Like Capt O'
whatshisname, I oppose a
foreign head of state and I do not accept the neat Constitutional fiction that HM is Canadian whenever she needs to be she. She is, most of time, an
agent of the Government of Great Britain - she routinely acts as a trade and commerce
shill promoting British goods and services in markets in which we compete. It is a conflict of interest – actual not perceived – and it can only get worse as time goes by.
That being said I do not believe we should do away with our Constitutional Monarchy – just the monarch.
Let me explain (again :boring: ): when, regrettably, HM dies (as she must), it is expected that some official or another – someone who holds or controls the Great Seal of Canada – will
proclaim (roughly) that “The Queen is dead! God save the King!” In that moment HM’s “lawful heir and successor” will become King of Canada. I propose that on that sad day – and it will be sad because HM EIIR has been an excellent monarch for Canada – and even better for the UK – the official will simply say: “The Queen is dead!” and return to his or her office. In that moment we will
evolve into something called a Regency (much as I hate to cite it,
Wikipedia gives a good, concise explanation of the term:
”a period of time when a regent reigns, and in a non-ceremonial monarchy holds power, in the name of the current monarch, or in the name of the Crown itself, if the throne is vacant.”) There have been several regencies in British (and French) history. In our case, since no
replacement monarch would have been proclaimed we would have to find our own Regent – certainly, on Constitution grounds, the governor general of the day would be the only properly qualified person.
I would not suggest we just spring this on poor old Princes Charles and William on the sad day. Our Parliament should pass a
resolution (which is not a law), rather like the Nickel Resolution (1919,
I think) which did away with
honours for Canadians and which Jean Chrétien used, in the 1990s to force HM to not give Conrad Black entrée into the UK’s House of Lords until he (Black) renounced his Canadian citizenship . That
resolution should say that we do not accept the Succession Act of 1703, etc, etc, (because,
inter alia, they discriminate against Catholics) and, therefore, we reserve the right, at the appropriate moment, to issue our own list of HM’s “lawful heirs and successors” to the Throne of Canada. I further suggest that we delay doing that, and then delay further and then delay some more, and, and, and
ad infinitum. Such a
resolution will constitutionally bind HM (and her British “heirs and successors”) and they will be unable to lay claim to the Throne of Canada, which will be vacant.
Nothing in
our Constitution will change – we will still have the RCMP and HMC Ships – we just will be missing the actual “majesty” to sit on the throne in the Senate and wave to the crowds. We would still swear allegiance to our sovereign - even if we would not be too sure about who (s)he might be, by name. When the King of England comes to visit, on a trade mission, it will be as our honoured guest (and Head of the Commonwealth) and our
Governor General Regent will welcome the King on behalf of the Canadian sovereign (to be named at a much, much, much later date) and the people of Canada.
We will, likely, want to reconsider how we select the GG – just as the British reconsidered how they selected their monarchs after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In 1688 the British gave us the excellent tradition which says that the people have a right to select their own form of government and, even, their own monarch. That right still exists for us, in Canada, in 2008; we should exercise it.
