‘Time come’ for debate on royal ties
As she was being sworn in on Thursday, Jamaican Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller mused that it might be time for her country to cut its ties with the British monarchy.
“I love the Queen,” she said. “She is a beautiful lady, and apart from being a beautiful lady, a wise lady and a wonderful lady.” Then she slipped into patois and added: “but I think time come.”
Last year, former Jamaican prime minister Bruce Golding said the country should replace the Queen as head of state before Jamaica celebrates 50 years of independence this summer.
“I have long believed that if I am to have a queen, it must be a Jamaican queen,” he said in the House of Commons. “I would not wish to see us celebrate 50 years of independence without completing that part of our ‘sovereignization,’ for want of a better word.”
Next Saturday, Liberals will debate something similar: electing a Canadian head of state.
The Young Liberals, the same little scamps who first raised same-sex marriage as a political issue in this country, have a policy resolution that decries the monarchy as out of touch with our multicultural, democratic country, pointing out, for example, that by British law we are required to have an Anglican as our head of state.
This may sputter out on the convention floor, but not if it gets high-profile support.
On Thursday, Liberal MP Marc Garneau, who wants to lead the party, wrote on Twitter that Canada “has grown up and is ready to make some changes.”
“The Royal in Royal Canadian Navy does not make me swell with pride,” he said. “I am proud to have served in the Canadian navy.”
Garneau’s comments reflect a common view in Quebec, where the monarchy is seen as anachronistic and alienating.
Since the path to renewed national relevance for the Liberals runs through Quebec, they may take this resolution seriously. If they don’t, the NDP will probably take up the issue. Leadership candidate Nathan Cullen has called for a national referendum on the monarchy.
The impetus for this comes from the Conservatives, who have miffed Quebecers by moving away from the half-hearted support for the monarchy that has been the norm in Canada since Lester Pearson was prime minister.
I hope we will have a debate about this, because without a debate it’s hard to know how Canadians really feel.
The polling is ambiguous. In a 2002 EKOS poll, a majority of Canadians agreed with both the following statements:
1. “The monarchy is one of those important things that provides Canadians with a unique identity separate from the U.S.”
2. “The monarchy is an outdated and regressive institution that has no real relevance to most Canadi- ans today.”
If Canadians want to, we could elect our governor general, declare that person is our head of state and stay in the Commonwealth, without quite severing our ties with the monarchy.
The Irish presidency is a good model. The Irish elect their presidents, who serve almost precisely the same function as our governors general, but with greater popular support, because they are elected. There has never been a power struggle between the two offices, which is something monarchists warn about here.
If the prime minister is able to hold consultative elections to select senators — a question the Supreme Court may ultimately decide — then surely we could select our governor general the same way.
And if it is desirable to elect senators, why not the governor general?
When Michaelle Jean once asserted that she was head of state, she was contradicted by Stephen Harper. Constitutional expert Ned Franks has argued persuasively that whoever occupies Rideau Hall is our head of state, since that person is performing all the functions of that role, but it suits prime ministers to keep the focus on Buckingham Palace rather than the potential rival for public affection on the other side of Sussex Drive.
Designating the governor general — elected or not — as our head of state strikes me as a dignified half step toward “sovereignization,” and having elections could help befuddled Canadian voters understand that our prime minister is not like the U.S. president.
The institution could use a fresh coat of paint. It’s hard to imagine, for example, that an elected governor general would have felt it was acceptable to remain silent on the reasons allowing Harper his controversial 2008 prorogation.
There is an argument to be made for modernization, and the Liberal party, by tradition, is the modernizing party.
The Queen is deeply meaningful to many Canadians, though, particularly older people. She provides an example of dedication and duty from a bygone age, and any gesture of disrespect to her would be painful to those who identify with her.
But electing our own head of state wouldn’t necessarily be against the monarchy, just for our own country, which is changing.
According to Statistics Canada, in 1981, 34 per cent of Canadians identified as of British origin. In 2006, it was 20 per cent. The monarchy is less relevant to new Canadians, and in Quebec it has always been a symbol of the conquest of New France. I think time come — for a debate at least.