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.

And if Canada decided to go the route of monarchical abolition, we would face the same question. If not the monarchy, how would we structure a republic?

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 15, 2021.

OTTAWA—Every few years, the idea of abolishing the monarchy dominates Canadian discourse.

The stars are aligning for another such discussion not likely to end any time soon.

The Queen is nearing the end of her reign. Her spouse is almost 100, and she will be 95 next month. Her Royal Highness is slowing down although still very active for a nonagenarian.

Prince Charles is next in line for the crown.

Unlike his children, the prince has not captured the imagination of the public. He has an awkward demeanour and doesn’t appear to have the modern touch that is so evident in both of his sons.

For a moment, the solution seemed simple. Jump a generation and pass the monarchy to Prince William and his perfect partner Kate Middleton.

Prince Harry was the wild child but when he settled down to marry Meghan Markle, it seemed as though the perfect Royal Family portrait was complete.

Not only did ‘The Firm’ enjoy deep British roots, but the family tree also finally reached across the pond to an American and broke a racial barrier with a non-white partner.

That was before the globally covered family feud started to fray this perfect picture at the seams.

Every family has problems, and if they say they don’t they are not telling the truth.

But rarely does insider’s dirt make such a public splash as that heard around the world when mega host Oprah Winfrey interviewed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex about the state of their wedded non-bliss.

The interview laid bare internal quarrels inside the family, which is known widely as the firm, including a claim that unnamed royals worried about the colour of son Archie’s skin.

The immediate reaction of the larger public is to revisit the status of Canada as a constitutional monarchy.

The timing couldn’t be better, some argue, as the abolition could be triggered by the death of the current monarch.

And Canada would not be the first Commonwealth country to consider a break with the motherland.

Australia underwent a bitter internal debate during a referendum on the monarchy back in 1999. The official position of the Labour Party and some Liberals and Greens is still the establishment of a republic. But multiple prime ministers of all persuasions have dodged the bullet of another referendum.

Part of the problem is that monarchical abolition needs a replacement. In Australia’s referendum, there were initially three different paths to republicanism.

And if Canada decided to go in that direction, we would face the same question.

If not the monarchy, how would we structure a republic?

The first challenge would be to determine whether the replacement would even be elected.

Historically, Canada has focused its referendum energy on figuring out the rules on how to break up our country.

There has been a period of historic calm in the push for Quebec separation. Most supporters of the Parti Québécois and the Bloc Québécois use their energy to focus on economic issues and how to exit the COVID crisis with the least loss of life and jobs.

But a constitutional referendum would undoubtedly let that genie out of the bottle.

The vast majority of Quebecers would likely support dissolution while the numbers in other parts of the country would be quite different.

It would be just another exacerbated example of the solitudes that have defined our Canadian identity. Separatists would use the disagreement to drive a bigger wedge between Quebec and the rest of us.

Meanwhile, the rationale behind abolishing the constitutional monarchy appears to be all tied up in family dynamics.

It must have been quite a sacrifice for Prince Harry and his bride to opt out of royal duties, but the bottom line is that they wanted out.

Initially, they said they were planning to come to Canada, and that could have stuck our country with the bill for their ongoing security.

The Canadian government pays nothing for the Royal Family’s ongoing living expenses in the United Kingdom. However, when they come for a visit, our government is responsible for their internal travel costs and the security attached to a royal visit.

All in all, it is a pretty small price to pay for a connection to the Commonwealth that has wrought many wonderful things.

Canada would never have hosted the Vancouver-Whistler Winter Olympics, if not for the support of most of the Commonwealth.

Historical ties that bind are worth breaking if they hurt.

So if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

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

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, July 10, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Thank goodness the sesquicentennial only happens every 150 years.

Nobody can pronounce it anyway, and the birthday hangover still has Ottawa buzzing.

A half million people descended on the capital to join in the Canada Day party and it was a blast. Contrary to media reports about the downsized crowd, there were about 100,000 waiting in line at the two entrance points one had to pass to get on to Parliament Hill.

I know, because I was one of them.

Given my advanced age, (64), I briefly contemplated watching the noon-day celebration from the comfort of my own living room. But I could not resist the lure of the real thing.

During my eight years as Heritage minister, July 1 was a heavy workday. With speechmaking, artistic programming and multiple important visitors, the team was always on high alert to make sure nothing went wrong. Inevitably, something always did.

One year, we festooned the VIP seats with paper flags sponsored by a national organization representing Canadian chicken farmers. We did not realize that the ink of Canada’s ruby red flag stamped on cheap paper had not set. So when every diplomat rose sing O Canada, I watched in horror as a ragged red flag outline was permanently imprinted on all bespoke diplomatic garb.

One year, Queen Elizabeth looked curiously bemused as two well-hung male circus performers wrapped in nothing but swaddling cloth, performed gyro technics that required the head of one to perch comfortably on the butt of the other. On the same occasion, Her Majesty was introduced to Inuit throat singing, which requires two singers to literally pass the music from one throat to another, again requiring unusual human contact.

Most Canada Days pass without too many hitches, as did our 150th.

Of course, the naysayers could probably point out that when the prime minister did a shout out to all parts of the country, he forgot, of all places, Alberta.

It certainly was not Freudian, as Justin Trudeau has made a special effort during his time in office to reach out to a province that has not always been so friendly to the Liberals.

Luckily, the program was long enough that Trudeau was able to recant his error and proclaim his undying love for the forgotten province in time for the closing song.

There were a couple of other snafus. In one instance, the king of Canadian broadcasting got a more fulsome intro than the real future King, The Prince of Wales, ever the diplomat, took it in stride, delivering a beautifully bilingual speech which sought to underscore the wonderful benefits of being Canadian.

During his visit, the future King was elevated to the highest recognition that Canada could offer, Extraordinary Companion of the Order of Canada.

But that honour was awarded in a private ceremony, which did not run the risk of further bifurcating the Canadian identity.

Amongst republicans, and many elites, our relationship with the monarchy is tepid at best and frosty at worst. Many believe that when the current reigning monarch passes on, the institution should follow suit.

Because of the schizophrenic connection to the Royal Family, Canada Day organizers are always balancing the challenge of honouring any Royal attendees while not appearing to be too obsequious. A tall order at best.

The retirement of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation icon Peter Mansbridge, timed to coincide with his final day of coverage at the 150th birthday, was the perfect frame to segue into an introduction of the Prince of Wales. Mansbridge received high praise in the program and his spouse, Cynthia Dale, even got to sing O Canada on the air.

No such warm welcome was offered to visitors from the Royal Family, with barely a nod given to the Duchess of Cornwall, who has always been overshadowed in life by the memory of the deceased Lady Diana.

All in all, the celebration of 150 years of togetherness was truly Canadian.

The prime minister embraced aboriginal protesters and even managed to bring them onside, mentioning their grievances at multiple turns in the ceremony.

Even the appearance of Irish singer Bono caused the crowd to thrill with his message that we are a welcoming nation, unlike the bridge burners that seem to be taking over south of the border.

All in all, it was a great celebration. We reflected on successes and the many mistakes Canada made in the first 150 years.

Learning from both, we are all the better for it.

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

By SHEILA COPPS

Published first in The Hill Times on Monday, May 8, 2017 12:00 AM

OTTAWA—The royal retirement of Prince Philip announced by Buckingham Palace last week begs the perennial question: who will replace the reigning monarch in the royal succession plan?

The world may be rooting for grandchildren, but I for one, would like to cast my vote for the most underappreciated member of the royal family, Prince Charles.

I was never much of a monarchist growing up. As my mother’s family hailed from working-class England, her political bent was more on the Labour side.

As children, we inherited her mistrust of hereditary lines of authority, and my older sister Mary went so far as to enter a regional speech contest sponsored by the Canadian Legion with the chosen topic, “Why we should abolish the monarchy.” Needless to say, despite her excellent content and perfect delivery, she scored last in the Legion declamation ranking.

But as we all know, views soften with age. As minister of Canadian Heritage, I had no problem defending the monarchy because I was of the firm view that in order to move forward as a country, we must embrace and understand our history. A rupture with royalty would also mean severing the unique connection that links Canada directly to 51 other countries on five continents around the world.

From a purely domestic perspective of self-interest, those connections are often very useful when global decisions are being made on issues like membership on the United Nations Security Council, or site selection for Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Networks matter. And the Commonwealth group of like-minded countries is a modern economic and social network that adds value to the Canadian body politic.

In addition, the Queen and her descendants come with a pedigree that makes Hollywood pale in comparison.

The opportunity to invite members of the royal family to celebrate with Canada when we achieve milestones like our 150th birthday is worth the price of admission.

The robust schedules of both the Prince and Queen Elizabeth have been truly amazing. The Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen have visited Canada more than 20 times.

The fact that both have retained relatively good health well into their ninth decades is statistically surprising.

Back in her 70s, the Queen enjoyed a travel schedule and stamina that would be the envy of people half her age.

Whenever she and the Prince would visit Canada, they would literally cover two or three provinces with an average of six or seven public appearances a day, involving handshakes and conversation with literally hundreds of people.

And through it all, in thick or thin, they followed the British motto of “Keep Calm and Carry On.”

Prince Charles carried on in his own inimitable fashion. He was never as deft of tongue as his father, nor did he inherit the regal bearing of his mother. But take it from one who met him on multiple occasions, Prince Charles is the real deal.

He is thoughtful, visionary, and extremely grounded.

He fought in favour of the environment long before it was fashionable. He understood the importance of local farmers years before anyone had written a word about the 100-mile eating craze. He was concerned about the plight of indigenous peoples long before the rest of us caught on.

Just after he had completed his education and the requisite naval tour of duty, he founded the Prince’s Trust. In 40 years, it has helped more than 825,000 youth by investing in local job creation and business start-ups.

He explained the name of his initiative as an attempt to offer young Brits the trust they need to move ahead.

His efforts garnered little attention as the world focused on his personal life.

But anyone who has seen the man up close knows that he is the real deal. He is a genuine thinker and doer, who levers his royal family credentials to assist those in genuine need.

Prince Charles may not be as photogenic as some of his progeny, but in terms of understanding how to exercise the delicate balance of royal responsibilities with real influence, he is best suited to ascend to the throne.

As his father retreats from public life, now is Prince Charles’ time to shine. He and the Duchess of Cornwall will be the official royal family representatives at the birthday bash on Parliament Hill.

It will be his 18th visit to Canada and, hopefully, all Canadians will get a chance to witness the human side of the prince.

He would make a great monarch for all.

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