In a speech in May 1955, Vincent Massey, the first Canadian-born governor general (1952-1959), said true toleration was a “forbearance towards something that you do not like, or even that you disapprove of, in the interests of a greater common good.” He praised the parliamentary system as an example where speech was often frank and unpalatable, but tolerated.
He then added, “It is the genius of our constitution that the Crown, at its apex, stands for permanence and harmony in order that conflict of opinion in pursuit of truth may be untrammelled.”
Massey was a businessman, philanthropist, diplomat, and promoter of the arts and education. He was fluently bilingual and visited every region in Canada, sometimes using canoe or dog team to get there. He understood that the Crown, which he represented, was not an irrelevant symbol; it had meaning, represented more than history and tradition, and was imbued with duty, service, and virtue.
When his successor, Georges Vanier, took the oath of office, his first words were a prayer: “May almighty God in His infinite wisdom and mercy bless the sacred mission which has been entrusted to me by Her Majesty the Queen and help me to fulfill it in all humility.”
Vanier, like Massey, exemplified a life of service. In the First World War, he was a soldier with the legendary Van Doos, the 22nd Regiment, and later became their commander. He was wounded in the war, losing a leg, but refused to return home. Fluently bilingual, he later became a diplomat and was vocal in his efforts to get Canada to adopt a more humane immigration policy. He was appointed governor general at the age of 71.
In his last speech, Vanier returned to one of his primary themes: unity. “Canada owes it to the world to remain united, for no lesson is more badly needed than the one our unity can supply: the lesson that diversity need not be the cause for conflict, but, on the contrary, may lead to richer and nobler living. I pray to God that we go forward hand in hand. We cannot run the risk of this great country falling into pieces.”
It would be easy to dismiss Massey and Vanier as men from a bygone era, but that would neglect the larger lesson: those who are appointed to the role of governor general carry a burden by representing the Crown and all that it personifies.
On such matters, the view of Walter Bagehot, a 19th-century political analyst and economist, is as pertinent today as when he wrote it in 1867 in an essay, The English Constitution. The Crown represents the “dignified” part of the constitution, which excites and preserves the reverence of the population. Parliament is the “efficient” part, which does the work. The governor general, then, must do the dignified work.
Military leaders know what it means to serve the Crown, not politics. A military leader, with a record of duty and service to the Crown, would make the ideal governor general. Such a person would embody the virtues of loyalty, sacrifice, and non-partisan service that the Crown represents. In a time of political polarization, a governor general with a military background could help restore the dignity and unity that the office requires.
