Battle Royal

by David Johnson

  The status and role of the vice-regents in Canada, moreover, are notable to monarchists not only because vice-regents undertake the bulk of the work of monarchy within the country but also for the manner in which their appointments have been used by successive prime ministers over the past half century to promote the values of social inclusion, respect for diversity, and multiculturalism within Canada and its provinces. The fact that vice-regents are appointed has given prime ministers the ability to use their power of selection to advance a variety of social causes in the name of representational equity and justice. Before Canada had its first female prime minister, Kim Campbell, in 1993, we had our first female governor general, Jeanne Sauvé (1984–90). We have not had a female prime minister since 1993, but we have had three female governors general following the tenure of Madame Sauvé, namely Adrienne Clarkson (1999–2005), Michaëlle Jean (2005–10), and Julie Payette (2017–). Long before the first woman served as a provincial premier (Rita Johnston in British Columbia in 1991) or was elected premier (Catherine Callbeck in Prince Edward Island, 1993–96), a variety of women had served as lieutenant governors in a number of provinces. The first female vice-regent was Ontario lieutenant governor Pauline McGibbon (1974–80), and she has been followed, as of 2017, by twenty female lieutenant governors, with every province save Newfoundland and Labrador having had a female vice-regent. Mesdames Adrienne Clarkson and Michaëlle Jean were also the first persons of Chinese and Afro-Caribbean heritage to serve as governors general, but the first African Canadian to serve as lieutenant governor was Lincoln Alexander in Ontario (1985–91). The first lieutenant governor of Chinese Canadian origin was David Lam in British Columbia (1988–95); Ralph Steinhauer was the first indigenous lieutenant governor, serving in Alberta (1974–79). Lise Thibault, lieutenant governor in Quebec (1997–2007) became the first physically challenged person ever to serve as a vice-regent. “These adroit kinds of appointments,” notes John Fraser, “did more to silence criticism of the crown as an entity than anything else, precisely because they showed how the system could evolve and be made to reflect the reality of the nation, even more quickly than the electoral process was able to do.”[18]

  But let there be no mistake. When monarchists defend the institution of the monarchy, they first and foremost defend the sovereign and the royal family. Although monarchists value the role of the vice-regents in Canada, their ultimate loyalty is to the Queen. To monarchists such as John Fraser, D. Michael Jackson, and Nathan Tidridge, it is a wondrous thing that Canada’s head of state is not only the Queen of Canada but also the sovereign of the United Kingdom and all her other Commonwealth realms. We thus share a monarch famed and respected across the world, an international leader, the head of the Commonwealth, and a head of state figuratively standing head and shoulders above and beyond any contemporary and transitory political leader. Political leaders come and go, but the sovereign reigns on, a symbol of national unity, of loyalty to the state, and of non-partisan devotion to country and duty. The monarch also represents a political and constitutional tradition dating back centuries, but with its modern evolution culminating in the reality of modern Canadian democracy, responsible government, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and social equality. Perhaps the most disarming monarchist constitutional argument, raised by Michael Valpy, is also the most intriguing: Canada is “more a kind of crowned republic than a true monarchy.”[19] Real power is essentially found in the hands of first ministers, their governments, and the parliamentary bodies that support them, with the sovereign and her vice-regents symbolizing this democratic state.

  In this sense, the republican movement has won the most important prize of all. Canada is a liberal democracy committed to the rule of law and individual equality, where its citizens control the fate of its governments. This type of governance has been the case for the better part of a century and a half, beginning with the grant of responsible government in 1848. We have very little to gain, then, says Valpy, by abolishing the monarchy. The time and effort devoted to this cause could be much better spent addressing issues of real social concern, such as growing social inequality, and dealing with poverty, racism, and environmental degradation. The monarchist defence presented here is far from new. In 1915, Spanish Princess Eulalia wondered how the British people would be any better off if they abolished the royal family. “They would gain as little,” she said, “as if by a popular uprising, the citizens of London killed the lions in their Zoo. There may have been a time when lions were dangerous in England, but the sight of them in their cages now can only give a pleasurable holiday-shudder of awe — of which the nation will not willingly deprive itself.”[20] To Valpy, as to Fraser and Tidridge, the elimination of the monarchy in Canada would not in any way make life in Canada more democratic or fair or equal, but rather would represent the destruction of an important part of our political and cultural heritage.

  Republicans, of course, contest all these monarchist arguments. They disagree with the hereditary principle of selection for the head of state. While many republicans may concede that certain royal heirs, such as young Princess Elizabeth, were very well educated and prepared for their duties, familial background and upbringing in no way guarantee that a sovereign will be socially upstanding, politically adept, and constitutionally savvy. If Elizabeth II stands as an example of a superb royal leader, her uncle, Edward VIII, is the exact opposite. To republicans, the hereditary principle resulted in a monarch with questionable Nazi sympathies coming to the throne in 1936. Only his abdication in December of that year to marry the twice-divorced Wallis Simpson — a woman with even closer ties to Nazi officialdom — spared the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth the difficulties of having to wage the Second World War with a fascistic king on the throne.[21]

  Republicans also do not accept the idea that the Queen is, in any way, Canadian. Those who would see the monarchy abolished stand by their argument that the royal family is ethnically, socially, and culturally as upper class English as can be, and no mere “royal title” can change that demographic reality. Furthermore, Republicans take aim at the loyalist idea that the monarchy in Canada is acceptable because it has been Canadianized through the appointments of the vice-regents, especially in relation to the office of the governor general since 1952. While republicans acknowledge and endorse this historic reform, and accept that vice-regents possess extraordinary reserve powers and may be called upon to exercise them in times of constitutional crisis, they argue that the special role these officials can play makes it all the more important for them to be directly selected by, and accountable to, the Canadian people.

  Monarchists defend the position of the monarch as Canadian head of state while challenging the republican idea that, if we were ever to eliminate the monarchy, the governor general, or president, of a future Canadian republic should be elected. Political scientist and monarchist Peter Russell has argued that if Canadians were to find themselves in the position of constructing a republican constitutional order, the democratic impulse that would have led to this action would be so strong that only the idea of an elected head of state would likely be acceptable to most Canadians.[22] So the question becomes, should a head of state be elected? Both Russell and Frank Mackinnon before him have warned against this idea, due to the fear of partisanship rearing its ugly head. Moving from a vice-regal institution heralded as non-partisan to gubernatorial/presidential elections with partisan currents may do more harm than good. We return to this issue in chapter 9, when we address the many challenges confronting the republican cause if and when Canadians begin to think about reopening the constitution to abolish the monarchy.

  Historical Perspectives and the Legacies of the Past

  The republican movement’s strongest argument against monarchism is that it is anti-democratic, elitist, inegalitarian, and archaic. In short, monarchism is completely at odds with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore undeserving of a role in a thoroughly
modern, democratic state. Crown loyalists, however, find that appealing to Canadians’ respect for history and heritage provides them with an opportunity to present their most evocative arguments in favour of preserving the institution. Monarchist Ian Holloway, dean of Law at the University of Calgary, writes:

  When it comes to law and government, Canadian history did not begin at Confederation. Rather, it began in 1066 — the same year that English legal and constitutional history began. The Battle of Hastings marks a watershed event in Canadian history, as do Magna Carta and the Black Death, and the Reformation and the Glorious Revolution and every other event that helped shape the British Constitution — to which our Constitution must be similar in principle.[23]

  If republicans base their core arguments in appeals to democratic reason and principles of equality, always looking to the future development of a more rational and modern state, monarchists tend to look back to the past, lovingly tracing the stately yet steady development of rights, representation, parliamentary supremacy, responsible government, and democracy, which are part of the British and Canadian constitutional experience and of the legacy of Crown rule.

  Monarchists see English and British history as a series of grand tableaux, portraying people and events that have been vital to the development of our current constitutional order. Take Runnymede in 1215, for example, where King John was compelled by his barons to sign the Magna Carta. This dramatic milestone represented both the birth of rights legislation in the English constitution and the first time the powers of an English monarch were formally circumscribed by his own subjects. Or, take the summoning of the first Parliament in 1295 by Edward I. This event marked the beginning of a nascent form of representative government in England, which would only grow and strengthen in future centuries. Over the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, we witness the development of the Privy Council and the tradition of monarchs such as Henry VII, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I governing with the assistance and advice of trusted officials. While some Crown loyalists still loathe Oliver Cromwell, the modern monarchy is inseparable from the events of the English Civil War (1642–48) and its aftermath. This conflict sees Parliament at war with Charles I, with its outcome not only affirming the principle of parliamentary supremacy, but also clearly demonstrating that the institution of the monarchy lies subject to the control of Parliament, not vice versa. If the execution of the king and the abolition of the monarchy don’t serve as evidence of this fact, nothing does.

  Canadian tableaux also resonate with Canadian monarchists. One scene shows George III issuing the Royal Proclamation of 1763, recognizing the existence of indigenous nations in North America, their land rights, and the treaty-making process as the only legal way by which the British Crown can acquire aboriginal land. Another tableau shows Governors Murray and Carleton in Quebec in the decades following the conquest of New France in 1759–60 working to accommodate the interests of French Canadians under British rule. A third scene occurs in the early to mid-1800s, when British North American reformers such as Robert Baldwin, Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine, and Joseph Howe work to achieve responsible government as recommended by John George Lambton, Lord Durham, in his famous report of 1839. This tableau is followed in 1849 with the picture of James Bruce, Earl of Elgin, and governor of the colony of Canada, signing into law the Rebellion Losses Bill in 1849, affirming for all to see that the Crown was committed to the working of responsible government in British North America.

  This monarchist approach to English, British, and Canadian history, of course, is highly selective, focusing on the central role played by the Crown in key events in the evolution of the British and Canadian constitutions. To monarchists, the Crown-as-monarch is the living link to a majestic history, which is a narrative for the development of individual and collective rights, responsible parliamentary government, democratic rule, and the growth of political equality and multiculturalism. As a figurehead, the sovereign stands as a guarantor of these constitutions and their rights, as well as a reminder of the heritage that we all share as citizens of Canada, regardless of our individual ancestry. To republicans, however, this monarchist appeal to history and heritage is overly romanticized and grossly biased. They maintain that this selective reading of history in no way provides a valid justification for the preservation of the British monarchy in present-day Canada. History can be many things to many people, and republicans have their unique perspective on the English, British, and Canadian past in relation to the British Crown. The history they remember is one associated with British imperialism and colonization.

  The Crown, to republicans, is associated with Nova Scotian Governor Cornwallis’s bounty on Mi’kmaq scalps in the 1750s, the expulsion of the Acadians in 1755, the British conquest of New France in 1759–60, Governor Amherst’s orders in 1763 condoning biological warfare against First Nations people who resisted the establishment of British rule in what had been New France, and the Beothuk genocide in Newfoundland between the 1760s and the 1820s. While monarchists stress the importance of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 as a vital constitutional recognition by the British Crown of the inherent rights of First Nations, republicans remember that the majority of the promises made by the Crown in this document came to be honoured more in the breach than the observance.

  Many republicans also associate the Crown-as-executive with the establishment of an apartheid-like Indian Act in 1876, leading to most First Nations peoples living on economically disadvantaged reservations, the aboriginal residential schools system existing between the 1880s and 1990s, and the social and economic plight of indigenous Canadians witnessed to this day. Republicans are also quick to note that most French Canadians have displayed a less than reverential attitude to the British monarchy, as evidenced in survey data from the past half century. The majority of French Canadians perceive the existence of the British monarchy to be not only a reminder of the British conquest of New France but also the continuation, in Canada, of an essentially foreign, elitist, and anti-democratic vestige from our colonial past.

  Those groups holding historical “grudges” against the monarchy in this country, moreover, are not limited to indigenous peoples and French Canadians. Republicans are happy to articulate a long list of grievances held by various peoples who have experienced the weight of British imperialist, colonialist, and racist oppression. Many Scottish Canadians are quick to remember the British Crown for its involvement with the suppression of the clans in Scotland during the mid-eighteenth century, the field of slaughter at Culloden in 1756, and the subsequent Highland Clearances from the 1760s to the 1820s. The critical attitude with respect to the monarchy felt by many Canadians of Scottish descent is also one common to Canadians of Irish heritage. As we saw at the very outset of this book, Michael McAteer, one of the persons who brought the constitutional challenge to the oath of allegiance requirement for becoming a Canadian citizen, is Irish. He publicly stated that, as a staunch republican, he took exception to the oath on the grounds that he neither believed in nor supported the Queen, with the monarchy being an insult to his Irish heritage.

  Irish antipathy to things British, and especially royal and monar­chical, is well known. To Irish republicans, the monarchy stands for centuries of British colonization and repression in Ireland. The historical canvas here is vast: the slow military conquest of Ireland by the English in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; the battles of Drogheda in 1649 and the Boyne in 1690; the bloody repression of the Irish Rebellion of 1798; the suppression of Irish culture and the Irish Gaelic language, the Potato Famine, and the Great Emigration of the 1840s; the use of brutal police and military force in the eighteenth and nineteenth cen­t­uries to keep Ireland “pacified;” the Easter Rising of 1916; and the onset of armed struggle between Irish and British forces from 1916 to 1921 can all be painted in bloody brushstrokes.

  The anti-British and anti-monarchical sentiments found within the Scottish and Irish diasporas in Canada are also seen in
other groups of Canadians tracing their heritage to other parts of the world that were formerly parts of the British Empire. While monarchists tend to downplay or romanticize the history of the Empire in their assessments of the Crown legacy, many peoples and their descendants who were subject to British colonial rule have far more critical viewpoints of the Crown and its relevance to them. Republicans from the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa, India, and Asia remember the British Crown’s link to the coloniz­ation of much of these parts of the world. They haven’t forgotten how the British helped initiate and perpetuate the slave trade and the subjugation of native peoples. British colonial rule was marked by racism, the bloody repression of dissent, and the economic exploitation of entire nations. Republicans are quick to note that, as of 2015, the governments of both Barbados and Jamaica initiated constitutional plans to proclaim their countries republics, and that not one Commonwealth member state from Africa, South Asia, or Southeast Asia has retained the British monarch as its head of state.

  Republicans, however, are not unmindful of the importance of history to any nation, and they acknowledge the constitutional heritage Canada shares with the United Kingdom. In their defence of the republican option for Canada, Citizens for a Canadian Republic affirm that the abolition of the monarchy in this country would in no way abolish Canada’s historical links with the British Crown.[24] That history will remain, but we don’t need to maintain the monarchy today in order to preserve and learn from this history. Rather, although this history will always be part of our constitutional story, Canadians now and in the future have the ability to forge a new identity and a new national narrative tied to modern, democratic, egalitarian, and Canadian values and practices.