There is one fundamental problem with any proposal re: the Canadian monarchy and its functions: any such change requires the unanimous agreement of the federal parliament and all provincial legislatures - none of the 7/50 stuff, this is big time unanimity; Québec, Alberta and PEI all have vetoes.
Getting rid of the monarchy is more complex than it was in Cromwell's day - just ask the Australians. It appears, to me, that a fairly solid majority of Australians wanted, still want a head of government who is an Australian, not, in other words our gracious sovereign lady nor her son or grandson. Seems reasonable enough to me ... The status quo
monarchists won the referendum, though, because the other side could not agree on what form of Windsorless government should be put in place.
My idea is simple: keep the constitutional monarchy, ditch the monarch ... the next one, anyway.
The succession to the thrones of the United Kingdom of Great Britain etc, etc, etc
ad infinitum is governed by many Acts of Parliament, the most important being the Act of Settlement of 1701. Some Canadian republicans have tried, unsuccessfully, to have this Act declared unconstitutional in Canada because its base (no Catholics on or even very near the throne) offends our Charter of Rights. Our courts have decided not to deal with the issue but such an interpretation does open the way for a uniquely Canadian solution to the monarchy puzzle - one which does
not require a constitutional amendment.
Readers should know that the succession to the throne is not automatic; it requires a conscious action by an official of the government - representing the state. In Britain it is the duty of the Earl Marshal of England to say, at the appropriate moment, something like "The Queen is Dead; God save the King!â ? In Canada, I believe, the duty to
proclaim a new head of state (our sovereign) rests with the keeper of the Great Seal of Canada: the Registrar General of Canada who is, also, the Minister of Industry. There is an important constitutional nicety here - the
nation chooses its sovereign, not
vice versa.
I propose that our functionary - the Minister of Industry - should, at the appropriate moment, say: "the Queen is dead!â ? He (or she) should then go back about the nation's business. The effect of this would be to
choose a form of constitutional monarchy known as a
regency[/b]. Regencies are neither new nor rare - there have been many in British history - they usually occur usually when the monarch is very young or quite mad. There is nor reason, however, that one could not exist just because we don't like the monarch who is 'on offer' by the royal family.
Now to make this work smoothly, and to be polite, too, we should do a few things first:
"¢ Pass a
resolution in the House of Commons - not a bill, per se, no royal assent required - saying that since the Act of Settlement of 1701 is, indeed, offensive to the principles of our Charter the Parliament of Canada should consider the proper succession for the
Throne of Canada and until that is done the existing line of succession should be held in abeyance;
"¢ Write a nice letter to the Queen, from the Prime Minister - whose [i[advice[/i] she is constitutionally
bound to follow - advising her that her son will not, necessarily, be proclaimed as King of Canada until the Parliament of Canada has time and energy enough to wrestle with the issue of the succession; and
"¢ Figure out a better way to select governors general who will, after all, be Canadian heads of the Canadian state since, presumably, we will never get around to wrestling with the issue of succession.
Voila! a monarchless state without a constitutional amendment! No change to the
form of government, just some tidying up of the 'bums in seats' issue.
Think of the advantages - we could reduce the envy which characterizes the Canadian regimental system by allowing everyone - even the second best - to wear Queen Victoria's cipher.
Poll