You would think that the number of pundits reaching for their fainting couches on Wednesday night, when news spread that Governor General Julie Payette made supposedly derisive comments about climate deniers and creationists in a speech to a group of scientists that evening, that we were on the verge of a constitutional crisis. "How dare she comment on things that are under debate?" came the aggrieved cries, as pearls were clutched.
One of the most aggravating parts of this whole incident is the refrain from my learned fellow pundits is that the country's vice-regal is supposed to be a "figurehead" who shall refrain from any and all statements that could possibly be construed as controversial. She should, apparently, be a mannequin, or at most, an animatronic puppet who can deliver pre-packaged sentiments about how great Canada is, and something about maple leaves and puppies. Which is completely wrong.
But first, Payette's comments. Part of the problem is that they were reported over Twitter and elsewhere in text form, without seeing the tone in which they were delivered. The inferences of tone came from the Canadian Press reporter who relayed them, and who didn't give the full context of what it was that Payette was saying. And as with anything, context is what matters.
Yes, Payette was somewhat incredulous that there are houses of government in learned societies where climate denial is being discussed, and creationism. But what seems to have escaped most of her critics is that these kinds of discussions are not happening in Canada, and that this was more likely a reference to our neighbours to the south. Here, all mainstream parties have accepted that climate change is man-made and the policy differences are in how to deal with this. Payette did not comment on those policies. Likewise, creationism is not a public policy debate in Canada there are no provinces for whom it is mandated in their curriculum, unlike again, in the United States. These are not live public policy issues in Canada, and are not partisan issues for which she should steer clear. Likewise, I'm not aware of any parties who have taken a position that Canadians should live according to their horoscopes, or that placebos combined with wishing and hoping are acceptable medical practices. These are not policy debates, and it's galling that mainstream pundits in Canada seem to be implying that they are.
The other part that the commentariat missed, if they bothered to watch the whole clip, is that Payette was bringing up the problems where misinformation is amplified by social media in a way that is largely unprecedented, and that is why there needs to be vigilance by the crowd of scientists that she was addressing.
"Democracy and society have always gained from learned debate, whether it is political, scientific, or economical, but we have to remain vigilant, and we cannot let ourselves fall into complacency," said Payette. "We must to be vocal, all the time, everywhere, every single one of us, so that we can deconstruct misinformation and don't end up in an echo chamber where we just end up listening to what we want to hear."
I'm not sure what part of this is objectionable. I don't think she was actually mocking religion given that creationism is a belief held by a narrow slice of mainstream religions, and there are many including mainstream Catholics for whom evolution is accepted fact. (Some people are also pointing out that she represents the Queen, who is the head of the Church of England, forgetting that Payette represents the Queen of Canada, who is not head of said Church. That title belongs to the Queen of the UK, and yes, that distinction matters). Meanwhile, we seem to be proving her point by taking part of what she said out of context and then rattling it around the echo chamber of punditry so that we can have a chance to tut-tut at her and let her know that she's wrong.
It should also be noted that Justin Trudeau didn't help the situation when he was asked about the comments and he said that he was proud that she stood up for science, but neither did the media in trying to torque her actual message into some kind of scandal. The appearance that Trudeau and Payette are a tag team is none too savoury for our system of government, but as with so many things these days, perception is being built by those who are trying to create sensation for the sake of driving clicks, and that's having a detrimental effect on democracy because it's amplifying the same kind of selective misinformation that Payette was calling on her listeners to deconstruct.
As for the calls that Payette guard her tongue in order to preserve her role as figurehead, that needs to be smacked down because the GG, like the Queen, is not a "figurehead." They still have actual political powers that can be used, and in the GG's case in particular in Canada, is called upon to decide who gets to form a government. Just months ago, we saw how vital this vice-regal role was after the fairly inconclusive results of the BC election, where that province's lieutenant governor had to make a call in the face of the howls of partisans and two-bit pundits who shouted demands at her in the face of the advice that she was receiving from the incumbent premier.
We appoint our vice-regal representatives because we have to be confident in their judgment, and that they will exercise their powers in a constitutionally appropriate manner, while making it clear that yes, they do have discretionary powers. Payette is clearly someone for whom we have appointed for her accomplishments, and because we believe that she will have the good judgment in using those discretionary powers. If we wanted to appoint a mannequin to the role who would simply smile, nod, and sign bills on request, then we wouldn't bother with finding exemplary individuals for the role, but settle for media darlings instead. That's not the case, and we should stop pretending otherwise.
