Michaelle Jean's Contested Legacy

Did the former governor general's role in the prorogation debacle of 2008 get in the way of her accomplishing her other goals?

Amidst the accolades and fond farewells last week, Michaelle Jean broke her silence on what may well have been her most controversial days as governor general.

After two years of reflection, many continue to see the 2008 prorogation as a blessing. For the Conservatives, her decision saved the Harper government, undermined the acceptability of coalitions, and limited new voices and choices in Parliament.

For many others, however, this episode highlighted in stark terms the constitutional illiteracy of Canadians, the myth of national unity, and the inability of our institutions to protect and defend principles of responsible government.

While exceptions exist, Ms. Jean has generally escaped criticism for her role in the prorogation. Indeed, the conventional wisdom is that while she had the power to refuse Harper, the political environment was such that protecting the role of Parliament in our democracy was politically too risky. Instead, she and her advisers substituted their judgment about the will of the Canadian people instead of listening to the views of those actually elected to Parliament. To date, few have considered what the organized and nasty Socialist-Separatist invective means for Canada. How will Michelle Jean’s role in this debacle be remembered? There are three possible narratives.

The most popular interpretation of Jean’s legacy celebrates her role as a dignified, deferential stateswoman. From dressing up in military garb to demonstrating respect for a northern native tradition by eating a piece of seal heart, Jean has worked her way into the hearts of many Canadians. Her popularity led many to view her decision to prorogue Parliament as a necessary measure to protect Canada from the “nefarious” Socialist-Separatist coalition.

A more critical view of Jean’s role in prorogation might see her as the vice-regal of irresponsible government. On this view, by acquiescing to the wishes of a prime minister trying to avoid a confidence vote in the House, Jean facilitated a continued disrespect for the power of Parliament. While the cynical use of prorogation is by no means the first attempt to undermine the traditional role of the House of Commons in Canada, it has set a terrible precedent that may be hard to overturn.

Moreover, Jean’s decision popularized the notion that centuries-old constitutional principles could be hijacked whenever bullies demonize political minorities. While perhaps difficult to accept, in this situation, Jean may have been powerless because Canada has failed to come to grips with its own identity: unfortunately for many, Canada is better off without Quebec.

A more nuanced view, however, is that during this period Jean was placed in an impossible personal dilemma. Although the governor general is the ultimate protector of constitutional order in Canada, many interpret her role as always involving political calculation. This calculation, it appears, is not limited to assessing whether or not the prime minister has the confidence of the House. Instead, this discretion extends to making a political judgment about the government and the acceptability of the alternatives. The challenge for those who maintain that the governor general’s discretion works in this way is how these competing priorities are to be resolved when the political turns personal. Indeed in 2008 when the Conservatives demonized the coalition as a separatist coup d’etat, Jean’s political independence may have been seriously compromised, because of who she was, and what she represented.

Much of Ottawa is aware that Jean’s husband is Jean-Daniel Lafond, a documentary filmmaker who has an interest in – if not a direct affiliation with – the Quebec independence movement. It should be recalled that shortly after being named governor general in 2005, Jean was forced to issue a statement denying that she or her husband had links to the separatist movement. As the leader of the opposition at the time, Harper responded by suggesting that there were still questions about Jean’s loyalty to Canada.

We now know that had Jean refused the prime minister’s request for prorogation in 2008, Harper would have attacked the governor general, appealed to the Queen, and continued to pit East against West and Québec against the rest of Canada. The tragic irony of this episode was that while Jean’s inaugural promise was to break down barriers between English and French Canadians, today we are even more divided along persistent and powerful linguistic and cultural lines.

However Jean is remembered, her legacy to some extent will be based on how the next governor general discharges the duties of the office. It can only be hoped that David Johnston can be a better guardian of responsible government min Canada. In an era of minority governments and fractured and divisive political narratives, our constitutional conventions require protection even when they are poorly understood, manipulated, or presented as unpopular.