Guly, C. “The Maple Leaf and the Crown” 
The New Federation 5.4 (1999): 21-24.

The Maple Leaf and the Crown
by Christopher Guly

Canadian democracy is not living up to its full potential. Our Governor General, the Queen’s representative, is an appointed figurehead and a reminder of our colonial heritage and patronage system. Can Adrienne Clarkson convince the Prime Minister that the time has come to legitimize the position through election – either by a two-thirds majority of parliamentarians or directly by Canadians at the next general election?

	It took a death to propel the debate over the future, and relevance, of the British monarchy into fast drive.
	When Diana died tragically in a Paris tunnel on August 31, 1997, the world watched every last outward expression of protocol and emotion displayed by members of the Royal Family. As the consummate outsider to “The Firm,” Diana’s singularity fueled republicanism in the United Kingdom and abroad. For this group, her death, and the perceived slowness with which the Queen responded to it, has in some ways made the Princess of Wales an eternal symbol for anti-monarchists. Others, of course, would argue that Diana’s untimely death kick-started the Royal Family into renewed relevance by embracing the outpouring of emotion offered them.
	But, while Diana undoubtedly remains an icon for various differing interests, her passing away may have also heralded the passing of the last great wave of monarchist sentiment. Prince Edward’s recent marriage to Sophie Rhys-Jones, while followed intently by royal-watchers everywhere, has not grabbed the imagination of the broader public in the way Charles and Diana’s wedding did.
	Meanwhile, the real debate over the future of the British monarchy is being fought at a far more secular level. As Jeffrey Simpson recently observed in The Globe and Mail, “... the monarchy is more than the Queen. It’s a whole way of thinking about government and the relationship between it and the ‘people.’” What’s more, those secular forces seem increasingly stacked against the Queen and her heirs. In Australia, a nationwide referendum will be held before the end of this year on whether to do away with the Queen as that country’s head of state. The alternative: allow the public to nominate candidates for the position, producing a short list from which the Prime Minister would choose – but the choice would require the consent of the leader of the opposition, as well as the support of two-thirds of Australia’s lower chamber.
	Judging by their mood, Australians may very well say goodbye to the Queen as their head of state before the year is up. Recent opinion polls suggest that 54 per cent of Australians oppose the monarchy. The Australian anti-monarchist movement has attracted some top-brass members, including Sir Anthony Mason, former chief justice of the High Court, and Sir Zelman Cowen, who served as no less than the Queen’s representative as the country’s Governor General.
	The Australians are not alone. A similar strategy for replacing the Queen with an elected head of state is also brewing in New Zealand. There are even rumblings about retiring the monarchy in the United Kingdom itself, where 72 per cent of respondents in a recent survey published in The Sunday Times agreed that the Queen is “out of touch” with the British public.
	And if that’s true, anti-monarchists in Canada must certainly wonder how she can relate to this country, built by immigrants and boasting a unique multicultural mosaic. Monarchists counter that the Queen herself is multicultural, claiming mongrel ethnicity (Armenian, Ukrainian, Swedish, Italian, Greek and even Jewish) in her family background.
	Nevertheless, republicans view Queen Elizabeth II, who first took the throne in 1952, as a vestige of a past no longer relevant. In Canada, many believe that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is republican in philosophy with its emphasis on “rights,” natural law and the “people,” as opposed to the monarchy and common law. In a recent issue of the New Zealand republican movement journal The New Commonwealth, New Zealand MP Michael Laws argues that his country “is no longer a colonial outpost of the British Empire. ... We are an independent nation with a multicultural heritage and yet our present institutions do not reflect that diversity. The British Crown is a symbol of our past, a nostalgic talisman of our childhood.”
	In Canada, we have two pasts: British and French. In fact, our regal tradition dates back to Louis XIV of France, who appointed Samuel de Champlain his representative in New France in 1627. In a sense, Champlain became Canada’s first Governor General.
	While the Monarchist League of Canada acknowledges the country’s historical French connection, it insists that today’s Canada is “British” in nature. Even Quebec civil law, they claim, is actually the same law that exists in Scotland. Moreover, our sense of “fair play in public life” is more the result of our British tradition than of basic democracy (just look at the democratic republics of South America if you don’t believe them, say the monarchists).
	But maintaining ties to the British Empire doesn’t seem to be the issue that riles republicans in Canada. Their arguments lie more in practicalities than tradition. Why do we need two heads of state, they wonder: the Governor General, as de facto head of state, and the Queen, the de jure head of state. And while we should have only one head of state, this position should be devoid of partisanship. That’s a point highlighted by Kevin McDougald, the former webmaster of the Internet’s Canadian Republican site, who laments the political appointments of recent Governors General: former federal Conservative cabinet minister Ray Hnatyshyn by Brian Mulroney in 1990 and his successor, former Liberal cabinet minister Romeo LeBlanc by Jean Chrétien in 1995.
	McDougald instead proposes a “Governor General of Canada Designation Act,” in which the person holding the office could not have held elected office at the federal, provincial or territorial level within the last five years. In addition, McDougald suggests, all appointments “must receive support from MP’s and senators from more than one party in order to be considered.” Already, McDougald’s proposal sounds similar to the one which will be put to the Australian public later this year.
	Ray Hnatyshyn himself insists that those elements are already evolving in Canada anyway. “The Governor General is nominated by the prime minister, but he consults with the leaders of the opposition, which in my case were [former Liberal leader] Mr. [John] Turner and [former NDP leader] Mr. [Ed] Broadbent,” says Hnatyshyn, who now practices law in Ottawa.
	He says that since it’s the federal government, with the Queen’s approval, which selects the governor general, Canadians displeased with the choice can always express their displeasure during an election. One doubts the issue would even emerge as a serious focus of debate during a campaign since most people likely perceive the vice-regal office an extension of the queen who “reigns, but does not rule” over Canada.
	True, the job of Governor General in Canada comes with trappings largely ceremonial: recognizing and awarding Canadian excellence, promoting national unity and overseeing the country’s honours system – which, interestingly, has been a focus for those who promote the republican model in Canada. The idea calls for the 150 companions of the Order of Canada to designate the governor general, a concept “far too elitist” for Hnatyshyn’s tastes.
	But aside from attending special events coast-to-coast, greeting heads of state to Canada or representing the country abroad, the Governor General appoints the Prime Minister and federal ministers of the Crown following an election, as well as the Lieutenants Governor and judges upon the advice of the federal government.
	That’s not all. The Constitution Act of 1867 also gives the Queen’s representative the power to fire the Prime Minister or a cabinet minister, and also to summon, prorogue or dissolve Parliament. The Governor General, who also serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, also has the exclusive power to recommend legislation that involves public expenditures or taxation revenues, and can appoint senators, refuse royal assent to legislation and disallow provincial legislation.
	Usually, if these powers are ever exercised, they are exercised in consultation with the federal government. But not always. In 1926, Viscount Byng refused Liberal Prime Minister Mackenzie King’s request to dissolve Parliament and appointed Conservative leader Arthur Meighen to form a government. More recently, Ed Schreyer made Joe Clark sweat it out before acceding to the minority Tory government’s request to dissolve Parliament in 1979 following a non-confidence vote. Schreyer has also stated in the past that he was prepared to dissolve Parliament and force an election during then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s attempts to repatriate the constitution unilaterally.
	These would-be powers held by vice-regal representatives of the Crown have also led to unrealistic expectations at times. In November 1997, Ontario’s Lieutenant Governor, Hilary Weston, received 30,000 Internet messages in five days from people who wanted her to intervene in blocking the Harris government’s controversial educational reform Bill 160. They came to Weston following reports she posted her intention to do so on the Internet. She had not, and likely wouldn’t try to prevent the government from carrying on with its business, she later said. However, Weston did forward the thousands of concerns to Queen’s Park.
	David Smith, in his recent book, The Republican Option in Canada, points out the complications inherent in replacing the Queen with a Canadian head of state. The move would, for example, require the unanimous agreement of the federal government and the provinces.
	Recently Hugh Segal, president of the non-partisan think-tank the Institute for Research on Public Policy, invited the Prime Minister to establish a precedent and pass a bill in Parliament indicating that he will ask the Chief Electoral Officer to hold a national vote to select Canada’s Governor General. The Prime Minister would then recommend to Her Majesty that the person elected be appointed. In this way there would be a democratization of the Canadian part of our constitutional monarchy, without diminishing the symbolic role of Her Majesty the Queen.
	Those who argue in favour of a Canadian head of state suggest that person should hold real power, particularly if chosen by citizens in a general election. But Hnatyshyn wonders whether someone who received the consent of the people of Canada would be an improvement. “If someone holds office because they’ve won a majority of votes, maybe the majority of votes have come from Ontario and Quebec. So, are you moving national unity ahead? Canada is a confederation, not a unitary state,” he says.
	Yet when Hnatyshyn was named governor general, the event was heralded as not only an achievement for Saskatchewan, where he was born, but for the Ukrainian-Canadian community of which he is a member. And while he was congratulated for re-opening the grounds of his official residence, Rideau Hall (which had been closed by his predecessor, Jeanne Sauvé), the Monarchist League of Canada criticized his widely pronounced success in representing and being accessible to Canadians. “Mr. Hnatyshyn’s public statements avoided any mention of the virtues of monarchy over republicanism,” wrote Carry Toffoli, associate editor of Monarchy Canada. “He represented himself as neutral.”
	Whether true or not, others since, at least among some elected politicians on Parliament Hill, have been more forthcoming about their views on the future of the monarchy in Canada. Reform Party Leader Preston Manning would ultimately let the people decide whether they want the country’s head of state to be the Queen (or her successors) or a Canadian citizen. However, he would support a constitutional democracy in which the “people themselves should be able to choose [the] head of state.”
	That’s mild compared to what Industry Minister John Manley said in September when he suggested that Canada should acquire its own head at the conclusion of the Queen’s reign. “If we do so, I am certain the new institution would not be limited to Protestants, nor would males be preferred over females, as is the case with the British succession,” he said.
	Such a move wouldn’t mean relinquishing Canada’ membership in the Commonwealth, added Manley, considering only 16 of the 53 member nations retain the Queen as their head of state.
	Soon after the minister made his remarks, Chrétien quickly did some offhanded damage control, telling reporters, “I have enough [trouble] with the separatists of Quebec; I don’t want to have problems with the monarchists of Canada at this time.”
	Yet it’s difficult to say whether the Prime Minister or his party would lose many votes because of any move toward republicanism come election time. An Angus Reid poll of over 1,500 Canadian from all parts of the country conducted in January 1996 revealed that 47 per cent favoured Canada moving to abolish its formal constitutional connection with the monarchy, while 44 per cent supported the status quo. Not surprisingly, 67 per cent of Quebecers were in favour of abolishing Canada’s ties to the Royal Family.
	With another referendum on Quebec’s sovereignty still a possibility, republicans would argue the monarchical connection does more to divide than unite Quebecers with the rest of Canadians. But Hnatyshyn says he never experienced any enmity from Quebecers when he spent time in the province as Governor General. “If you ask me, ‘Was the warmth and my reception different in Quebec than it was in Saskatchewan?’ the answer is no,” he says. “I used to joke that when I was Governor General and went anywhere, as opposed to when I was a member of parliament, people were actually happy to see me.”
	Out of office for four years now, the issue of acceptance no longer affects Hnatyshyn. But it does the Queen, who acknowledged those realities in a speech marking her 50th anniversary marriage to Prince Philip on November 20, 1997. “For us, a royal family... the message is often harder to read, obscured as it can be by deference, rhetoric or the conflicting currents of public opinion.” 
	
Christopher Guly is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery in Ottawa.

Recipe for Choosing a Canadian Head of State

If Canadians want to elect their governor general, several ideas have been bandied about. They include:
•	a general election by popular vote where candidates would run for the office as independents or as members of political parties. (Surprisingly, many republicans do not support the notion that the head of state should be elected by we, the people, because that formula could result in heads of state who have the money and endurance to conduct a nationwide campaign);
•	a variation on a national vote: a transferable-preference ballot. Voters could indicate their first, second and third choices, and during tabulation the smallest number of first choices would be allocated to the remaining candidates by second or third choice until one candidate had 50 percent plus one;
•	a referendum whereby Canadians would submit their own suggested names to the federal government, which would then make the appointment;
•	a vote taken in Parliament by both members of the House of Commons and the Senate; or
•	selection by the 150 companions of the Order of Canada or by members of the Privy Council of Canada.
Once a process is in place, you need a name for the top job. Do you call it president? If so, some could argue – wrongly, since we would presumably maintain our existing parliamentary system of government – that we’re moving closer to an American-style combination of the jobs of political head of government with head-of-state duties.
Or, we could retain the title of Governor General, but that would be unprecedented, since the British crown named the position in the first place. What powers would this head of state hold in Canada? Different things, depending on the approach taken.
There’s the U.S. model, where the president heads the government and state under a congressional system. There’s the French example, which combines the presidency with a parliament.
In Germany’s case, President Roman Herzog serves for a five-year term (renewable only once) by a vote of members of the Bundestag, a federal assembly composed of an equal number of members from the 16 state legislatures. Though the German president’s job does not have anywhere near the political power of Germany’s Chancellor (Gerhard Schroeder) and is meant to be largely ceremonial, Herzog and his predecessor, Richard von Wiezsaecker, have departed from tradition and have tackled issues highly political in nature. Recently, Herzog told Germans to stop treating the country’s seven million foreign residents as “second class citizens” and called for major reforms of Germany’s educational system. Canada’s recent appointee, Adrienne Clarkson, has also said that she intended to speak out more on issues.