Front Burner - Can Canada cut ties with the monarchy?

Episode Date: May 17, 2022

This year is the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, which marks her 70 years on the throne and as our head of state. But as Elizabeth ages, she’s been stepping back and paving the way for her son, Charles, to become King. This week, Charles and his wife, Camilla, are coming to Canada — visiting St. John's, Ottawa and Yellowknife — on a trip they say will focus on Indigenous reconciliation and climate change. Today we’re exploring whether we should follow in the footsteps of other Commonwealth nations that have recently abolished the monarchy — notably, Barbados and Jamaica. According to a recent Angus Reid poll, 51 per cent of respondents said Canada should not remain a monarchy in coming generations. But abolishing the monarchy is a lot more complex than you might think. We’re talking about why that is with David Schneiderman, a law and political science professor at the University of Toronto, and Jordan Gray, a policy analyst with Indigenous Affairs Canada.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hey, I'm Jamie Poisson. So back in 1953, a 25-year-old Elizabeth II rolled up to Westminster Abbey in a gold stagecoach. The moment of the Queen's crowning is come. A heavy crown was placed on her head and she was declared Elizabeth II

by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. fate. Fast forward 70 years. The Queen and her family have had their fair share of scandals. Their treatment of Princess Diana.

Well, there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded. And the cool reaction to her death. We have seen throughout Britain and around the world an overwhelming expression of sadness at Diana's death. The Harry-Meghan-Oprah bombshell. There's a conversation with you. With Harry. About how dark your baby is going to be?

Potentially, and what that would mean or look like. The Prince Andrew Jeffrey Epstein disaster. You bought her drinks. You were in Tramp nightclub in London. And she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell. Didn't happen. But they've also seen a bit of a renaissance in popular culture with shows like The Crown.

And if I want to separate... You will not separate or divorce or let the side down in any way. And if one day you expect to be king... I do. Then might I suggest you start to behave like one. Since the queen is 96 years old now, she's been stepping back and paving the way for her far less popular son Charles to become King and his wife Camilla to become Queen.

And today, Charles and Camilla are coming to Canada to St. John's, Ottawa and Yellowknife on a trip they say will focus on Indigenous reconciliation and climate change. reconciliation and climate change. So we thought we'd take this opportunity to talk about whether we should follow in the footsteps of Barbados and Jamaica and cut ties with the monarchy altogether. More than half of Canadians who responded to a recent poll by Angus Reid said we should do it. But the practical answer to that question here is a lot more complex than you may think it is, certainly way more complex than I thought think it is, certainly way more complex than I thought it was. And so today, we're going to explore that. I'm here with law professor at the University of Toronto, David Schneiderman, and policy analyst and historian, Jordan Gray. Hello to you both. Thank you very much for coming on to the podcast.

Hi, Jamie. Hi, Jamie. Thanks for having us. So I wonder, Jordan, if I could start with you here. And I want to start with what's been happening recently in the Caribbean. The Queen's foothold is really on shaky ground there. We saw evidence of that during Kate and William's recent tour. And can you tell me a bit about what's been happening in that part of the Commonwealth? Yeah, and shaky ground doesn't cover the half of the time. We saw last year Barbados remove the Queen as head of state.

The Caribbean island nation Barbados has become the world's newest republic, severing its colonial bonds with Britain nearly 400 years after the first boats arrived there. Sandra Mason, who was acting as Governor General at the time, became President-elect when they transitioned over to a republic. And the calls were very clear when Sandra Mason delivered a speech in the house in Barbados. The time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind. Barbadians want a Barbadian head of state. And this followed the lead of other Caribbean states.

We already saw Trinidad, Dominica, Guyana remove the queen as head of state within the first decade or so of cutting ties with Britain and gaining their own independence. So you could say that this is perhaps the unfinished business of gaining independence from Britain, just removing the Queen as head of state. And so now the talks to remove the Queen as head of state are upon us in Jamaica. After a welcome for the royal couple Wednesday morning, where Jamaica's prime minister had a message. We're moving on.

All smiles during the meet and greet, but the prime minister not shying away from saying it is Jamaica's destiny to become an independent country. When William and Kate were there on their recent tour, the Platinum Jubilee tour, that is what Prince Charles and Camilla are also a part of here, they were met with protests.

They shouldn't be welcomed as leaders of the country, as representatives of the head of state. How are these two young white people now going to be here saying we are going to kowtow to them and we are going to bend and bow and kneel to them as if they are gods. And remarks from the Prime Minister of Jamaica, Andrew Holmes, to say that there's unresolved issues that they need to address. I want to express my profound sorrow. Slavery was abhorrent and it should never have happened. Standing before a quieted crowd, Prince William trying to make amends. While the pain runs deep, Jamaica continues to forge its future with determination, courage and fortitude. But I should just say that, you know, Andrew Holness was pretty diplomatic when he said unresolved.

when he said unresolved, because what protesters in Jamaica are referring to is a specific apology and reparations for slavery. Right. And when you talk about a colonial legacy in this part of the Commonwealth, that's what that's what we're talking about here, right? Yeah. And we're also speaking about it coming to a point where states, countries, communities want to be at a point to control their own affairs. I know that there's also been like really enduring fury over the Windrush scandal. And I wonder if you could tell me just very briefly about that. Yeah. So I think this feeds into some of the resentment for the crown in the United Kingdom. in the United Kingdom. Of course, this being a scandal involving a number of the forced detainment, detention and deportation of a number of Caribbean nationals who came to Britain. The Windrush generation, invited to live here and help post-war Britain prosper, were caught up in a recent drive to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants.

And so what this scandal did is certainly hand the fire in resentment for the Crown. And we saw reference to that during protests of William and Kate in Jamaica. And David, I wonder if I could bring you in here, mm-hmm and david i i wonder if i could bring you in here if you if you wanted to jump in on how canada's history in connection to the monarchy differ from these caribbean nations sure sure it's an interesting question there there are some similarities there was slavery in canada until it was abolished in 1793 by the first lieutenant governor of Upper Canada, Simcoe. And of course, we had the colonial project of assimilation of Quebecers, spoken and unspoken, and of course, subjugation and assimilation of Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Now, so we have those kind of similarities, but also dissimilarities. Now, so we have those kind of similarities, but also dissimilarities. The Canadian voting population, so male property holders, were able to vote, you know, in the mid-19th century. We had responsible government. So we were self-governing in limited spheres by 1848. And then, of course, we have an independent country in 1867 with its own constitution. So we have kind of those both of those threads, both a colonial assimilationist thread, but also a very different kind of, you know, independent self-governing thread that has

become predominant, you might say, in modern Canadian times. predominant, you might say, in modern Canadian times. And so, hypothetically, if Canada wanted to transition away from a king or a queen as head of state, like, how would that happen, practically, David? Practically impossible to happen. And that's because in 1982... The moment the queen puts her signature on this document, it becomes law. It will be witnessed later. The Constitution is now home.

Fanfare in the background as you can hear. We amended the Constitution to include an amending formula and the office of the queen is specifically mentioned as requiring unanimity and that means having the unanimous consent of all 10 provinces and the parliament of Canada in order to either abolish the queen or identify a new queen who's not, or a new monarch who's not the monarch of England. For instance, if we wanted to make Elvis and his progeny king and queen, we would have to amend the constitution. And that's not even speaking about the territories that are not part of the amending formula, nor indigenous communities who also are not included in the amending formula and have a

special relationship with the Crown. And so it seems to me that amending the Constitution to become either identify another monarch or to become a republic would require overwhelming consensus that it would be hard to see that happening. Why did we make it so hard? Sorry if this is a silly question, but why? Look, I think we were naive about how difficult it would be to amend the Constitution. Most run-of-the-mill amendments require seven out of 10 provinces plus parliament. And we found during the last couple of rounds of constitutional reform that that was impossible. And so we basically are not able to amend our constitution, but in respect of very limited things that concern one or more,

but not all provinces. I'm curious what you both think here. Is there any value to the queen and the presence of a monarch to a government? And Jordan, maybe I'll start with you there. monarch to a government? And Jordan, maybe I'll start with you there. Well, to a government, I think particularly this monarch, it gives a certain degree of stability. Remember, this is the monarch that has sat on the throne for 70 years. There has not been a cash purchase in this country in the last the last 70 years, without this Queen's face on it. It's this Queen's signature on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This Queen is the one who has presided over every government since Louis Saint Laurent. So to say that the Queen has been a part of a huge presence of Canadian life is a bit of an understatement. In terms of Indigenous peoples,

the Crown exists in this unique space because when it comes to treaties in Canada, the Crown is a caretaker for treaties and was the signatory to treaties. So there is this special relationship that First Nations and Indigenous people in Canada have with the Crown. Now, if a sudden it's going to transition elsewhere, there's going to have to be a serious conversation around what does that mean for Indigenous peoples? And there might be a bit of a hesitation in First Nations communities, particularly around how elected government is going to respond here. And it's elected governments that administer and maintain treaty. Is removal of the monarch an opportunity for elected governments to now say, we are no longer responsible for treaty?

For many years now, we have watched our treaty rights being eroded and taken away by federal and provincial laws. In many cases without our knowledge and in every case without our consent. What are some of these laws? The Natural Resources Transfer Agreement Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, wildlife and conservation laws, mining and forestry laws. In Canada, severing that tie for many is seen as finishing the process of colonization. When treaties were signed, it was nation to nation.

And without the monarch, it's a question of where do First Nation communities fit in now? Are they supposed to somehow just be fully immersed in the Canadian system of government and be a subset of that? And so there's a great risk at that. And so there's a great risk at removing the monarchy that we are just shifting First Nations further into a Canadian system of government rather than their own system of government. David, I know we've talked about how this would be so tricky to do in practice, but is there an alternative? Could you see some sort of alternative here in the future? I just think for a multicultural society, the monarchy in England is simply irrelevant and inappropriate for a modern democratic state. So the role the monarch plays is limited actually to a few meaningful functions having to do with prorogation of parliament. Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he will ask the governor general to end the current session of parliament before MPs return to work in September.

Prorogation would allow Harper to return with a speech from the throne to lay out a new agenda. return with a speech from the throne to lay out a new agenda. It would also delay when the government... Dissolution of parliament and asking for the prime minister to form government. Those are three specific functions that the monarch performs, the governor general obviously on her behalf. And the question is leading actually to your next question, but how do you replace that? Well, you can imagine that there are examples drawn from around the world where you have heads of state, sometimes elected, sometimes appointed, who perform these very limited functions and otherwise perform the ceremonial functions, right, that are expected to be performed of a head of state. Now, in regard to Indigenous peoples, it's a very serious question,

because as far as I understand, Indigenous communities look upon the relationship with the crown as a nation-to-nation one, and that is the crown in England. But of course, that crown in England has been overtaken by the, you know, the Dominion of Canada established in 1867, and then revisions to the Constitution in 1982. So even if Canada were to abolish the monarchy, the relationship between Canada and Indigenous people via treaty is constitutionally protected under Section 35. So Canada couldn't simply disregard those treaties. The courts have said that the Canadian government, both federal and provincial, are stewards of those treaty obligations. They are responsible for carrying them out, not the Queen of England. So the realistic

assessment of this is that the Canadian public and its government will be responsible and will be held to those commitments. Now, it needs to be kept in mind that there are swaths of the country that have no treaty, right? You know, which speaks to, I think, a point that Jordan may have been pushing toward, which is we need renewal of that relationship, right? We might think about new treaties and new treaty negotiations are stalled all over the place. We should work on that front, perhaps before even thinking about turning Canada into a republic. Yeah, the absence of this Queen is not going to negate the government's responsibilities to their treaty relationship and their relationship to Indigenous peoples. But there's going to be a very important conversation at that point of

succession. Whether they want to or not, whichever government is in place at that moment is going to have to deal with what comes next. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo.

50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Cups. As public sentiment continues to grow around this, as Charles takes over for the Queen, he's far less popular than she is. In 1991, 82% of those in Britain agreed that Prince Charles would be a good king. Soon after, though, news broke that he had cheated on Princess Diana and that the couple was getting a divorce, which led to Charles's popularity taking a nosedive. His popularity hasn't fully recovered

in the intervening years. In May 2021, it was down to 31 percent. Where do you think this is going to go here in Canada? Sure. So this is an important moment. As I say, I've been banging the drum around the monarch being our head of state for some time. And it's hard to generate interest just because, again, the monarchy doesn't really have much of a role to play in our political lives, in our day-to-day lives, other than on our currency. So the succession to Prince Charles raises, right, the question of whether Canadians want Charles to be our head of state. And we see the public opinion polls indicating, for the first time in my life, I think, over 50% of the Canadian public polled thought that we should abandon the English monarch. on the future of our constitutional democracy and where we want to go and what kind of person

we would like to have representing us symbolically as head of state in a modern, multicultural, democratic society and not one run by a hereditary family. Now, I'm all in favor of preserving some tradition. And I think Jordan was appealing to tradition when he described the benefits of having a monarch. But it seems to me that those benefits have largely been worn out and that we can think anew about what a head of state might look like. And in fact, we could transition to something that looks like the governor general, right? So it needn't be something entirely different from what we have been experiencing through much of the 20th century. So what I predict happening, frankly, is if the polls continue to slide in countries like Canada, and maybe even in Britain, not really sure, that we'll see a transition quickly to William.

And that's been the plan all along, it seems to me, is to groom William to be king. And so Charles wouldn't be expected to serve for a very long time. Indeed, Elizabeth has made a point of not handing over the reins to Charles because he is unpopular in Britain. And I gather also unpopular in countries like Canada. Although I guess not to flip too far down this rabbit hole, but like who would make that decision if Charles is king and he like gets to make all of the decisions, like who would tell him that he can't be king anymore? Well, nobody, well, you know, maybe a wise prime minister, you might recall that Tony Blair helped the queen navigate the death of Diana because it was a public relations fiasco, right? She wouldn't lower the flag and the royal family seemed not to be

expressing any remorse. And so, and don't forget that the queen also recently indicated that when Charles becomes king, Camilla, right, who was a very unpopular figure, right, because she was the third party to the marriage of which Diana was a part of, has been declared to be queen consort when Charles takes the throne. That's an edict issuing from Queen Elizabeth, I think in the last year or so. And that's a game to smooth the path for Charles to take the throne. I guess, Jordan, last word to you, what you think the future holds for this institutions? Do you think it's most likely that we might see it kind of continue and perhaps William will take over sooner rather than later? Or do you think that this push for these countries to cut ties will continue to grow

and we might see more and more of this? It certainly is worth having a conversation about a different form of government, maybe not a constitutional monarch, maybe not a republic, maybe something in the middle. But it's certainly something that will continue to be circulating on many people's minds. Well, I want to thank you both for this conversation. It was really fascinating. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Jamie. Thank you, Jamie. All right.

That is all for today. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.