|
It is true that the monarchy was one of the crucial federal-provincial
divisions of power under negotiation at that time. But, in French
writings of the period, the monarchy was clearly perceived as
one of the holdovers of British domination in Canada. The 1960s
riots over the crown made Quebec a territory that it was unwise
for our "head of state" to visit.
The British Crown in Canada subtly suggests to Canadian citizens,
however indirectly, that they live in a white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant
country which privileges British traditions and those who represent them,
and which still accepts ideas of hierarchy and heredity instead of democracy
and merit. The monarch of the United Kingdom cannot be a Roman Catholic and
heredity must go first to a boy.
Nevertheless, we may admit that modernizing the crown in Canada is neither crucial
nor urgent. There are no crowds rampaging in the streets demanding the Queen's head.
Still, it would be wise for us to think ahead; to recognize that a foreign Queen as
head of state no longer reflects our Canadian democracy, no18.jpg" align="top" border="0">')
if (number==18)
document.write(' ')
if (number==19)
document.write(' ')
if (number==20)
document.write(' ')
if (number==21)
document.write(' ')
if (number==22)
document.write(' ')
if (number==23)
document.write(' ')
if (number==24)
document.write(' ')
if (number==25)
document.write(' ')
if (number==26)
document.write(' ')
if (number==27)
document.write(' ')
if (number==28)
document.write(' ')
if (number==29)
document.write(' ')
}
|
|
independent status or
demographic composition.
As such, it is an institution that divides rather than unites us. Half the respondents
to opinion polls have been saying they do not support the monarchy. There is almost
unanimous opposition in Quebec (just 7 per cent support). Percentages of opposition
among youth are much higher than the norm. It may as much be a case of indifference
as opposition. As the journalist Graham Fraser pointed out at the time of the death
of Princess Diana, all there was in Canada was hand-me-down analysis from the United
Kingdom. He concluded that the startling silence was a striking example of the
irrelevance of the monarchy to Canadians. (Le Devoir, 97-09-11, p. A-6)
So there we have it. By burying their heads in the sand and being apathetic about
the issue, Canadians have saddled themselves with a 'head of state' which manages to
be both divisive and irrelevant. The Government would be wise not to ignore these
opinions until a time when it is forced into precipitous action. It is time to include
the public in a more informed analysis and debate on the crown in Canada.
In sum, there are four reasons we should discuss the monarchy now. Many Canadians
feel unrepresented by a British head of state. We need a Canno18.jpg" align="top" border="0">')
if (number==18)
document.write('')
if (number==19)
document.write('')
if (number==20)
document.write('')
if (number==21)
document.write('')
if (number==22)
document.write('')
if (number==23)
document.write('')
if (number==24)
document.write('')
if (number==25)
document.write('')
if (number==26)
document.write('')
if (number==27)
document.write('')
if (number==28)
document.write('')
if (number==29)
document.write('')
}
|
adian figurehead who reflects
our values and population. As part of a future constitutional package, a Canadianized head
of state would be a goodwill gesture to Quebecers and neo-Canadians to help make all citizens
comfortable. Grasping the bull by the horns and starting a gradual discussion process now,
the Canadian government would show we are a learner society capable of continual evolution.
And we can do it all while maintaining our attachment to the monarchy and our respect for
the Queen.
We have not only to ask ourselves whether Canada should remain a monarchy but also
what sort of regime should be substituted for it?
Does the Crown Adequately Fulfil the Functions of a Canadian Head of State?
The question should really be the other way around. We need significant
reasons for hanging on to a foreign head of state who is so obviously out of sync with
Canadian society and whose ineffective representative in Canada costs some $20 million a
year (not including royal visits). Toronto historian, Michael Bliss, has called the
British monarchy in Canada, "archaic...foreign...hereditary privilege...irrelevant...relics
that should be preserved in a museum."
We might even ask, if some day we wish to discuss institutional or constitutional
reform in Canada, is it possible to imagine doing so without conno18.jpg" align="top" border="0">')
if (number==18)
document.write('')
if (number==19)
document.write('')
if (number==20)
document.write('')
if (number==21)
document.write('')
if (number==22)
document.write('')
if (number==23)
document.write('')
if (number==24)
document.write('')
if (number==25)
document.write('')
if (number==26)
document.write('')
if (number==27)
document.write('')
if (number==28)
document.write('')
if (number==29)
document.write('')
}
|
sidering the position
of head of state? To ignore this important part of our political system would be
absurd. Which brings up the question, just what is a head of state? A country may have
both a head of state and a head of government - or these two positions may be combined
in one. In Canada we have both the Queen (represented in Canada by the Governor General)
and the Prime Minister (head of government). In the United States they have a President
who combines both positions.
Over the years many political experts in Canada have come to believe it is useful
to have two positions. A non-partisan head of state can serve to personify the state
and the unity of the political community and be above partisan politics in times of
stress. The head of state can un-burden the prime minister of much of the routine
ceremonial events and protocol duties. An additional figurehead serves as a reminder
to the prime minister he or she is not the only or final authority in the land and
can also serve as a source of confidential and independent advice.
Now, then, let us ask what is it that the Crown in Canada is supposed to
do for our political system and whether these functions could not be better
performed by a Canadian figurehead?
The head of state should symbolize and promote the unity of the political no18.jpg" align="top" border="0">')
if (number==18)
document.write('')
if (number==19)
document.write('')
if (number==20)
document.write('')
if (number==21)
document.write('')
if (number==22)
document.write('')
if (number==23)
document.write('')
if (number==24)
document.write('')
if (number==25)
document.write('')
if (number==26)
document.write('')
if (number==27)
document.write('')
if (number==28)
document.write('')
if (number==29)
document.write('')
}
|
community as well as being a rallying point in times of difficulty like the royal
family was in Britain during the Second World War. He or she should legitimately
incarnate the best of the society, its identity and values. Canada is no longer an
English colony with a majority English population. Neither a British monarch nor
a governor general operating in her shadow can hope to represent the complex unity
of Canada today.
Continuous repetition of the mantra that Elizabeth II is the "Queen of Canada" is
unlikely to modify this perception. The world knows she is British. In addition, it can
be argued that few Canadian democrats in the era of the Charter desire a constant reminder
of this hierarchical, colonial, deferential past located in distant, hereditary privilege
and British domination. Nor can a governor general representing such a tradition act as a
legitimate symbol or go-between in times of social or institutional turmoil in Canada.
In their persons, the head of state should personify the State and give it a human
face that represents the country on ceremonial occasions at home and abroad.
We now have the worst of both worlds with someone we rarely see because she lives in a
foreign country and her representatives who are often nominated by party patronage.
How can our new citizens comno18.jpg" align="top" border="0">')
if (number==18)
document.write('')
if (number==19)
document.write('')
if (number==20)
document.write('')
if (number==21)
document.write('')
if (number==22)
document.write('')
if (number==23)
document.write('')
if (number==24)
document.write('')
if (number==25)
document.write('')
if (number==26)
document.write('')
if (number==27)
document.write('')
if (number==28)
document.write('')
if (number==29)
document.write('')
}
|
prehend Canada when they are asked to swear allegiance
to someone who is the Queen of England? What does it do for our international reputation?
Our head of state is meant to be a model of integrity and stability. Although the
Queen Mother and Queen Elizabeth herself are still held in quite high respect, the
same can hardly be said of the British royal family which has lost its "magic and
mystery" and can no longer be associated with the values of moral leadership, pride,
integrity and dedication to duty which are required to inspire a sense of confidence
and stability in the population. Nor can these feelings be inspired by the type of
partisan nominations that have recently predominated in Canada prior to the present
Governor General. No matter how well they behaved, nothing could negate the fact or the
image that Ray Hnatyshyn was a former Conservative minister or that Romeo LeBlanc was former
press secretary to Liberal prime ministers.
There are many other functions associated with the position of head of state which
can evidently be handled as well or better by a Canadian if the position is structured
properly.
I am thinking of such functions as the protection of democracy, counselling
the Prime Minister and unburdening him of ceremonial functions, being a symbol of
authority (legitimate authority) andno18.jpg" align="top" border="0">')
if (number==18)
document.write('')
if (number==19)
document.write('')
if (number==20)
document.write('')
if (number==21)
document.write('')
if (number==22)
document.write('')
if (number==23)
document.write('')
if (number==24)
document.write('')
if (number==25)
document.write('')
if (number==26)
document.write('')
if (number==27)
document.write('')
if (number==28)
document.write('')
if (number==29)
document.write('')
}
|
being above partisan politics.
More than anything else, using the British monarch as our head of state blocks the
positive development of Canadian identity. As the Constitutional Committee of the
Canadian Bar Association (not a notably radical group) reported in 1978, "In our opinion,
if we want to "promote across this country feelings of confidence, pride and a sense of
belonging" the head of state should be a Canadian. The function of head of state, by
definition, is an important symbol of national identity." Towards a New Canada.
We need Canadian figureheads who, cumulatively, over time, will represent the
country's bilingual and multicultural attributes, be symbols of achievement and pride,
be models for our youth, and project Canadian values on the international scene.
For Canadians of British stock, it is a marvellous opportunity to demonstrate their
fabled sense of fairness by nurturing an evolution that conforms to the reality of
the new Canada we have created. It will allow all Canadians to aspire to the highest
position in the country as well as helping us to develop and unify the Canadian identity.
We will see ourselves through our head of state.
What Sort of New Regime?
The modernization of the monarchy in Canada need not be a put-down of the Royal
Family or a rejection of our monarno18.jpg" align="top" border="0">')
if (number==18)
document.write('')
if (number==19)
document.write('')
if (number==20)
document.write('')
if (number==21)
document.write('')
if (number==22)
document.write('')
if (number==23)
document.write('')
if (number==24)
document.write('')
if (number==25)
document.write('')
if (number==26)
document.write('')
if (number==27)
document.write('')
if (number==28)
document.write('')
if (number==29)
document.write('')
}
|
chical traditions. Both have been an often beneficial
part of Canadian history. Our efforts at modernization should be directed to maintaining
as many of these attributes as possible while Canadianizing our head of state.
The British monarch should remain the titular head of the British Commonwealth of
which Canada is a leading member, as it is of the Francophonie. In this capacity, to
stress our common heritage, members of the Royal Family will continue to be invited to
make royal visits to Canada where they no doubt will be received with greater honour
and enthusiasm.
In order to continue our traditions and even maintain the same title in our
documents, the Governor General should become our head of state. It is a fine,
descriptive title that has been part of Canada's tradition for several centuries.
If we appropriate the term governor general for our head of state, its links with
the past would make it another example of Canada's evolutionary style of political
development. All the crown's prerogatives in Canada, both in the written Constitution
and by convention, would be transferred to the Governor General, avoiding a debilitating
debate over their definition.
As we have already intimated, it is politically useful to maintain a separate
institution of 'head of state' who is distinct from the positiono18.jpg" align="top" border="0">')
if (number==18)
document.write('')
if (number==19)
document.write('')
if (number==20)
document.write('')
if (number==21)
document.write('')
if (number==22)
document.write('')
if (number==23)
document.write('')
if (number==24)
document.write('')
if (number==25)
document.write('')
if (number==26)
document.write('')
if (number==27)
document.write('')
if (number==28)
document.write('')
if (number==29)
document.write('')
}
|
n of Prime Minister
as 'head of government'. In part, this is to carry out the devolved prerogatives
and reserve powers and duties of the Crown, especially the naming of a new prime
minister in situations of political ambiguity. But, it is also to fulfil other
less well known functions. These include: relieving the prime minister of many
ceremonial duties; acting as both a "humbling presence" and a sounding board for
the prime minister; reminding the citizens there is a state and a political community
that persists even if they do not like the colour of the particular government;
and giving a humane face to the sometimes cold, aloof and distant offices of state.
Governors general book thousands of miles a years visiting hundreds of groups on behalf
of the federal government - a warm, human presence.
For all these same reasons, it would be beneficial to have a relatively
long term of office, say eight years, renewable once for a period of up to
another eight years. It is a position in which experience, recognition and wisdom will
be of importance.
Should the new Governors General be elected or nominated? This is the issue that
caused such divisions in Australia in their recent referendum on the abolition of the
monarchy. There are two dangers to be avoided. The first is creating duplication and
conflict betweeno18.jpg" align="top" border="0">')
if (number==18)
document.write('')
if (number==19)
document.write('')
if (number==20)
document.write('')
if (number==21)
document.write('')
if (number==22)
document.write('')
if (number==23)
document.write('')
if (number==24)
document.write('')
if (number==25)
document.write('')
if (number==26)
document.write('')
if (number==27)
document.write('')
if (number==28)
document.write('')
if (number==29)
document.write('')
}
|
n two political figures both of whom are legitimated by popular election.
Second, the position of Governor General should not be used for partisan political
purposes. These dangers rule out direct election and partisan nomination.
But indirect election is a feasible alternative. Perhaps, as the Globe and Mail has
long suggested, the Officers of the Order of Canada might operate as a nominating committee
which would develop a short list of five candidates. To avoid political pressures they
might even form a restrained nominating committee for each occasion, the members known
only to themselves. We could count on their wisdom to make nominations that would take
into consideration such factors as gender and linguistic, ethnic and regional background.
A nomination coming from the Order would add prestige, legitimacy, and merit to the position.
However, the idea of using the Order of Canada has been criticized as being perhaps
too far removed from political considerations. For this reason, to attain a political
benediction, I propose submitting the list of five candidates to an "electoral college",
a joint, federal-provincial, legislative electoral group to spark a national dialogue.
The eventual governor general would require ratification by an election by two thirds
of the members of the provincial legislatures and tno18.jpg" align="top" border="0">')
if (number==18)
document.write('')
if (number==19)
document.write('')
if (number==20)
document.write('')
if (number==21)
document.write('')
if (number==22)
document.write('')
if (number==23)
document.write('')
if (number==24)
document.write('')
if (number==25)
document.write('')
if (number==26)
document.write('')
if (number==27)
document.write('')
if (number==28)
document.write('')
if (number==29)
document.write('')
}
|
he House of Commons, in order to move
as close as possible toward a degree of all-party approval.
Let us call this new regime a "constitutional democracy" rather than a "republic".
While, in a sense, we would just be playing with words, it would serve to emphasize our
tradition of trying to balance constitutional protection of 'peace, order and good
government' with populist democracy 'by the people'. Similarly, we would replace
the word "the Crown" in our government documentation with the term "the State".
The Process of Change
While it may be relatively simple to design a new Governor Generalship, its
elaboration and implementation will be neither easy nor rapid. Another reason
why we should start now to think about it in a national learning process to help
produce the large consensus necessary to obtain the unanimous approval required
from Parliament and the Provinces and perhaps a referendum! There will be opposition,
but the debate will only make for better institution building and a period of
public education. To assure this, the Government should name a "royal" commission to
investigate the issue.
There are sure to be significant problems. Will we want to continue having
provincial lieutenant governors? Can we leave it up to each province or must
there be uniformity? Could some retano18.jpg" align="top" border="0">')
if (number==18)
document.write('')
if (number==19)
document.write('')
if (number==20)
document.write('')
if (number==21)
document.write('')
if (number==22)
document.write('')
if (number==23)
document.write('')
if (number==24)
document.write('')
if (number==25)
document.write('')
if (number==26)
document.write('')
if (number==27)
document.write('')
if (number==28)
document.write('')
if (number==29)
document.write('')
}
|
in the monarchical tie if they desired so to do?
Or could some become republics? Do not think these are simple rhetorical questions.
In Quebec there is a group of young nationalists who are proposing that Quebec use
its powers to replace parliamentary monarchy by a republican constitution with an
elected president as the Quebec head of state. (Le Devoir, 18 December 2001, p. A-7).
De facto separatism by the backdoor perhaps, but also an opportunity for the federal
government to head off the situation by creating a commission to study the issue.
And what will be the status of the crown's historic fiduciary responsibilities
for the native peoples and their treaties? Certainly we should start by consulting
the native peoples about how they see the relationship and how their interests could
be cared for. It is likely there is no real power or monetary base to the crown's
responsibility. But there is a question of trust and a historic bond that amounts
to a moral contract on which the natives may base their appeals for justice in the
court of public opinion. It is possible the entire fiduciary responsibility could be
devolved on the Governor General as long as it was made a public issue to which the
native leaders could easily turn sometime in the future.
If the governor general were head of state how could he/she be no18.jpg" align="top" border="0">')
if (number==18)
document.write('')
if (number==19)
document.write('')
if (number==20)
document.write('')
if (number==21)
document.write('')
if (number==22)
document.write('')
if (number==23)
document.write('')
if (number==24)
document.write('')
if (number==25)
document.write('')
if (number==26)
document.write('')
if (number==27)
document.write('')
if (number==28)
document.write('')
if (number==29)
document.write('')
}
|
removed in the
event of abuse of the position. Likely we would use something similar to current
nominees who are given authority for a period of time on good behaviour.
It may be we would have to spell out what is expected of a governor general by
way of good behaviour. Should there ever be perceptions of abuse, the House of
Commons could institute procedures against the governor general before the Supreme Court.
There are probably other questions such as whether constitutionalists and politicians
will want any of the conventions concerning the crown to be spelt out in the constitution.
Another reason for us to initiate an exploratory study commission where these potential
problems can be worked through before they become politicized.
Without at all trivializing these issues, they must be seen within
the context of the general principle that Canada will be better off with our own head
of state who will reflect our society and develop our sense of identity.
