Canada may be almost 155 years old, but it is still under the auspices of its guardian, the Queen of England. And it is in the name of Her Majesty that he buys and rents all his embassies and missions abroad. Because the Canadian government has never changed this old tradition inherited from the British monarchy to acquire its own legal identity as a state. A situation that the Trudeau government could well change, if it had the will, explain the experts.
This is surprising: when diplomats or visitors are summoned to the Canadian consulate in New York, it is to “visit Her Majesty the Queen”.
The New York mission is not the only one to have rented its premises in the name of Queen Elizabeth II. “The Government of Canada has no legal personality. Any acquisition of immovables or real property (including by way of lease) for government purposes is made by a minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada,” explains the Department of Foreign Affairs in an email to To have to.
This is also the case for federal buildings on Canadian soil and all federal government contracts, which he also signs on behalf of Her Majesty.
Quebec, on the other hand, has freed itself from this English tradition stemming from the common law.
Professor of international affairs at Carleton University and expert on the Westminster system Philippe Lagassé explains that, in this British tradition, “the Crown has always served as a concept of the state. And it happens that even in Canada, we have retained this practice. And this, at home and abroad. “All of Canada’s foreign affairs are conducted under the royal prerogative. Even the passport belongs to the Queen,” notes Mr. Lagassé, quoting the first page of the Canadian travel document.
One of the few loyalist countries
Yet of Canada’s seven Commonwealth partners contacted by The dutyonly New Zealand also asserts that its government has no legal identity and that it signs its leases in the name of “the Sovereign in law of New Zealand”.
Australia, South Africa, India, Pakistan, the Bahamas and Rwanda all have their own legal personality. Australia signs its contracts, buys or leases its properties on behalf of the “Commonwealth of Australia”.
Andrew Heard, a political scientist at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and an expert on the monarchy, explains that there were much more organized and assertive republican movements in these countries than in Canada, which led their governments to clarify their laws.
Quebec itself gradually rewrote its laws, starting in the 1960s, to abandon the monarchical terminology of the “Crown” and clearly define the “State”.
No need to open the Constitution
The Canadian government could do the same, although the exercise would be exhaustive, since each of the laws referring to the Crown would have to be amended. “It doesn’t happen overnight,” agrees Laval University constitutionalist Patrick Taillon.
However, such a change would indeed be possible without having to enter into laborious constitutional negotiations, believe Mr. Taillon and his colleague from the University of Ottawa, Benoît Pelletier. “It is the existence of the monarchy and its essential characteristics which are ‘armoured’ in the Constitution”, explains Mr. Taillon. But not their variation. “The visibility given to monarchical terminology is a choice made by the federal government,” he insists. This requires multiple efforts, but all of which are within the reach of the Trudeau government. »
Professors Lagassé and Heard are of the same opinion. Mr. Heard notes, however, that in the absence of case law having formally defined the notion of what constitutes this “Queen’s office”, which is protected by the Constitution (and which the professor explores in a book to be published soon) , the federal government would probably be hesitant to embark on such a debate.
Especially since by leaving the concept of the Canadian state in the hands of the Crown, the executive government enjoys latitude to exercise a series of powers, in particular that of spending without having to consult Parliament each time once the latter has approved a budget. “There is a reason this tradition has endured for so long: it is enormously convenient for a government to have the flexibility, in the common law, to be able to act as a legal entity,” explains Mr. Lagassé.
The weight of popular pressure
“The fact is that it’s a cultural political choice,” says Professor Heard in turn. “Until recently, there was no great questioning of the monarchical framework and its symbolism, except in Quebec. Things are changing, however, observes the expert.
An Angus Reid poll published last month reported that 51% of Canadians believe the time has come to cut ties with the British monarchy, against 26% who want to keep this link and 24% who are undecided. However, in 2020, 45% wanted Canada to renounce the monarchy and in 2016, it was 38%. The percentage of opponents of the monarchy is highest in Quebec (71%), followed by Saskatchewan (59%), but is still between 40% and 45% in all the other provinces.
Almost a third of Canadians have a favorable opinion of the Queen (63%). This proportion, however, drops to 29% for Prince Charles – whose ascension to the throne could be approaching, Queen Elizabeth II suffering from the effects of long COVID-19 at the age of 96.
Although the Trudeau government does not seem ready to break with the Queen, it could at the very least review this tradition which still sees Canada sign on its behalf, believes Patrick Taillon. “Between abolishing the monarchy and showing an attachment that is not necessary, but traditional in all kinds of legal acts, we are perhaps approaching the moment when what is not necessary could justly be called upon to disappear because public opinion starts to move. »
Asked to comment on the place of the monarchy in Canada in 2022, as he prepared to welcome Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla, on the first day of their visit to Canada on Tuesday, Justin Trudeau retorted however: “Constitutional changes, not a lot of people talk to me about them regularly”.