bout de papier, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1992) — Spring 1992 // Printemps 1992, p. 10
The Prime Minister’s decision to return Canada to a neo-colonial status by going directly to the Queen of Britain for authority to add eight new seats to the Senate ought to provoke a serious debate over the question of the Head of State.
Every time the seven richest industrialized countries in the world meet, every Canadian should cringe at the idea that our country merits inclusion in this exclusive gathering of heads of state or of government and yet maintains a constitutionally subordinant role to Britain, the monarch of which is still legally our Head of State.
Does this matter? Does the Governor- General matter? A number of commentaries over the last year criticizing, justifiably, the highly political nature of recent appointments to this post, have also suggested that the position itself has become irrelevant. This is totally frivolous. A head of state is a necessity and serves a distinct purpose. There is no country in the world, no matter how minuscule, that does not have a head of state of one kind or another. As far as democratic societies are concerned, they have either a constitutional monarch; an executive president (i.e. one who exercises both the powers of a head of state and of a head of government); or an elected president (i.e. one who does not have governing power). The history of the last one hundred years has demonstrated that a constitutional monarchy in a stable democracy is probably the safest, most equitable and most efficient form of government.
The years since World War II have shown that the next best system is a democratic republic with a freely chosen president who serves for a fixed term of office and who stands above political parties and represents the whole nation, leaving the day-to-day governing to the prime minister who is head of the political party in power.
The other republican alternative is that chosen by the American people some two hundred years ago; a president who is also effectively the prime minister. There are many obvious flaws with this form of government. The first is that in this system the head of state by that very fact must also be partisan. By the nature of things, the incumbent cannot stand above party politics and represent the nation as a whole, except in crisis situations. The second is that in the present day world governing has become an immensely complex and overwhelming job. Combining all the public and protocol functions demanded of a head of state with day-to-day governing becomes too much for any one individual to perform satisfactorily.
A few years ago, Lloyd Cutler (President Jimmy Carter’s legal advisor) told me that flaws of this nature in the American Constitution had been recognized and that a committee of legal experts was working on suggestions for rectifying the worst anomalies in the system. He was not confident that anything would come of it and, indeed, nothing did largely because the Constitution has come to represent almost a sacred document for most Americans.
The French have tried to combine the two republican systems by having a president elected on a party basis who retains substantial powers, particularly in foreign affairs and defence, while also having both the government and a prime minister drawn from that party which has the majority of deputies in parliament. Since both offices are elected separately and for different terms (i.e. seven and five years), this system only works satisfactorily if the president and the prime minister are from the same party.
It seems self-evident, therefore, that Canada must have a head of state. We cannot go on avoiding the issue indefinitely with the myth that the Queen of Britain is the “Queen of Canada”.. She cannot, as Queen of Britain, play the two roles effectively required of our head of state: to represent the nation (Canada) while remaining above party politics; and to carry out all the ceremonial jobs. When these two roles are carried out, the prime minister can perform the task for which he is elected — to govern the country according to the wishes of the electorate. Nor can she receive visiting heads of state on official visits to Canada or, in return, repay those visits abroad as Canada’s head of state. Foreign heads of state only grudgingly accept the Governor- General as a kind of surrogate head of state.
Apart from these factors, which point inexorably to the urgent need for a serious non-partisan effort to bring Canada up-to-date internationally on this issue, is the obvious fact that French-Canadians have always considered this desire to cling to the British Crown as an affront. In addition, probably a large majority of other Canadians no longer feel any attachment to the role of the monarchy, although they probably think with respect and even affection of the Queen as an individual.
What are the alternatives? If we draw logical conclusions from history, a constitutional monarchy would be the best solution, perhaps making Prince Andrew the “King of Canada”. There is precedent for this proposal in the western hemisphere. In 1807, when the King of Portugal was faced with the imminent occupation of Lisbon by Napoleon’s army, he retreated to Brazil. When Wellington drove the French back, the King then returned to Portugal but left his son in Brazil as “Vice-Roy” with the injunction, that if the Brazilians should want independence, he should take the crown himself and put it upon his own head. He did so in 1822. Brazil remained both intact and a monarchy until 1889, while neighbouring Spanish America broke up into seventeen pieces.
The proposal to create a “King of Canada” is, of course, a fanciful suggestion. Logic is not always the answer to tactical problems, even though Andrew and Fergie would bring back glamour to Rideau Hall. Undoubtedly, few would opt for either the American system or the Gallic compromise. This leaves as the only sensible answer to become a Republic but still remain within the Commonwealth. India and many smaller countries are Republics which have elected Presidents who are above party politics, but which recognize the Queen in her role as Head of the Commonwealth.
Conrad Black, in his essay on the constitutional crisis in Saturday Night (September 1990), suggested altering the position of Governor-General to that of a combined President and Governor-General; a dignity, however, which would still be conferred by the Queen of Britain. This is ingenious, but probably would only be a stop-gap. If we are going to take the step and cut the umbilical cord in order to make Canada’s position in the world consonant with our international status, then let us do it unambiguously. Let us become a Republic but remain within the Commonwealth; and let us have a President who is elected by both Parliament and Senate (preferably a reformed one) for a fixed term of office, and on a nonpartisan basis!
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1992) — Spring 1992 // Printemps 1992, p. 10. Read the rest of this issue →
