Does Jean believe in Canada?

It could have been worse. The Prime Minister might have appointed to Canada’s highest office a citizen of another country, perhaps one who was hostile to Canada’s continued existence and -- what the hell, just for argument’s sake -- delighted in the company of terrorists.

But he didn’t. True, the new Governor General of Canada is a citizen of France -- but also of Canada. Some of her friends say she’s a separatist, but we don’t actually know for sure. And it’s her husband who numbers among his associates the men who kidnapped and garrotted Pierre Laporte, not her. What a relief!

Now, all of this is perfectly legal. The laws of Canada, for good or ill, permit Canadians to hold dual citizenship, just as they permit the peaceful advocacy of the country’s dismemberment and dissolution. And while the law takes rather a dimmer view of terrorism, it is your right, if you wish, to welcome convicted terrorists into your home once they have served their time.

That is, it’s your right as a private citizen. But as Governor General? Of all of Canada’s 32 million citizens -- even among its black, female, francophone citizens -- was it not possible to find one who was also unimpeachably federalist and unambiguously Canadian?

Consider what we require of a Governor General. As the personification of the Crown, the wellspring of all constitutional authority, he or she is expected to inspire loyalty to the country, reverence for its laws, and respect for its traditions and values. The Governor General has not only the job of representing the Queen, but of us, and of those things on which our society depends: freedom, democracy, order. And, on occasion, he or she may be required to act in such a way as to preserve them, adjudicating among the parties contending for power and, in extremis, calling them to account for its abuse. In such crises, it is useful to be able to draw upon not only those reserves of popular respect that attach to the office, but also to the person.

It is not unreasonable, then, to expect whoever was selected would be conspicuous for those qualities he or she is supposed to inspire among others. He would not merely believe that public service was a good thing: he would be a shining example of it. She would not simply live in Canada, as a convenience: she would be devoted to it, as an ideal. We would not need to ask how he or she had voted in a referendum on Canada’s very existence as a federation. The question would not even arise.

Indeed, we would not need to be told what the appointment meant, what “statement” it made about Canada. We would already know. The person chosen would already command such admiration and affection among the public that it was the office whose prestige was thus enhanced, rather than the other way around. As a bonus, they might even believe in the institution they were appointed to represent.

Can any of this be said about the current appointee, plucked mid-career from the second ranks of the CBC and thrust upon an unsuspecting public? There have been undistinguished holders of the office before her, but none about which so little is known, and on such fundamental questions. At the press conference following her elevation (since when did G-G’s do press conferences?), she could not even bring herself to say whether she supports the monarchy, preferring neutral statements of fact -- it exists, it is “our oldest institution” -- to positive enthusiasm. Perhaps we should be thankful it did not occur to anyone to ask whether she also believes in Canada.

It is no small thing that the holder of supreme executive office in one country should also be a citizen of another -- a citizen not by chance or precedence, but as a result, we are told, of some considerable effort. Citizenship, if it means anything, entails not just rights but responsibilities: loyalty, duty, service. And while it might be nice to imagine that the interests of two countries would not conflict, in practice they do -- leaving aside France’s long history of intriguing against this country. So the person whose job it is to inspire loyalty in others is herself divided in her loyalties. Unless she has none.

We do not know whether Michaelle Jean is a separatist, or was: we have it on Jean Lapierre’s authority that she is not, which strangely does not fill me with confidence. (Her own silence since the controversy arose has not helped.) But the significance of this is not that she is, but that she could be. We have grown so used to treating separatism as a legitimate “option,” a political choice like any other, that even now some readers will be thinking the question offensive -- not because the issue is in some doubt, but because it does not matter.

Is it too much to expect that the Governor General of Canada should actually believe in Canada? That she should have a conspicuous record of commitment to the country? That she should be unashamed to say, publicly and often, that it should exist?