothing else, and the question is, where between that and a full-blown monarchy do you want to wind up? As I say, we have never asked that question in Canada and haven't come up with answers either.

My feeling is that it's more important for this committee to initiate a discussion of the office and how to make it a more legitimate office that fulfils functions that Canadians want it to fulfil than to pick particular budget issues, because in my very brief look at the budget and related subjects, I don't think you're seeing waste there. What you are seeing is money spent on functions you might not agree with, and that's a very different issue.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What would lead you to say that you don't see waste there? It must be based on something.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: That's a fairly reasonable question.

I had the pleasure a week ago of being on a phone-in talk show, a Calgary, Alberta, radio show about the Governor General. Of the people who phoned in, all except one were quite hostile. But the criticisms were ones like I read in the newspaper, which were that the Governor General overspent the budget, which as far as I can tell is not correct.

There is a criticism that there's money being wasted on Rideau Hall and on the grounds for the Governor General personally, and as far as I know that's not correct. Rideau Hall is part of the National Capital Commission and the grounds are part of the National Capital Commission. They're there for the enjoyment of the people of Canada. The greenhouses on the grounds are there to provide greenery and flowers for the entire National Capital Commission, official residences, etc.

There was a criticism. One chap's view on it was that for the $1.31 per Canadian that Hugh Winsor says is spent on the Governor General's office, he'd rather have a cup of Tim Hortons coffee--and he's perfectly entitled to do that. Another person said she objected very strongly to the trip to the northern countries because Maurice Strong was along, and he supported the Kyoto accord and that was an evil thing.

Well, it depends on where you're from and where you stand. As I said, politics is...you wouldn't have politics if everybody agreed. The point of politics is to resolve disagreements.

My conclusion from what I've read in the newspapers, from my talks with people around Ottawa, and from things like that is that the budget is spent reasonably. The question is, is that what you want the money spent on?

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Mr. Perron.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I hope the answers will be shorter, because I would like to ask several questions successively.

I got the impression from your presentation that you like the monarchy. You mentioned Sweden, amongst others. Therefore, it is no surprise for you to hear me say that you are probably very supportive of the way this country is organized politically, since it is the only country in the world, or one of the rare countries, to be represented by two queens: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, and Her Excellency Adrienne I, our Canadian queen. There is a slight difference between “of Canada” and “Canadian”, but it is about the same thing.

With that facetious introduction, I would now like to know whether Canada can afford to have a Canadian queen, namely Adrienne I, and a lieutenant- governor in every province, when there are children in my riding who can't even afford to eat breakfast before going to school. What's more, as you yourself said before this committee, Adrienne I plays a purely symbolic role.

Mr. C. E.S. Franks: She also has a constitutional role and a role of representation.

[English]

You will excuse me if I speak in English, because my vocabulary is not adequate on the French side.

It's a very interesting question, Mr. Chairman, and you will forgive me if I don't give a two-word answer to this question.

The Chair: This is a matter that could take days.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I'll keep it short.

The Chair: I think we're going to have to find somewhere in between the two words and the full answer that would be necessary.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I'll keep it short.

Dostoevsky in one of his books poses the question, “How could God permit one child to suffer?” And there's no answer to that; there's no answer. I could be trivial and say that school meals are a provincial responsibility--that's no answer. What I can say is that a full-fledged modern society needs a whole range of things, from elite activities to social programs for everybody.

I could draw on the words of a former premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry, who gave a very eloquent discourse in defence of what he called “bohemianism”. He said there's a bohemian index, and the prosperity, innovation, and creativity of a city depends on the quality of its arts and related activities. I happen to agree with that, and I defend elitist institutions just as much as I defend social programs.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: That's good.

Mr. Perron.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: In your presentation, you indicated that the Canadian queen, Adrienne I, plays a— more or less respectable— role with regard to the governance of this country. I therefore concluded this morning—and I apologize to my colleagues opposite—that this country is governed by a two-headed monster, and that we could chop off one of the two heads, namely the one belonging to Adrienne I.

I will continue with what my friend Benoit was saying. I am also concerned about the fact that you said you do not think that the Canadian queen, Adrienne I, wastes our money. I don't think that you are in any position to say this, since no one really knows how much the Governor General spends.

We all contribute to her budget, including the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. All this money goes into the same pot. In fact, I'm wondering this morning whether the Canadian Unity Fund was not used to help pay for the overall expenses incurred by the Governor General.

In my opinion, there should be a serious audit to see how the Governor General spends her money. We don't know what her budget is.

[English]

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: There's an issue that comes up here. I didn't make the distinction very clear, but there are two issues. One is administrative waste and the other is policy waste. Far more money is wasted in governments, by and large, through bad policies than through bad administration.

The issue, to me, with the Governor General—and this is a personal view, which you have no need to share, Monsieur—is that we're not looking at administrative waste. We are looking at issues of whether we want these functions performed and whether we want these policies in place for the activities and role of the Governor General.

That, it seems to me, is a totally different issue from, for example, the issues facing another committee, the public accounts committee, at present. That's why I say that I would really love to see a serious discussion of what we, as Canadians, want for the office of the Crown.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: How much money do we want to chip in?

[Translation]

M. C. E.S. Franks: Yes, absolutely.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Boudria.

[Translation]

Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): I would like to begin by thanking Professor Franks for being here. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am not a regular member of this committee . However, since this excellent witness was able to appear, I thought I would drop in. I am pleased with the quality of his testimony and of his brief.

[English]

Until recently, and to my great chagrin, I'm no longer there. I used to be a cabinet minister. In that function, I was a House leader.

I went to Australia to look at some parliamentary procedures, but the topic before us wasn't very topical at the time. I never inquired as to how they chose their Governor General, nor how New Zealand does it. The Australian Parliament has done a number of innovative things, the parallel chamber and all kinds of things like that, which have been replicated at Westminster. We've toyed around with the idea here. They have created innovative institutions. Do you know, Professor, if they've done anything in the area of the appointment of the Governor General? Do they have a form of electoral college, if that's the right word for what India has?

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I believe not, but I'm not certain. I will look it up, if you want, but we might ask the researcher to look that up for you.

The difference that I did not discuss in there with Australia is that Australia has had a debate on becoming a republic and eliminating the monarchy. We have not done so in Canada, but I believe their method of appointment is similar to ours.

¿ (0945)

Hon. Don Boudria: I want to switch gears to something that was asked earlier on whether or not the Governor General would have a right to somehow prevent the government from providing leadership to military or other areas of endeavours. Didn't the Act of Settlement, a long time ago, state that monarchs reign, they don't rule any more, and in fact that proposition couldn't happen?

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: It helped.

If you look at the history of the British monarchy--

Hon. Don Boudria: That's what I'm referring to.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I understand.

Bagehot wrote in 1867 that the sole personal powers of the monarch were, as I said, the rights to encourage, to warn, and to be consulted. Later historians looking through the personal records of Queen Victoria and the other records found that she was much more active in government than that would imply. The Act of Settlement was a very defining act in terms of the relationship between the Parliament and Crown. In fact, Parliament created a Crown at that time, but--

Hon. Don Boudria: Following the Glorious Revolution.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: Yes, but it's been a long, slow evolution since then. It was almost a hundred years later that the monarch stopped attending cabinet meetings.

¿ (0950)

Hon. Don Boudria: On the issue of the cost, I'm not one who's been as worked up as other colleagues about this, because not only has this particular Governor General been willing to undertake more work, which I think you've acknowledged yourself, Professor, but given that the Governor General makes herself available, the government gives her more work. So it's not just stuff that she endeavours to do herself.

The best example I can think of right now is the fact that we're perhaps close to an election, some would say, and ministers are busy all over the place. There's a terrible tragedy that occurred in Spain, and who do we send there? Because we don't want to send politicians because we're all too busy doing other things around here, budgets and so on, we send the Governor General.

I'm sure the Governor General didn't wake up in the morning and say “I have a great idea--why don't I go to Spain today”. That's probably not how it happened. It's probably an assignment from the government. As I say, I'm no longer around the cabinet table, so I can discuss this somewhat more freely because I have no direct knowledge, but it seems to me that's probably--knowing how some of these things have happened in the past--how this particular event occurred.

So now we're going to start tabulating how many gallons of fuel is taken in the airplane to bring her there and other precious information like that. I can't, for the life of me, help wondering, as a citizen of a G-7 nation and trying to compare ours with others, whether American congressmen start tabulating the gallons of gas used in the two or three different versions of Air Force One that fly at any one time whenever the President goes anywhere, not to mention the seven helicopters, six of them used for decoys.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I said on the same Calgary radio show that if you started doing the agglomeration of budget that is being done to reach the $41 million figure for the Governor General, if you did that for the Prime Minister you'd be way over that. If you did it for the President of the United States you'd probably be well over $1 billion.

I also said in my written remarks, which I didn't mention, that the Governor General and her consort make hundreds of appearances, if not more, in a year--way up in the hundreds of going and doing things, including representing the state one way or the other. If they don't do them, the serving politicians can't do it. You're all very busy people, and you don't represent Canada as a whole, you represent the House of Commons, the constituency, region, or party, and these things wouldn't get done.

I can add on there that, again in talking with people from other countries and Canadians who go abroad on delegations and enjoy the hospitality of other countries, on a world scale, we're reasonably parsimonious in our use of state funds for visiting dignitaries and for sending people abroad. We tend to do less than most other countries as wealthy as we are.

Hon. Don Boudria: Someone was reminding me the other day that when the German president came he brought a plane full of people, including an entire orchestra.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: Yes, it was the Berlin Philharmonic, I believe. It's one of the largest and best orchestras in the world. It made a tour across Canada.

The King of Norway, when he came here--and Norway is a much smaller country than Canada--

Hon. Don Boudria: By the way, I'm the minister who received him, when he came.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: There were 80 people in his entourage, I believe, at that time. That's the way it was done.

Hon. Don Boudria: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Gaudet.

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Franks.

I don't agree with everything you said, such as the fact that it only costs each Canadian $1.31 to pay for the Queen. If that were the case, national unity would only have cost $16. If you talk about the entire budget, it would have amounted to $6,000. I don't know if this was the right time to say that the Queen only costs each Canadian $1.31, or the price of a cup of coffee. It's not just the money that's involved, but the concept as a whole. However, I don't think it makes sense. If her budget is $30 million, that comes down to $1 per Canadian. Let's not exaggerate, because there will never be an end to the argument. I personally did not really like your presentation.

To continue with what Mr. Boudria was saying, I'd like to come back to the trip of Spain. We have a deputy prime minister as well as a prime minister. I'm pleased that he went to Alberta to announce that beef producers would receive $1 billion in aid, but at least one of them could have gone to the service, don't you think? What's your opinion?

As it now stands, there are 301 members in the House of Commons, including the Speaker who is elected by the House of Commons and who does a good job. Everyone respects him. Why couldn't the House of Commons appoint the Governor General of Canada? I'd like to know what you think about that.

An Honourable Member : He already answered that.

Mr. Roger Gaudet : No, he hasn't. In any case, I was not satisfied with his response. If he has addressed the issue, I would like him to repeat what he said, and then I'll ask him some questions.

Hon. Don Boudria: The witness just talked about that.

[English]

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I find that very difficult to respond to. I find that the system in Canada works well, and I don't find us spending too much money on any single aspect of government, so I'm relaxed about what we're doing. I'm not sure that answers your question directly.

I don't want to see us discard parts of our Constitution that have an enormous history and enormous meaning in terms of their symbolic value for relations of parts of the country, simply because we get excited about some little things.

I'm not sure if that answers your question or not.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Here is my indirect response: there are 110,000 voters in my riding and I am accountable to those 110,000 people. So if those 110,000 people tell me that the Governor General of Canada is expensive, I have to reply that it's a fact. What do you want me to say? I'm not going to tell them that she only costs them $1.31 each, as you said a little earlier. In any case, I don't like what you said about how much the Governor General of Canada costs us.

[English]

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: If I were to pick a province in Canada that does better than any other province in supporting the arts, sport, amateur athletics, in recognizing contributions of the citizens in that province, in having a high quality of life at the level of state occasions, it would be Quebec. It does a better job on those than any other province. In fact, we have a far higher Quebec representation on our international sports teams, including the Olympic teams, than its proportion of Canada would suggest. It's because Quebec spends more money on it. The Quebec university system is one of the best supported in Canada.

If you want to ask the question of the Governor General, why don't you also ask it of these other activities, which are not necessarily directly utilitarian, and say, “This is where my concern lies; my concern lies with people of the present, not with the other...”.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Neville, then Mr. Shepherd.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

You've in part answered my question. What I'm grappling with is how is the mandate of the Governor General defined? You've gone through the different roles. Like you, I too share a belief that there is a role for elitism, but what in fact has triggered this discussion, as you well know, is the trip that the Governor General took.

She has a role as a representative, and that could be defined. There's also a role of outreach and the level of outreach, both internally and abroad. Who defines that? Who defines the role? How should it be defined, and how should the costs be defined or contained in it?

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: These are the key questions. I reply as I did earlier: that we have not had a discussion of the office in Canada. There is no such thing as a mandate for the office of Governor General. That's why I call it “role and functions”, because that I could find. But mandate in the sense of we as Canadians one way or the other saying this is what we want the office to do, no.

Ms. Anita Neville: It's almost to the level of detail where she went on a trip--and I've spoken to those who were on it, and it was a very successful trip--but 59 Canadians went with her. Could 19 have gone with her? Could fewer staff go with her? She's travelled extensively in the country, and I would define it as “outreach”, as opposed to representing government on many occasions, although there's a blur there. How does one grapple with that? How does one contain that?

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: Again, you could make international comparisons. How do other heads of state do it? Then the answer would be that we as Canadians, when we do these things, do more or less what other states do, or less rather than more. We tend to underdo them.

The other answer that I can give on this, which struck me as I worked on my thoughts for today, is what we are seeing is an office trying to redefine itself after almost falling into desuetude. It's not only that the tradition of governors general having a very active role decayed over the years, but that what you might call the in-house knowledge of how to do these things, what gets done, has gone with people going and the new people not really having the background and having to reinvent the role. I'm not criticizing anybody in that. I'm just saying it's a fact. But that's part of what creates the problem: they're having to invent a tradition rather than draw on the experience of recent years.

Ms. Anita Neville: When you speak about the office trying to redefine itself, what role is there for other branches of government in redefining that role? Should it be done on--I don't want to be disparaging--somewhat of an ad hoc way? It may not be an ad hoc way, but to some it certainly appears that way.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I find we in Canada sometimes are not very good at thinking about ourselves. For example, the issues facing the public accounts committee deal directly with issues of ministerial responsibility and the role of the public service, which we've never had a public debate on. The only documents that are official on it are from the Privy Council Office. Parliament has never expressed a view.

Here we are looking at the Office of the Governor General, and I don't think either the Privy Council Office or Parliament has expressed a view on it. Perhaps this committee could consider its task to be to push the debate further by identifying the questions it thinks Canada should think about.

À (1000)

The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): I apologize for being late and not catching your introduction.

As I sit here and listen to this, I think how sterile this debate really is. I understand the relationship that you see in the elitism aspect of the GG reaching out to the international community, and I think you've touched on the question about mandate. But the real problem, of course, is in my mind that the Governor General in this country is unknown, is not respected by the people of Canada. I can tell you that I can go to any school in my riding and I can ask them to name the Governor General, and the likelihood of people doing that is probably less than 20%. That's what the young people of this country see.

So the real issue is we have an institution that is spending x number of dollars. We're missing the mark with this whole debate. Maybe you're going to agree with me, or maybe not, but the real debate is who is the Governor General, and how does she represent the people of this country?

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: It's part of it. What percentage do you think could identify the Prime Minister in your school? Would it be 25%?

Mr. Alex Shepherd: It would be over 50%.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: Well, you're doing all right on that one, then.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Yes.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I think there is an issue here. I have the highest respect for the present Governor General and her efforts to make the job useful. Some parts of it might have been misguided, but when you're trying to find a role where there hasn't been one, you don't always do the right thing. I have the highest respect for the effort, the highest respect for the work.

To my mind, the real problem comes in that we have not finished the process of Canadianizing the institution of head of state. As I have said, I have concerns about the process of appointment. Then the issue you're dealing with, the mandate, is an area for which I do not believe there is a single government document that defines it. There is nothing public, anyhow. What we have are statements of the position and some of the functions it performs, but not in the sense that you can say we take this, and this is what it means in practice.

À (1005)

Mr. Alex Shepherd: This is Canada's attitude toward drift. Rather than deal with a problem, we prolong it. But this problem has been with us for almost a century.

I look at a coin here. I can tell you that for the people in this country, this does not reflect their head of state. This is something they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. As you probably can gather, I'm a great republican. I believe we should evolve this institution so it reflects the interests.... I believe in the institution, but I believe we need to evolve this institution so that the people can be reflected in it. We have people coming in from all over the world now to Canada. The monarchy and its background represent less than 22% of the people in this country who can trace any lineage whatsoever to it; yet we're sitting here spending $40 million a year on the institution. Sure people are asking, “What the hell is it for? It's not me; it's not my money; and it's not something I really buy into.”

That's what the real problem is, isn't it?

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: To you it may be, but less to me.

Without speaking about myself at all, I still maintain that inside the Canadian political culture there is an old Tory element. That element comes in the French tradition just as much as in the English—perhaps even more so in the French tradition. That old Tory element is a recognition of the obligation we owe to each other as part of a society and our requirement—as Monsieur Perron has said, this concern about the children who are going hungry—that it's our responsibility. This old Tory element, to me—and I might be an incurable romantic here—does have an embodiment in the notion of the Crown. It can appear in other ways, as it does in French Canada, but it's a very important part of our tradition and part of what leads us to the kinds of social programs we have.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Yes, but I think you and I could both agree it is not about abolishing a tradition. It's about building on those traditions and evolving our polity, if we will, so that it reflects Canadian values. Maybe that's the suggestion you would make to this committee that it should pursue.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: Yes, to me that is a much more fruitful endeavour at this point than to worry about details of expenditures, because I think you know them now. The real issue is how we make these sorts of functions and this position more Canadian and more meaningful to most Canadians.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'm going to go back to Mr. Forseth and Mr. Perron, then to Madam Neville and Mr. Lanctôt. We have four more, so carry on.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Chair, I'll be very brief. I'll just ask one question at this point.

How often does the Canadian Governor General usually send reports to the Queen? You talked about “consult, encourage, and warn”. Maybe you can talk a little about the relationship between the Governor General and the Queen.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I believe that does not happen any more. I could be wrong, and I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that practice was dropped some decades ago, and that the present Governor General and governors general for decades have not sent reports to the Queen. That is my understanding. I could be wrong.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Would you expand just a bit about that relationship?

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: Putting it another way, there is no relationship except the formal relationship: that the Governor General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada, and then the Governor General serves as the representative of the Queen in Canada and as the Crown in terms of being a person in Canada.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I just have one supplemental question. I recall a former cabinet minister told me, describing that kind of relationship between Canada and royalty in England, that a meeting was convened—I believe at Rideau Hall—and signatures were required for Canadian permission for Prince Charles to marry Diana. So there is more of a relationship there than perhaps you're talking about. Do you recall that?

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I do not.

I can tell you one thing that might or might not be useful to you, the last vestige I know of where the Queen of England was actually involved in Canadian affairs directly. I think it was until 1970 that ambassadors from Canada to other countries were appointed from the Court of Saint James--in other words, required the Queen's signature. I have always believed that was something people in the Department of Foreign Affairs really liked having.

The Chair: Thank you.

We're going to go back to Mr. Perron.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Franks, you are making some inroads with me when you extol Quebec's way of doing things. In fact, you're almost comparing Quebec with Sweden, Norway and Denmark, three monarchies which you seem to greatly admire. In fact, these three monarchies, as well as Quebec, care about maintaining a social safety net.

I want to be clear. I have nothing against Adrienne I. However, I don't agree that she costs us $1.31 per Canadian. That money would be better spent in Quebec, irrespective of what party is governing, be it the Liberals or the Péquistes, the money will be well spent. Of course, I prefer the Péquiste way of doing things, but the fact remains that, for Quebec, the main thing is to protect social security.

You said that Quebec spends more on culture, sports, recreation and health care. In my opinion, that's false. Proof of this is contained in the budget which will be tabled next Tuesday. Representatives from the areas of culture, health care and sports are all calling for more financial support from the Quebec government. Irrespective of which party is in power, I think that the Quebec government does more with less. In other words, it does a better job of managing its finances. This, in my opinion, is essential.

This is the issue I want to come back to: why spend $1.31 per citizen when money is desperately needed for health care, social programs, $5 a day daycare, kindergarten, family policy, in short, for all of Quebec's basic policies and for the rest of the country?

À (1010)

[English]

The Chair: Bonne question.

Professor Franks.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I can't answer your question. I think we simply disagree on it. I have given my views, and here we are.

The Chair: I have to go back to Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Shepherd, did you want one last one? No?

We're going to Mr. Lanctôt, then the chair has a little question. I think we're going to wrap it up then. We have some other business to discuss, colleagues.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the issues which needs to be addressed these days is, of course, appointments, whether it is the Governor General or other persons appointed by the government. In the case at hand, the problem is that we are dealing with an institution which is enshrined in the Constitution. Are we willing to undertake a process of constitutional change? Every one of us sitting around this table must ask themselves this question. This could potentially be a very important matter.

The first issue we tackled was the budgetary forecasting process. Let's not forget why we are studying these issues. In fact, I began by asking the chief of staff these questions. She stated that expenses totalled $16 million. However, we then found out that total expenses were more than twice that amount, because other departments had contributed to the budget.

I was personally upset by the fact that the official figure was $16 million, when in reality over $30 million had been spent. Many Canadians and Quebeckers reacted the same way and criticized the lack of transparency.

It is now up to the committee to decide on what approach to take. We have to decide whether to only address the problem of expenses. But as you said, this issue probably belongs to the political arena. Each Governor General has the power to decide how much he or she wants to work, and thus how much money will be spent. This is a major problem which must be solved. A single person has the power to decide whether to spend $30 million or only $10 million.

Based on our research, the figure for previous years was 78 per cent. Mr. Chairman, it's important to decide what kind of approach this committee wants to take.

[English]

The Chair: There's a question in our future.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Well, the committee must determine how it wishes to proceed with this matter. These may be very important issues.

[English]

The Chair: In the House you can have questions and comments; this is more questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The question is whether a democracy like ours is ready to make constitutional changes and to decide whether it still wants to keep the Governor General. If not, we could choose to become a republic with Canadian representatives, rather than remaining a constitutional monarchy.

[English]

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: There are many answers. The constitutional one is, if you wanted to get rid of the position of Governor General, that's a constitutional change. If you wanted to get rid of the Crown as a notion in Canadian politics—as a legal entity—that's constitutional. If you wanted to redefine the role of the Governor General, it's within the powers of the House of Commons to do it through legislation, within the context of constitutional laws that exist. If you want to change the budget, that's within the powers of the House of Commons. As far as I know, the only statutory expenditure—and again, I could be in error on this—is the salary of the Governor General. The salary of the Governor General is less than that of a member of Parliament.

I don't know.

À (1015)

The Chair: We're going to go to Mr. Boudria for a quick question, then Mr. Shepherd wants a quick one, then I'm going to get my quick one, then we're going to be finished.

Hon. Don Boudria: Can I get back to the issue of—can I call it the “electoral college”—the system you're recommending, Professor? If we were to have an electoral college of the kind to choose a successor to the Governor General in Canada—I'm just “iffing” here—would you advocate that we do it in a way that is similar to the Indian example? That is to say, if I understood you correctly before, members of the House, members of the Senate, and members of each provincial and territorial legislature on a given day would vote. If that's the proposal, who would put forward the candidates? Would you advise that the Governor in Council put forward two or three names? If not, how would you structure it?

I would have some difficulty, for instance, with its being done by various parties putting up candidates. I think that would be going a little bit too close to republicanism for my particular choice, although I like your idea. How would you structure doing it?

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: Mr. Boudria, you're hitting one of my weak points there.

Hon. Don Boudria: Sorry, I didn't mean to.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: No, you're not hurting my feelings at all. I don't feel sensitive. I just want to make it very clear that I was simply speculating here. I offered another suggestion that has been raised, of all the Companions of the Order of Canada electing the Governor General. And there would be other ways of thinking about it, but I can't answer on the details.

I once examined a doctoral thesis in India on the position or role of the Indian president, but I did that about 25 years ago. I've actually forgotten the details of the electoral process, and I did not think this through for Canada.

Every issue you raise is a valid one. It would not work if it went, for example, like the election of the Speaker of the House of Commons, where you list whoever is nominated and take them off one by one. You'd never wind up with a Governor General that way, I suspect.

So I simply can't answer it, sir. It needs working out, and whatever process has to get worked through.

Hon. Don Boudria: My own view, for what it's worth, is that if we were to go to something like that, and exclude members of the House of Commons--use instead the members of the Order of Canada, say--I don't think that would make it better. Politically that would probably make it similar to what it is now, if not worse. I think members would feel more enfranchised by participating as opposed to saying from now on it won't be the Prime Minister, who is of course supported by at least half of the House, but a bunch of people who are probably not supported by the House at all.

So I don't know how that would make it better, and that would be my difficulty with going with something that would exclude MPs.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: I have concerns on almost every aspect of it. I think that's one of the reasons why we wound up in Canada with so many appointments being within the prerogative of the Prime Minister, because we couldn't agree on a better way.

Hon. Don Boudria: Fair enough.

The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Boudria touched on so many of the things I wanted to discuss. I've always believed a super-majority of the House of Commons was at least a workable thing, because if you have a super-majority, then presumably opposition parties are going to have to park their politics and focus on one person. But I suppose the other aspect of this is that you have to define the role, first of all, and I think that's kind of your point.

As an evolutionary process to reforming the role, you're suggesting we can do a good number of things without amending the Constitution at this time, so I'm assuming your advice to us is to get on with it and to try to find a way to amend the role, at least first and foremost, and then possibly go a little further into constitutional change as the case unfolds.

À (1020)

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: Mr. Shepherd, my best advice to this committee, if you'll allow me to give it as a witness, would be to try to start a national discussion on the issue, because I think that's needed.

The Chair: I think you answered the question I was going to ask. It really is, as we talked earlier, Professor Franks, that there didn't seem to be a lot of literature or current writing about either the history or the evolution of the Office of the Governor General and the Canadianization, as you characterized it, and I am hopeful that our report will advance the evolution or the development of such a document and maybe even go further. Some of the items that come up through the questions of the members, such as the process of selection, we could include in our report as encouragement that those are the kinds of things that should be discussed.

As we've gone through this process and the attention for the Governor General has cropped up, it's evident that there are a whole host of reasons motivating people's concerns, and that's fair ball. I much suspect that if Roméo LeBlanc had been the Governor General over the past four plus years, the nature and extent of the concerns would have been much different; they may not even exist. It is very interesting, I guess, as a social analysis as well. I can recall saying at one of our meetings that when your job is pomp and ceremony, it's very difficult to demonstrate restraint.

So we have work to do, but I think you have helped us enormously to frame some of the issues that we should address in a brief but very constructive report on the office, the role and the operations. I think much of what has been said about the office has been prompted by lack of information rather than information, and maybe we can bridge that gap a little bit but suggest that there's much more work to do before all will be comfortable with the Office of the Governor General.

I thank you. I'm sure that our researcher would like to speak with you further as we move forward in this process. Thank you kindly.

Mr. C.E.S. Franks: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity, and I'm at your service.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'm going to suspend for a moment. We must go in camera to quickly do some of our committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]