By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 8, 2023.

OTTAWA–King Charles III has been crowned. Long live the King.

Surveys say that his accession is opposed by the majority of Canadians, but has anyone done a deep dive into the reasons why?

A Pollara poll done for The Toronto Star found that the vast majority of young people opposed the status of Canada as a constitutional monarchy.

Apparently, the older one gets, the more one is attuned to tradition. Forty-seven per cent of those aged 55 years and older supported retaining the monarchy, while 35 per cent were opposed. The survey did not delve into the meaning of a constitutional monarchy, and I doubt if many of the poll respondents have a clear idea of the role of the head of state in Canada.

Some believe it wields a tremendous amount of power, even though recent history makes clear that real power lies with the head of government.

When Queen Elizabeth II signed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms back in 1982, she did not offer amendments. She approved the document based on a vote of the Canadian Parliament. Ditto for Barbados’ decision to sever ties with the monarchy.

When Barbados decided to end its relationship with the Crown in 2021, the Queen approved without rancour or reticence.

Then-Prince Charles attended the dissolution ceremonies, held 55 years to the day of Barbadian independence when the country terminated colonial status but kept constitutional ties with the Crown.

Several other Caribbean countries have vowed to follow suit, and some speculated that the death of the Queen would see Canada do the same.

One of the reasons cited for leave-taking is that King Charles is not his mother. That is self-evident. She became the Queen as a young woman and remained in that role until her death 70 years later.

Upon her passing, wonderful eulogies were penned globally about how she had carried out her responsibilities with dignity. But as her reputation gathered strength, that of her oldest son diminished in parallel.

Imagine being a 70-year-old man waiting for your mother’s permission to take over her job.

King Charles’ marital problems blunted his fealty role to cement the image of a rather weak vassal to Her Majesty. His foibles played poorly in the international media and certainly reinforced the impression that Queen Elizabeth would be the last legitimate reigning monarch.

Canadian pundits wrote that when the Queen passed on, it would be the perfect time to cut ties with the royals. But there has never been a solid answer as to why the country would terminate the monarchy without knowing what the replacement would be.

Toronto Star columnist Andrew Phillips had an interesting take on the issue last week. His column was headlined, “If monarchies are so bad, why are they the best places to live?”

He points out that while only 20 per cent of countries have monarchies, seven of the 10 countries cited for having the best quality of life have a monarch as head of state.

Phillips does not claim that having a monarchy makes a country more liveable. There are plenty of examples to blow that theory out of the water. But he does say that having a monarchy “does not hold a country back” and hypothesizes that in the instances “where monarchies managed to survive … [they] figured out how to … combine tradition with change … Rather than inflict the trauma of a radical break with the past … they chose to evolve toward constitutional monarchies.”

Some Canadians may want a radical break. The majority of Quebecers see a divorce from the Crown as a positive outcome to their warrior history with the English. But chances are, even if the monarchy ceased to exist, separatists would find another reason not to remain in Canada.

The global attention paid to the May 6 coronation will stifle the naysayers temporarily, but the heavy lifting will be left to the King.

On a personal note, as minister responsible for royal visits, I spent many hours with Prince Charles and his mother when they visited Canada. Queen Elizabeth was a true professional who managed any challenging situation with regal aplomb. Prince Charles was warm, funny, self-deprecating and quite the opposite of his public persona.

He reached out to people with an ease rarely seen in a monarch.

Whether it was a school gymnasium in Churchill, Man., or a state receiving line, he always had an extra smile for those who appeared stiffly nervous.

I predict King Charles’ warm personality will soon convince most Canadians of the historic and enduring value of a constitutional monarchy.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Critics say King Charles III doesn’t possess the character required to replicate the incredible success of his mother’s reign. I beg to differ.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 26, 2022.

OTTAWA—The Queen is dead. Long live the King.

With the ultimate interment of the Queen beside her beloved partner Prince Philip, all eyes are now on King Charles.

Will he be able to pass muster or will the incredible reign of Canada’s longest-serving monarch mark the end of the Royals?

Many have written that the Queen’s death should serve as a moment to sever ties with the monarchy in Canada.

They point to the foibles that faced Prince Charles in his private life and also claim he doesn’t possess the character required to replicate the incredible success of his mother’s reign.

I beg to differ.

It is pretty simple to mock a monarch-in-waiting when he has reached his seventh decade without taking over the top job.

During his lifetime, Prince Charles was not satisfied to simply wait. Instead, he became a powerful advocate for causes which he continues to hold near and dear.

In many ways, he was always far ahead of public thinking on issues like global warming, Indigenous reconciliation, and organic living.

Prince Charles has been ridiculed, and even excoriated for daring to propose that maybe it doesn’t make sense to simply tear down heritage architecture in favour of modern construction.

The notion of smart cities had not yet been coined. But long ago the prince intrinsically understood that simply demolishing swathes of centuries-old construction may not be the best development strategy. Modern urbanists agree.

Prince Charles founded his own trust, seeking to create learning and employment opportunities for young people in disadvantaged communities. The Prince’s Trust was founded in 1976 and he has spent decades growing it.

Last year, more than 46,000 young people took a course via the trust.

More than 1,100 employees support the work.

A Canadian version of the trust was established by the prince in partnership with Loblaw owners Galen and Hilary Weston. The mandate of the Canadian trust is to create a sustainable future for our country.

The prince was a great believer in sustainable development long before it became a global buzzword.

His own passion for the land translated itself into a belief that we need to adopt sustainable practices in both rural and urban settings.

The prince was also roundly attacked when he dared to suggest that farming practices needed to change. His comments came in the wake of a British agricultural crisis that saw thousands of sheep diseased and butchered because of foot and mouth disease back in 2001.

Instead of focusing on Prince Charles’ expression of sympathy for farmers who lost more than six million cows and sheep, the media attacked him for suggesting that certain longstanding practices needed to change.

His concern about the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry was widely ridiculed in the British media.

It took years before the rest of us started to recognize that some traditional livestock practices were contributing to the spread of disease.

Prince Charles’ seven decades have been spent immersed in multiple projects that he believed in.

When I had an opportunity to spend time with him back in the last century, he was already talking about how to accomplish Indigenous reconciliation.

In insightful visits to the north and to Indigenous communities, he witnessed firsthand the poverty and challenges they were facing, and offered his own advice on how to turn things around.

Those issues of deep concern were not what garnered the headlines. Instead, his marital problems and the ultimate death of the Princess of Wales were the subjects that fascinated the media and public.

The geeky princely policy wonk was no match for the charisma of his photogenic wife. When she went to work, she managed to mobilize the globe in an effort to embrace AIDS victims or ban anti-personal landmines.

The love story gone sour was Prince Charles’ scarlet letter. Nothing he could have done would be able to replace the ugliness of divorce and royal humiliation.

What Britons and the world now know is that the Royal Family is human.

But if you review the legacy of the King’s first seven decades, it portends very well for his capacity to govern wisely.

As King, he will no longer be involved in the kind of public policy pronouncements that characterized his work as a prince.

But his foresight, vision, and capacity to care for those least able to care for themselves is a good sign of the kind of reign he might have.

Let’s hope the comedic caricatures fade. King Charles is coming into his own.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

The federal decision not to strike a medal was a lost political opportunity. In every riding in the country, there are individuals and organizations who would appreciate receiving recognition by way of a royal honour.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 6, 2022.

OTTAWA—The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee should be a time of celebration.

After 70 years as monarch, Queen Elizabeth is much admired and beloved.

She has survived the 21st century with the same warts that mar most families. From Prince Charles’ divorce to the lascivious behaviour of Prince Andrew, her children are not the same role models that she has proved to be.

In-laws appear to be much more beloved by the public than the Royals themselves. And the more the descendants distance themselves from the family, the happier they seem to be.

The decision by Prince Harry and his partner Meghan Markle to detach themselves from monarchical duties is just one example of a changing dynasty.

Couple that with an insider allegation of racism, levelled by the first racialized spouse of a Royal, and you have trouble.

Meghan and Harry seem to have survived their relocation to the United States.

Just last week, media reports claimed that Markle was considering a run for public office in the United States, with a potential eye on future presidential ambitions.

ITV’S Good Morning Britain hosted U.S. President Joe Biden’s sister, Valerie, who predicted that Markle could run on the Democratic ticket as early as 2028.

While the future of some exiled Royals seems bright, the same cannot be said of the institution itself.

The jubilee has offered an opportunity to celebrate the Queen’s longevity, but it also highlights the debate about terminating Canada’s relationship with the Queen’s successor.

Based on media coverage, there has been more interest in getting rid of the institution than in embracing it.

Even Prince Charles’ successful Canadian trip did not get much attention.

At the end of the day, the majority of Canadians are not seized of the issue one way or another.

Even ministers don’t seem to have that much interest in rendezvousing with the Royal family, as evidenced by the paucity of public Canadian Platinum Jubilee activities.

The federal government did not even strike a medal for the seventieth regal anniversary.

Instead, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia have done it on their own. They are seeking permission to include their medals in the order of precedence to be worn along with other commemorative medals in the Canadian Honours System.

Not surprisingly, Quebec did not join those provinces who are striking a medal. But the absence of Ontario was surprising, given the evidence of United Empire Loyalist history throughout the province.

The federal decision not to strike a medal was a lost political opportunity. In every riding in the country, there are individuals and organizations who would appreciate receiving recognition by way of a royal honour.

The decision was likely a political one, with the government not wanting to draw too much attention to what can be a controversial subject. But it was a mistake not to strike a medal, if only to give Members of Parliament a chance to honour active volunteers in communities across the country.

Say what you like, very few people turn their noses down on a personal recognition.

For Members of Parliament, the medal award process is an opportunity to reach out to multiple constituents, with zero political risk.

It is one of the simplest ways of turning a former political enemy into a friend.

Those who dislike the Queen don’t need to be involved or invited, and those who support the monarchy will be forever grateful for the Canadian recognition.

Sometimes a Member of Parliament can actually build personal support by reaching out to Royal Canadian Legions and others in a medal ceremony.

In a sense, the missed medal opportunity is reflective of the country’s ambivalence toward the monarchy in general.

There are some avid supporters of the monarchy, but most Canadians do not feel strongly about the issue. The biggest question is what would happen if the monarchy were to become redundant.

In most instances, the governor general has become a respected representative of the Queen, in carrying out duties on behalf of the royals across the country.

Mary Simon, as Canada’s first Indigenous Governor General, is particularly impressive.

Even those who ruminate about abolition following the passing of Queen Elizabeth, have no idea what to replace her with.

Republicanism does not curry much favour with most Canadians.

Abolition poses more questions than answers, which is why a heated Australian vote rejected it.

It is much easier to support a 1,200-year-old monarchical system than to blow it up.

Canadians may not enjoy a platinum celebration this month. But the monarchy is here to stay.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.