Canada is a constitutional monarchy, which is something that distinguishes us from the Americans. We are not a republic that elects a president, who is both the head of state and head of government. We have instead a dual executive, in which the Queen’s representative — the Governor General — acts as the head of state, and the prime minister is the head of government. This is a system of government that was given to us by our former imperial masters, who modelled it upon their own style of government. But what distinguishes us from the British?
Finally severing the legal links that tied Canada to Britain, we repatriated our Constitution in 1982, and this by its own right was a sovereign act of an independent Canada. Should the British parliament decide to rescind the British North America Act (1867), or the Statute of Westminster (1931), which is their legal prerogative, we would just ignore them. Yet we are still intrinsically linked to their country through the monarchy, as we have the same Queen (head of state).
Because of this, some Britons are still confused and delusional, thinking we are part of their long defunct empire. Is there anything more that we can do to remove any doubt as to our independent sovereign status?
Obviously, following the actions of other former British colonies, we could declare ourselves a republic, replacing our prime minister with a president. But the thought of doing this is probably unsavoury to most Canadians. Besides, we would then have a problem distinguishing ourselves from the Americans. Alternatively, we could choose our next monarch after Queen Elizabeth II.
The thought of this will probably cause some readers to gasp, but in truth, this has happened before in many other constitutional monarchies, as they set out to distinguish themselves from former imperial rulers. Norway and Sweden are just two examples. Even within British history, we have seen monarchs brought in as a substitution to deposed kings. In fact, John Locke said it was the right of the people to replace an unjust or ineffective monarch, which the British did themselves in 1688.
It is both presumptuous and unjust to say that the Queen’s successor will be a bad monarch, but we should be able to have a voice in deciding who is our next monarch. The recent changes to the rules of succession — those rules finally catching up with the 20th century (too bad we’re already in the 21st century) — is evidence that they are not set in stone.
Some would continue to argue that the idea of a monarchy is based upon divine rights, though these ideas seem more relevant to a bygone era in the old world, and we are a new country in the new world, in modern times. Should such rules be extended over us? Why would we allow Europeans to continue to believe they have influence over our country?
European states still think they can tell us what to do because they see us as a secondary state, not a primary player. This has been illustrated recently by the world not listening to our strategies for regulating the banking industry following the global recession, Germany telling us what to do with the Arctic and France wading in on our environmental policies.
Surely, it is time we take a stand on this intrusion on Canadian sovereignty. Choosing our own head of state would be a start.
Don’t start lining up to become the next king or queen of Canada, however, as there may be more to the pomp and prestige of this position. Judging from the response of last year’s visit by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Canadians are fairly jingoistic (like the monarchy).
Would it make sense then that if Charles is to inherit the throne of England, can we not offer the throne of Canada to Prince William? It would be popular and within the realm of certain traditions. And to the question posed at the beginning, it would definitely distinguish us from Britain.
John Kennair is an international consultant and doctor of laws who lives in St. Albert.
