A new book, The Governors General: An Intimate History of Canada’s Highest Office (Sutherland House), arrives at a moment when Canada’s current governor general is preparing to step down.
Author John Fraser, who is also a veteran journalist and founder of the Institute for the Study of the Crown in Canada, has spent years examining the vice-regal role and its strange place in Canada’s constitutional order.
Canadian Affairs reporter Sam Forster spoke with Fraser about the evolving role of Canada’s head of state, the damage done by the Julie Payette era, and the qualities the next occupant of Rideau Hall should bring to the job.
SF: To many Canadians, the role of the governor general is something of a mystery. Having met every viceroy since the early ‘50s, and having spent so much time examining the institution, what do you think is the biggest misconception Canadians have about the office of the governor general today?
JF: I don’t think they have misconceptions as much as they just shrug. It doesn’t mean that much to them.
And the fact that it isn’t omnipresent in people’s lives is not a bad thing. Politicians are omnipresent and that gives them a certain lifespan. Look at the last few prime ministers. There’s always a use-by date for them.
Governor generals, if they don’t disgrace themselves, usually sail pretty serenely through their position.
SF: Former governor general Julie Payette resigned over reports that she had created a toxic workplace. This was arguably the most damaging episode for Rideau Hall in decades. In your view, what did that moment reveal about the way Canada selects its governor general?
JF: It exposed the process for choosing Julie Payette was questionable.
I wasn’t a Stephen Harper acolyte or anything, but I did think that he came up with a really good concept for helping him decide who to recommend for governor general and lieutenant governors: creating a permanent selection committee. He wanted selections to be properly vetted.
I served on one of those committees to choose the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. And I thought, ‘Well, this is a really good, evolutionary idea, and it doesn’t detract from the right of an elected official to have direct input.’
When the younger Trudeau got elected, one of his most important officials was a guy named Gerry Butts — a nice guy, a guy I liked. So I phoned him, and I said, ‘You may not approve of Stephen Harper and his politics, but they actually came up with a really good way to advise a prime minister to find good people, to vet them.’
He was polite, but he was condescending. And he said, ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, they’re really proud of that. But we think we can do better.’
And better turned out to be Julie Payette.
She was not a bad person. She was an incredibly accomplished person who had made it through the University of Toronto’s engineering school, which is full of alpha males. And then she got selected through a rigorous process from a crowded pool of people who wanted to be astronauts. There are a lot of alpha males in that crowd.
But all the qualities that got her to those stages were all the wrong qualities needed to be governor general. She believed in bluntness and speaking forthrightly, and governor generals are not put in office to speak forthrightly.
The job is about the country, not about them. She never got that.
SF: Do you think the office has recovered its credibility under Governor General Mary Simon, or do you think there is still reputational damage that needs to be repaired?
JF: I think it was partly protected by Canadian ignorance about the office.
The role of governor general could be a fantastic platform for an eloquent, smart person to bring people together. That’s what they should do.
The essential problem with Julie Payette, and Mary Simon too, is they think they got the job because they are wonderful.
And they are wonderful. They are both wonderful.
But it wasn’t for them. The assignment was to think about the country. They made it through, for whatever reason, into the consciousness of the prime minister that was choosing them.
But in the end, the job isn’t about the person; it’s about the country. And if the recipient doesn’t understand that, then there are problems.
I mean, Adrienne Clarkson has an ego — bigger than either yours or mine combined, and I’m sure neither of us have small egos — but she actually understood that.
She understood that she had to represent certain things. Her [2000] speech at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was an eloquent expression of what a governor general can do with some verve and intelligence, to draw people together.
We’re not a country that has many eloquent public speeches — but that was one of them. And to me, Clarkson’s speech was a demarcation for any future governor general to understand how the role can work.
SF: In the book, you say about Mary Simon, ‘It was a mistake for the prime minister to appoint someone — anyone — who does not speak even a smattering of French. Plain and simple.’ Why?
JF: I don’t think they have to be fluent. I think they have to be seen struggling if they’re not fluent.
Former governor general David Johnston wasn’t in any way fluent, but he had enough knowledge to stagger through, and he understood that he should be seen trying, because that is the nature of our political settlement in this country.
I can understand people out West thinking this whole bilingualism thing keeps them out of a lot of positions. I’ve got some real sympathy for that. But I do think that abandoning the idea of official bilingualism is a demarcation mark that is not good for this country.
If the next governor general is from Saskatchewan or Alberta, with a very weak understanding of French, all they have to say is, ‘I’m going to try my best.’
*This article has been edited for length and clarity
