When Charles de Gaulle got off the ship Colbert, in July 1967, he set foot in federal land, the port of Quebec. The governor general of the country was waiting for him. Although the O Canada has been chosen, the previous year, as the anthem of the country, the military band plays God save the queen. Protocol requires it, because we are in the presence of the representative of the queen. The crowd of Quebecers gathered to witness the arrival of the general begins to boo the monarchist ritornello and to try to bury him by singing The Marseillaise.
French TV correspondent Pierre-Louis Mallen recounts: “The cameras and directional microphones were turned sharply, focusing on this background, which suddenly became the main center of interest. Across all of Canada and as far as Europe we could see and hear a few hundred Quebec families who, in the presence of two heads of state frozen to attention and an innumerable police force, hooted the royal anthem. “
Commenting on the event and speaking of himself in the third person, as he used to do, the general was struck by the scene: “How can one imagine that de Gaulle remained indifferent in front of French Canadians who shouted” Long live France !” and sang The Marseillaise, while the music played the God save the queen ? “
The O’toole-Queen Band
While the monarchist anthem has been silenced forever in Barbados, a former British colony turned into a republic, it has resounded again, in recent days, in the parliament of another former colony, Canada. It was the Conservative MPs who sang the chorus, of which they seemed to know every word. They thus launched a challenge to the Bloc Québécois, which had had the boldness to propose the following motion to them: “That the House congratulate Barbados on having freed itself from the British monarchy. “
Stéphane Bergeron, the mover of the motion, was paradoxically more in tune with Canadian opinion, including the opinion of conservative voters, than the singers of the O’Toole-Queen Band. We know that the majority of Quebecers have long been in favor of the abolition of the monarchy. Moreover, they do not consider Great Britain as their mother country. At most, say, like their mother-in-law.
The new phenomenon is the appearance of an English-Canadian majority in favor of finally cutting the royal umbilical cord. The respect for Elizabeth II is certainly palpable. But Angus Reid asked them last week if they wanted his successor Prince Charles to become King of Canada. The answer is no. Even for 61% of Conservative voters. (In total, this ranges from 55% refusals in Manitoba to 67% in Alberta. In Quebec, it is 79%.)
Justin Trudeau, the most woke of the planet, shouldn’t he be the first to want to break with this archaism? Asked in the spring, he said he was focusing on the pandemic, but had to admit that “we have several institutions in this country, including Parliament, which was built on a system of colonialism, of discrimination of systemic racism. in all our institutions ”. Not to mention that to this day, our monarchs do not practice inclusiveness. For example, a Catholic is prohibited from entering the royal family, such as a Muslim, a Jew, or a Buddhist. The sovereign is the equivalent of the Pope of the Anglican Church. The others, the disbelievers, have only to convert or to abstain. The rules of succession also exclude orphans. An adopted child cannot in any case become king or queen. It feels like the Middle Ages. In fact, there we are.
A meeting with history
There will therefore be, in the years and perhaps the months to come, a rendezvous with history. It poses two problems. First that of the replacement of the queen. The simplest solution is to designate one person, perhaps the Speaker of the House, as honorary president of the country, without changing anything in the rest of the system. But as soon as we open this debate, more ambitious reform proposals emerge.
The other problem is that this meeting necessarily involves a constitutional amendment, which requires the consent of the ten provinces. And who says reform of the Constitution says conditions for an agreement. Quebec will be able to say yes, provided that it is given all the powers in immigration matters. Alberta will be able to say yes, as long as the Senate is transformed to give more weight to the West. Aboriginal people have their own list. In short, the dead end.
Suppose that the day after Elizabeth died – or her decision to relinquish power – all the prime ministers agreed to support a single constitutional amendment on this point. It would still have to be adopted by the assemblies of all the provinces. Following the previous constitutional wars, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia legally committed to holding referendums at home on any substantial change to the Basic Law. Should we get around the problem by organizing a pan-Canadian referendum?
Now in his 3e mandate, won’t Justin Trudeau be tempted to be the one who pulled his country out of the colonialist dark ages by organizing this consultation? Or will he prefer to make Quebeckers understand that the only way to symbolically cut off the head of the monarch is to proclaim the independent Republic of Quebec? This will make, at least, a good episode for a future season of The Crown.
[email protected]; blog: jflisee.org