Well, all right, he could have waited half an hour, three quarters of an hour longer. But Paul St-Pierre-Plamondon, by refusing monarchical mourning, has the merit of consistency. One cannot wish to create a republic and revere the symbols of a foreign monarchy.
Posted at 6:00 a.m.
This is equally true for Canada. But the federal political parties all act as if there is nothing strange about the head of the Canadian state being a guy residing in a castle in England.
Canada only gained formal legal independence from the United Kingdom in 1982, when its Constitution ceased to be an act of the British Parliament. Consider that it was necessary to go to London only 41 years ago to modify the fundamental law of the country.
We just forgot to repatriate the army chief at the same time as theBritish North America Act.
The gesture of rupture would have been too brutal for some, and politically impractical. The simple fact of placing the heads of prime ministers on certain banknotes in place of the queen had relaxed many of them 50 years ago, so imagine dethroning her locally…
Except that now, the British monarchy will no longer be confused with the person of Elizabeth. Charles will never even be able to approach the mythical status of his mother, magnified in recent years by several works of docu-fiction.
It suddenly becomes easier to look at royal things coldly, and to consider the institution for what it is: a hereditary anachronism that has become almost charming over the years, but which, under the gilding, badly hides a often horrible past.
Anyway, there is no need to put the British monarchy on trial – although even by viewing The Crownone can find many pieces of evidence of a not so distant imperialism.
It suffices to note that this monarchy, even idealized, is foreign. She should stay in the confines of her “kingdom”, which may not remain so united, reading the latest news from Scotland.
Barbados did not wait for Elizabeth’s death. It got rid of the British monarchy in 2021, and it is now a parliamentary republic. A president is the head of state, elected by parliament, with essentially ceremonial functions, like a governor general.
Australia had this debate, which ended in fish tail after a failed referendum in 1999, but the subject could resurface.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has said she believes the country will cut ties with the British monarchy during her lifetime.
Here ? Nothing.
The fruit is, however, ripe.
There is no need to renounce British parliamentarianism, the heritage of English law or even association with the Commonwealth. The idea is simply to break with the colonial past for good, officially, legally, symbolically.
But yes, I know all the objections, and there are excellent ones, but they are mostly practical. Yes, the Constitution should be amended. And that part of the Constitution requires the unanimity of the 10 provinces and of the federal Parliament. Yes, we know that the Constitution now cannot be amended without a referendum. And that everyone will want to haggle over their participation. Quebec, which never signed the Canadian Constitution of 1982, will surely not agree to return to the legal rank just for that. The First Nations will also have their claims. Etc.
Yet even Britain, which for centuries had no formal Constitution, modified its own, and changed institutions that seemed immutable.
It may be infeasible, mind you. But before postulating infeasibility, it seems to me that we should at least have this discussion. At least, face the institutional absurdity of this colonial residue.
What would that change? Not much, in a way. Apart from getting rid of symbolic foreign tutoring… which is huge.