Cutting the Ties That Bind?

Monarchists think having the Queen as our head of state is an important part of our past, present, and future. Others think it's time to end what they see as meaningless links to the Crown and some don't think it makes much difference one way or the other

Elizabeth II is Canada's Queen; there is a misunderstanding that she is a foreign monarch ruling over us, a remnant of colonial domination. This is not so. But what, exactly, does our Queen do? Royal admirer Michael Valpy writes that she represents protection for provincial rights: "The Canadian Crown is a perfectly balanced, [two-branched] constitutional mechanism in which the provincial sovereign - the Queen as represented by her provincial lieutenant-governors - is equal to the federal sovereign as well as being the same person. Meaning the provincial and federal governments are sovereign and equal within their own jurisdiction; thus, Ottawa can't be the Big Kahuna."

But, in December 1998, officials in Prime Minister Jean Chretien's office floated the notion that Canada might, as a millennium project, dump the monarchy.

Those in favour of putting the monarchy behind us say the time has come to cut the apron strings; that to do so is a sign of a mature nation. They say that an independent country with a population that is increasingly not of British ancestry no longer has close ties to Britain. As one abolitionist wrote to the Globe and Mail: "The Queen is our Head of State because in the 15th century Henry VII beat Richard III in a battle in England. Surely, there must be a more suitable method of choosing a Canadian head of state late in the 20th century."

Critics say nostalgia and loyalty are the only things that link the Royal Family to contemporary Canada. Anti-monarchist Jeffrey Simpson sometimes takes a shot at the British royals in his Globe and Mail column. Back in 1996 he suggested that it would help "if the institution of head of state actually derived from the society it serves, but in modem, bilingual, multicultural, North American Canada, the monarchy in the persons of the British Royal Family can hardly be seen as [growing from] the Canadian society it purportedly serves."

Monarchists say that all the talk about maturity is hogwash. Abolishing the Crown has more to do with what one Canadian described as "an act of adolescent rebelliousness, not maturity; and it would not make us one whit more a nation." Those were the words of James Whyte of Newmarket, Ontario in a letter to the editor of the National Post. Mr. Whyte, along with other monarchists, argues that there are a lot of misconceptions about our connection with the Crown; that it does not mean we are run by the British government, but that we have chosen, as an independent country, to maintain our link to the Crown because it represents the "evolution of the modern parliamentary system, mankind's most flexible and responsive democracy."

Another monarchist reminds us that, if not for a desire to remain loyal to the British Crown in 1776, Canada would never have existed. If, when the U.S. fought for independence, the Loyalists had not decided to move north, perhaps we would just be another American state.

Some have even called any move to cut our remaining British ties as an act of historical vandalism that would wipe out 400 years of our past. They stress that we are no longer a colony anyway, and that it makes sense to keep the link because the Crown is the foundation of our government. And, what's the big deal? We severed our last colonial tie in 1982 with patriation of the power to amend our constitution. It's in our hands now.

Okay. So Canada is not a British colony, but the monarchy is still more than just a symbol here, according to those who want to keep it. Its strength is in removing the head of state from the political system. The Crown, represented by our Governor-General, has the power to dissolve Parliament, for example. That power would be exercised only in the most extreme cases, making it unlikely ever to happen. Certainly, it would not happen without a major uproar over the issue of foreign interference in domestic affairs.

(In 1926, Governor-General Lord Byng refused to allow Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King to dissolve Parliament, leading to what became known as the King-Byng Affair. Although most constitutional experts at the time felt Lord Byng acted correctly, it caused a controversy and he had to return to England.)

One of the strongest arguments for keeping the monarchy is that our constitution requires the approval of all 10 provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament to make any changes. No matter how much the federal government encourages debate on whether or not the Queen should continue as our head of state, there seems little chance that the country as a whole would support changing her status. Some provincial politicians say debating the issue is a waste of time and would only cause unnecessary conflict. They see the monarchy as part of our tradition and point out mat mere are sun many loyal monarchists in Canada. So, why bother?

In December 1998, veteran Liberal MP George Proud, was one politician who spoke out against abolition. He said it would meet with resistance in his home province of Prince Edward Island, where the Queen is highly regarded. An Ottawa Citizen poll in December 1997 showed 41% in favour of abolishing the monarchy when the present Queen dies, with 18% opposed and 39% saying it makes no difference. But, an Angus Reid poll a year earlier show-ed Canadians evenly split on the issue. Those results showed that, outside Quebec, a majority wanted to retain the monarchy. The feeling is that Quebec would strongly support the move to sever ties because Quebeckers, who have never felt connected to the British Crown, think the monarchy is archaic. But, even Quebec MPs see it as a potential can of worms.

However, if by some miracle the country agreed to dispense with the royal connection, the unanswered question of who would replace the Queen remains. A president? Elected? By whom? Wouldn't this create a constitutional tangle greater than the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords rolled into one? It would open up the issues of Senate reform, and distinct society, and do we really need that?

Even some who don't feel strongly about the monarchy say it's one thing that distinguishes us from our neighbours to the south, and that cutting even a weak British tie could hasten the integration of Canada into the United States.

As A.G. Rigg, a professor at the University of Toronto's Centre for Medieval Studies wrote in a Globe and Mail article in 1993, "Neutrality, wisdom, and longevity are important aspects of the monarchy, but the essential ingredient is magic." Only magic could draw thousands of people to line the streets to catch a passing glimpse of a member of the Royal Family. The magic still seems to be winning.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. One newspaper columnist lamented that, while other countries are building things to mark the new millennium, some Canadian government officials thought it might be a good time to abolish the monarchy. Writing in the National Post, Andrew Coyne, reported that some officials saw it as "the breaking of the last colonial bond," a "grand Canadian project," that would give the country "a fantastic burst of momentum and pride." Decide where you stand on the issue. If you think abolishing any connection with the Crown is a dumb idea, suggest other millennium projects.

2. Discuss the role of tradition in our lives. Should it be a major consideration in deciding whether or not to hold on to the monarchy? Do people who dismiss tradition as nostalgia have a valid argument, or does the past hold substance?

FACT FILE

As Canada's head of state, the sovereign represents one of three parts of the Parliament of Canada Crown, Senate, and Commons.

In June 1998, Winnipeg's Norwood School Division changed the name of the French immersion K-6 Ecole Queen Elizabeth (named after the Queen Mother in the 1940s) to Ecole Henri Bergeron, a member of the Order of Canada who was a pioneer of French radio in Western Canada.

RELATED ARTICLE: GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

The Monarchist League of Canada was formed in 1970 to support the constitutional monarchy. There are 20 branches across Canada with a diverse mixture of members, all of whom believe the monarchy is the main reason for Canada's free and prosperous existence as an independent North American country. They got together as a reaction against the growing expressions of nationalism among some Canadians who would prefer to abandon the monarchy. The League aims "to promote loyalty and respect for the Sovereign of Canada and understanding of the constitutional monarchy."

It argues that most of the stable and prosperous democracies in the world

today are constitutional monarchies. It views the Queen of Canada as more democratic than a President of Canada "ever could be because she represents all Canadians," belonging to no political party. And, given that she and her heirs have been trained from birth to perform their sovereign duties, the League says they're the best folks for the job.

RELATED ARTICLE: NAMECALLING AND ALLEGIANCE

There are plenty of examples of the British heritage in many of our place names. Queen Victoria proposed the name British Columbia for Canada's most westerly province in 1858, and the province's capital is named after her. In 1857, she chose Ottawa as the country's capital. The Queen Elizabeth Way, QEW for short, in Ontario was named after the current Queen Mother. Princess Margaret. Prince George. Prince Albert. Princess Anne. The Princess of Wales. If the names of kings, queens, princes, and princesses are not used for cities, towns, or highways, they can be found on hospitals, hotels, schools, and theatres throughout the country.

But we're not as Royal as we used to be. In 1968, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Canadian Navy merged with the army as part of the Canadian Armed Forces. Royal Mail has become Canada Post. And, most government letterhead has dropped the royal coat of arms. But, we still have the Royal Bank of Canada (originally the Merchants Bank of Halifax until 1901), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (previously the North West Mounted Police), and Royal Commissions, to name a few.

The Queen still has a place in Canada's new citizenship oath, although it does focus more on the country and less on the Crown. As part of an overhaul of Canada's citizenship legislation in 1998, the new oath places Canada before the Queen. New citizens swear their allegiance to the country and the Queen, and pledge to respect the country's rights and freedoms, defend its democratic values, and fulfill their obligations as Canadian citizens.

Websites

Monarchist League of Canada - http://www.monarchist.ca/menu

Government of Canada - http://canada.gc.ca/howgoc/ queen/quind_e.html

Governor-General - http:// www.gg.ca

Angus Reid - http:// www.angusreid.com/pressrel/ monarch1.html