It's time to decide if we need a governor general at all
With Julie Payette's epic fall and new questions about the office of the governor general, why don't we just abolish the institution and save ourselves the drama and headache that often surround it?
All told, Payette had a torrid time as vice-regal. And no one, not even a governor general, can create a toxic workplace characterized by yelling, screaming and demeaning comments directed at employees and get away with it. Payette failed and is now gone. Many Canadians and commentators continue to question whether the former astronaut should be getting the lifetime pension and other extravagant perks she's entitled to. Of course, she should, because they come with the job. When a governor general leaves, he or she gets a lucrative payoff, no ifs, ands or buts about it.
The debate in the country now is about who should replace Payette and what qualities we should be looking for. But it's the wrong debate. The question we should be asking is whether we need a governor general at all.
This is not the first time Canadians have had problems with a governor general's remuneration, and it may not be the last. By all accounts, Adrienne Clarkson was an engaging and popular governor general. But there were howls of protest and indignation when it was revealed she billed more than $1 million in expenses for a number of years after she left office. Clarkson did nothing illegal. She operated well within the requirements of the office but that didn't stop complaints that the office was becoming a drain on taxpayers. The fundamental issue however, is not the money, but the principle.
Why, more than 150 years after Confederation (we turn 153 years old this year), do we still have the British monarch as head of state? The oath to become a Canadian citizen includes a declaration of allegiance to the Queen and “Her Heirs and Successors” and the Canadian passport is issued in her name. Why? Canada is a proud and admired grown-up country, so why can't we do things in our own name?
Being governor general is largely a public relations job and that's essentially why Payette failed. She's obviously not a people person. The most important part of the job – the power to grant or refuse a request by a sitting prime minister to dissolve Parliament and go to an election – rarely happens and we can find constitutional ways to deal with that.
Yes, there are ties that bind Canada and the United Kingdom. The historical, cultural and kinship links are cherished by many Canadians. Many of us adore the British monarchy, the Queen in particular. And deservedly. There isn't a more gracious and dedicated monarch than Queen Elizabeth ll. But doing away with constitutional monarchy is no disrespect to the Queen or the United Kingdom. It's more about us taking control of our destiny. After all, ties that bind should not depend on a piece of paper in order to last. They belong in hearts and minds and last forever.
Many former British colonies have done away with constitutional monarchy, and they have done so while maintaining a strong relationship with the U.K. The latest, Barbados, is set to make the change later this year. And remember the U.K. just left the European Union because it wanted to exercise its right as a sovereign nation. Canada can do the same and maintain its kinship with its former colonial ruler.
Canadians are not averse to this. Last year, an Angus Reid poll found that 45 per cent of Canadians don't support continuation of constitutional monarchy, while 39 per cent do. This, however, doesn't mean it'll be easy to do. But if many former colonies can do it without rancour, and the U.K. can split from the EU to exert its sovereignty and independence, why not Canada from the U.K.?
The controversy surrounding Julie Payette has opened the door to a larger debate about how Canada can chart a brave new course. Let's have it.