Is cutting the colonial tie with Britain the dominating issues that the Liberals need?

Is cutting the colonial tie with Britain the dominating issues that the Liberals need?

As a Canadian traveling abroad, the symbolism doesn’t strike a cord for me either way. When I think of home, I don’t think of the Queen, the Govern General, or even the Prime Minister. I think of the flag, the landscape, the maple syrup, the crisp autumn air, or the snow…if I’m thinking unhealthy then poutin and beaver tails…

I’d much rather see a movement on environment or a push to tackle some of the existing inequalities among minorities or gender…Cutting the colonial tie is more symbolic and visual that it is influential…so maybe it would be a tangible issues to campaign on.

I’d be interested to see what the Canadian population wants to do….

ps, maybe working on reducing barriers for Canadians in the UK would be better ;)

S.

***

Cutting the last colonial tie
ANTHONY WESTELL

Special to Globe and Mail Update
September 6, 2007 at 12:30 AM EDT

The curious case of the prince and the Catholic, as Dr. Watson might have called it, has aroused little attention — but it should, because it reveals that we are still a semi-colonial country. It prompts the question of whether the time has come to thank the Queen and end the monarchy in Canada — it could be just the dominating issue the Liberals are looking for as they prepare for the next election.

Prior to 1981, our Constitution was simply an act of the British Parliament, and when we wanted to make a change, we had to send a polite request to Westminster. The British were always happy to oblige, so there was no practical problem. But symbolically — and symbols count — it made us a colony. Then, prime minister Pierre Trudeau "patriated" the Constitution (it couldn't be "repatriated" because it had never been here), springing it from Westminster and bringing it under the control of Ottawa and the provinces. He emphasized our new independence by adding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is more in the U.S. or French tradition than the British.

With our new Constitution proclaimed in Ottawa, we were able to cry, "Free, free, free at last from colonial rule," except that we now discover that we weren't free, as Norman Spector explained in The Globe and Mail last week. After centuries of often bloody struggle between Roman Catholics and Protestants for the British throne, Westminster settled the matter in 1701 by declaring that in future, no Catholic could be king or queen, or even be married to one.

Now, Princess Anne's son Peter, 10th in the line of succession, wants to marry a Montreal Catholic girl with the delightful name of Autumn Kelly. But first, he must renounce his claim to the Crown. "Who cares?" you might well ask. Peter is so far down the line that he would never become king.

But Canadians should care, because as long as we accept the British monarch as our own, no Catholic can become our head of state. There goes the guarantee against religious discrimination in our revered Charter.

Again, it's a symbolic problem rather than a practical one: The monarch delegates his or her Canadian powers and duties to a governor-general nominated by the prime minister, and is often a Catholic. But, again, symbols count.

Mr. Spector, formerly a highly regarded public servant, finds this religious discrimination an intolerable affront to Canadian values, and urges Prime Minister Stephen Harper to request that London scrap its 18th-century law. Gordon Brown's new government may have other priorities as it prepares for its first election — but regardless, why should we have to petition Westminster to change their law to comply with ours? The bottom line is that so long as we accept the British monarch as our head of state, we shall remain tinged by colonialism.

Liberal governments have been slowly dismantling the colonial connection for many years, often in the face of opposition by Conservative loyalists. Prime minister Lester Pearson replaced our old national flag, based on the British red ensign, with the Maple Leaf. The opposition was fierce, but now the red-and-white flag is flown with pride everywhere. Mr. Trudeau went a step further with the Constitution.

The argument can be made that the Queen has served us so well that we should wait for her reign to end before ending the monarchy in Canada, but might not that be seen as a rejection of her successor? Ending the monarchy would not necessarily cut all Canada's links to Buckingham Palace; like other former British colonies, we could still recognize the Queen as head of the Commonwealth.

Of course, it's easy to write about ending our monarchy, but it would be immensely difficult to bring it about. There would have to be a powerful consensus on a new republican system, and then changes to the Constitution. Only public opinion could override political opposition.

However, the process has to start somewhere, and the initiative lies with the Liberals if they wish to take up the task of making Canada fully independent. They might find it a popular cause with young Canadians and immigrants who feel no historical connection to Britain, and in Quebec, which has always been suspicious of the British connection.

Anthony Westell is an admirer of the Queen in Britain, but not in Canada.