When Charles becomes king, such special meetings will likely continue, although he will be very careful about selecting issues that stretch across partisan lines and deliberate about acting as a convener, not an advocate, of certain outcomes. Charles has long known that his position and stature have given him the ability to host such meetings and to get high-powered persons from the worlds of government and business to accept his invitations. Often, however, these elite have found themselves convening with religious and labour leaders, academics, environmentalists, and community activists. About these unique get-togethers, Charles has said:
And right, there may be advantages in my case because I haven’t got a particular axe to grind and people notice that, I suppose, when you get people around the table you discover that frequently it’s the first time they’ve all sat around a table. You think, this can’t be possible. They must’ve sat and talked. These are people you’d think would form a sensible, integrated approach. Not a bit of it.[9]
As Mayer stresses, Charles takes pride in his skill of “getting business people, government and agencies to sit down with NGOs [non-governmental organizations], who normally they might never have talked to, except they shout across a huge chasm.”[10]
Charles III, King of Canada
When the second Elizabethan Era draws to a close, many Canadians will be shocked to learn that Charles has instantly become their new king. Some Canadians will insist that they don’t want him; they would never have voted for him; they would prefer a Canadian as head of state; or if we must have a king and queen they’d prefer Will and Kate on the throne, not him. At this time of succession, while monarchists celebrate the accession of the new king and his queen, Canadian republicans will call for a national referendum on the abolition of the monarchy. They will assert that the succession we just witnessed was the epitome of anti-democratic and elitist rule — an insult to most Canadians. To republicans, the succession will be reviled as an antiquated throwback, a vestige of our colonialist past, and an embarrassing reminder of how little distance we have travelled toward becoming a fully modern, democratic society.
All of these sentiments are genuine and passionately held by many Canadians, and yet none of them will have any impact on the reality of succession and the constitutional status of the monarchy in Canada once Charles becomes king. For all the reasons canvassed in the previous chapter, any substantial alteration to the institutions of the monarchy in this country requires a constitutional amendment, and such an amendment or even official discussions about such an amendment will not happen any time soon. Canadian monarchists may rest easy during the period of succession, knowing that the greatest line of defence for the institution they love is the constitution itself, with the pre-existence of monarchy being the “default mode” of Canadian constitutional reality. In the absence of any prior change to the status of the monarchy in this country, Charles will become king upon the death of his mother, and the institutions and practices of monarchy will continue to exist in Canada as they always have. Monarchists may perhaps express the sentiment during this time of transition that we should just “keep calm and carry on.” The governor general and the lieutenant governors will continue in their posts; official state ceremonial activities will endure; and the social, ceremonial, and charitable work of the Canadian vice-regents will continue to occupy the majority of their time. If a constitutional crisis emerges as to whether a first minister commands the confidence of the majority of his or her parliamentary assembly, the respective governor will continue to possess all the reserve powers of the Crown in order to resolve the dispute.
So, this we know: the monarchy will continue to exist in Canada once Elizabeth II is gone, and the Canadian vice-regents will carry on their work as they always have. There is a world of difference, however, between existing and thriving. As we have seen in previous chapters, while the monarchy undoubtedly has existed in this country, in many ways it has “merely” existed. Public opinion surveys over the past quarter century have often found that a plurality, if not an outright majority, of respondents wish to see the monarchy abolished in Canada, with a Canadian able to be selected, or better yet elected, as our head of state. These surveys have also suggested that a clear majority of Canadians do not wish to see Prince Charles become our next king. As we have seen, republican sentiment is strong among many Canadians, and past federal and provincial governments have picked up on this trend. Public and governmental support for the monarchy in Quebec is negligible, and many federal governments have worked to downplay the role of the royal family in the life of Canada while seeking to elevate the status of the governor general as the de facto Canadian head of state. Royal visits to this country have become fewer and shorter in duration. The hard reality for monarchists is that, as republican Michael Bliss long argued, to most young Canadians the monarchy is irrelevant, a useless and meaningless anachronism. Or, if it means anything, it is something to be laughed at and ridiculed. The Crown is not “cool.”
A symptom of the Crown’s current irrelevance to many in this country is that most Canadians would be hard pressed to name the present-day governor general or their provincial lieutenant governor. Furthermore, most Canadians would be unable to explain what the role of these vice-regents is, what their reserve powers are, and how, when, and why these very real powers can still be exercised. For an institution that to monarchists is a fundamental pillar of our constitutional system and a vital link to our history and our political development as a liberal democracy, such apathy and ignorance is appalling. If the monarchy is of vital significance to Canadian history, to our political development as a democratic people, and to the ceremonial, social, educational, and charitable life of this country, then the monarchy should be a thriving institution, known and respected by Canadians. But it’s not.
Are we destined to have to live with some of the worst fears of both republicans and monarchists? That is, are we stuck with an ineradicable monarchy that most Canadians view as virtually useless, a meaningless yet embarrassing ornamental bauble that we would and should discard if we could but we can’t? Or can we aspire to something better? If we know the monarchy will continue in this country, can we have a better monarchy? One that actually connects to most Canadians and means something to them? Rather than having a monarchy that simply continues to exist, could we actually have a Crown that thrives in the future?
A Twenty-First Century Crown for Canada
What might a revitalized Canadian monarchy look like? What would it take to achieve a Crown that most Canadians would actually respect? In probing for an answer to these questions, a key word rises to the fore: more. If the monarchy is to be appreciated by most Canadians, if it is to be seen as important to the country and relevant to our lives, its representatives have to do more — and be seen to be doing more. Simply continuing with the status quo, with business as usual for the regal and vice-regal powers-that-be, is a recipe for a monarchy that exists in the social and political doldrums of irrelevancy, always vulnerable to public dissension and calls for abolition. If the monarchy is to be relevant to Canadians, it has to earn our respect, and it must do this by becoming a bigger part of our lives and the lives of our communities, our provinces, and our country. Elizabeth II has long had a personal motto: “I must be seen to be believed.”[11] This idea is central to any revitalization of the monarchy in Canada, and every representative of the Crown must play their part in such renewal, starting right at the top.
The future king and the royal family will be expected to do more if the monarchy during the reign of Charles III is to work itself into the hearts and minds of the Canadian people. Charles will come to the throne knowing that his ascension has been met with much criticism and outright hostility in Canada. He would be well advised to plan a comprehensive royal tour of Canada at the earliest convenience, bringing his queen with him. During their visit, they would be wise to travel through the country extensively, meeting with people from th
e prime minister, premiers, indigenous leaders, and heads of major charities to schoolchildren, youth, veterans, and seniors. Prince William, the new Prince of Wales, and Princess Catherine, and other members of the royal family should also be expected to regularly travel to this country, promoting their own and various Canadian philanthropic causes. If the royal family is to be appreciated by Canadians, they have to be seen by Canadians — but they must not be seen as merely draining Canadians’ dollars. They need to do more than simply be present here. Given that support for charitable and philanthropic work has become the heart of the social ceremonial work of the monarchy and its representatives, the royals need to be more active in supporting such causes in Canada. Just as the Prince’s Trust has raised funds and promoted a host of worthy causes in the United Kingdom, so too could Prince William and Prince Harry, and Princess Catherine in her own right, advance important interests in this country that would likely love to gain royal patronage. Groups supporting injured veterans, youth entrepreneurialism, abused women and children, indigenous Canadians’ educational achievement, environmental causes, and social housing initiatives, for example, could all benefit from the support and fundraising potential of such royal patrons. Charles himself would also be in a position to advance certain socially progressive initiatives that could have Commonwealth-wide reach.
The Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, for example, first established in 1959 to encourage and fund Commonwealth-resident university students to undertake part of their studies in another Commonwealth country, continues to exist but labours under financial constraint. Canada now only supports a limited number of short-term academic exchange opportunities with Caribbean Commonwealth nations. All other Commonwealth countries have witnessed a steady decline in funding support for students since the heyday of the 1960s and 1970s. As king, Charles would be ideally positioned to reinvigorate this program, persuading governmental and private charitable donations to establish a trust fund for the plan while encouraging university students from across the Commonwealth to broaden their educational and personal horizons by studying in a fellow Commonwealth country. In a similar fashion, exchange programs between Commonwealth public services, whereby young public servants on management fast tracks are given the opportunity to gain work experience within the national public service of a fellow Commonwealth government, are few and far between, even though senior leaderships in all Commonwealth public services praise the professional development, experience, and international networking such programs engender. Again, the great inhibitor of these initiatives is funding. Again, the future king could make a difference, encouraging Commonwealth governments to build up such programs while using his convening power to gather funders from across Commonwealth public and private sectors to establish a trust fund to energize this undertaking. As Prince of Wales, Charles has shown himself to be someone who relishes this type of creative thinking and problem-solving; it is unlikely he will stop thinking this way once he becomes king. Indeed, it is crucial to his reputation and the reputation of the monarchy that he does not.
If the monarchy is to be revitalized in Canada during the reign of Charles III, however, the bulk of this work will fall to the Canadian vice-regents — governors general and lieutenant governors. These officials represent the Crown in this country on a daily basis, performing the official and ceremonial work of the monarchy nationwide and in each province. They are the ones who can make the most difference to the stature of the monarchy if they want to (and if they are supported in this task by their respective governments), because they are closest and most visible to their people. If the Crown has to be seen to be believed, these individuals are the ones who most need to be seen. On a basic level, they will have to do more of what they already do: more social engagements; more school, university, and hospital visits; more meetings with community and business groups; more speeches to service clubs and charities; and, consequently, more travel throughout their jurisdictions. In this work they would be well advised to focus attention on causes and charities promoting the interests of young Canadians and students, new Canadians, immigrants and multicultural groups, indigenous Canadians and their socio-economic and educational needs, environmental groups concerned with conservation and sustainable development, and local community groups involved in such matters as building social capital, heritage conservation, and community revitalization. These concerns, and many others, are matters to which many interested Canadians devote their own time and money as they strive to make a positive difference in their local, regional, and national communities. All these important matters are always in need of official recognition and sponsorship. Active engagement in, and support for, such interests would provide the vice-regents with noble causes to which they could make their own contributions for the social good of Canada and its provinces. This type of activity would have the vital and beneficial consequence of making sure the vice-regents are seen by more and more people and become known for their allegiance to Canadians from all walks of life who are intent on making Canada a better place to live.
On a different and newer level, however, the vice-regents will have to innovate by elevating their work and becoming more effective advocates and creators of philanthropy designed to promote Canadian culture, heritage, and social interests. Here, the Canadian vice-regents can take a lesson from Charles and the nature and working of the Prince’s Trust. Past governors have been good at inaugurating honours and awards such as the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers (formerly the Governor General’s Caring Canadian Award), the Governor General’s Awards for Excellence in Teaching Canadian History, the Lieutenant Governor’s Ontario Heritage Award, the Lieutenant Governor’s Award for Excellence in British Columbia Wines, and the Lieutenant Governor’s Persons with Disabilities Employer Partnership Award (Nova Scotia). What they have not done, however, is use their offices to engage in fundraising to establish trusts to promote select and worthy causes. A number of important trusts can be conjured up in the imagination: a Governor’s Trust to encourage and financially and socially support indigenous Canadians attending college and university; a Governor’s Trust to assist in the integration of new immigrants into Canadian society by linking new immigrants and immigrant support groups with existing Canadian faith communities and interested individual volunteers; a Governor’s Trust to promote the preservation and renovation of local heritage buildings; a Governor’s Trust to promote intercultural exchanges, community projects and festivals, and shared local business ventures between multicultural groups and organizations. This last trust could be designed to build links between these social groups while promoting Canadian multiculturalism and the development of a modern Canadian identity. Another Governor’s Trust could link high school students and seniors through encouraging and administering youth visits to senior citizen care facilities with reciprocating visits of senior citizens to high schools. Students could then compete for provincial and national awards for the best piece of work — essay, song, painting, story, and the like — addressing and bridging the divide between these two groups. The possibilities here are almost endless, limited only by one’s imagination and the requirement that such initiatives must always be non-partisan.
Establishing and advancing these types of social development trusts, while new to Canada’s governors, could fall fully within the mandate of vice-regents to support worthy charitable causes. The fact that Charles, Prince of Wales, has already pioneered their use in the United Kingdom serves only to bolster the argument that such trusts, if well and carefully designed, can be viable creations that promote important philanthropic causes while respecting the integrity of the Crown. It is important to understand how such trusts can and could work. The key role of the Crown representative — a royal or a vice-regent — would be to identify a worthy cause in need of support and to assist in raising the funds necessary to bring a trust into existence with sufficient working capital to sustain its programs. Fundraising involves the representati
ve of the Crown using her or his good offices to assemble wealthy potential donors, presenting them with the justification for such a trust, what it could and would do, and how it would be organized and administered. Trusts typically have a board of governors and a small staff of managers and administrators whose task it is to lead the organization, facilitating its work while providing control over all necessary financial management, human resources, and accountability obligations. The board provides the trust with strategic policy direction, with board members being drawn from donors as well as from leading figures representing interests directly concerned with the work of the trust. Crown representatives may be board members but do not need to be. The most important role for these representatives is the establishment of the trust in the first place, and then continuing to encourage people and donors to support its ongoing work. As long as such trusts are non-partisan, focused on charitable causes of broad social importance, involvement does not impinge upon a Crown agent’s status as an impartial manifestation of the state.
There are many ways by which vice-regents in Canada could establish such trusts. They could work independently, the governor general and any number of lieutenant governors acting on their own to identify worthy causes and working with supportive individuals to establish a trust. They could also co-operate in myriad interesting and innovative ways. A governor general could work with interested lieutenant governors on a matter of shared interest, just as lieutenant governors could co-operate with one another on initiatives supported by all. Such co-operation between vice-regents would be new but in no way improper or unconstitutional. Each vice-regent would represent the socio-economic, cultural, and heritage interests of his or her jurisdiction, with co-operative agreements designed to share programs and benefits among all participating jurisdictions. One requirement, of course, would be that all vice-regents would be expected to ask for and receive the official support of their first minister prior to undertaking any work to establish such a trust. This requirement is altogether constitutionally fitting and proper, highlighting the necessity for any such undertaking sought by a vice-regent to be demonstrably non-partisan, of broad social appeal, and truly charitable in orientation and outcome. If these preconditions can be met, first ministers supportive of a reinvigorated monarchy may find such trust initiatives appealing and worthy of encouragement.
Battle Royal Page 28
