Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 5 - Evidence - Meeting of November 22, 2005
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 22, 2005
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day, in public, at 9:32 a.m. to consider an oath of allegiance to Canada; and, pursuant to rule 86(1)(f), in camera, to consider a draft report on the study of the participation of senators by telephone or videoconference during public and in camera meetings of select committees.
Senator David P. Smith (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have as our witness Professor David Smith, a distinguished and well- published professor from the University of Saskatchewan.
However, I would ask your permission to deal with brief matter before hearing from Professor Smith. I ask because Senator Fraser has sent us a letter which has been translated. It relates to the report, which we have not yet presented to the Senate, on video conferencing.
Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: It is being circulated now.
Mr. Chairman, do you want to proceed in camera?
The Chairman: If there is agreement, I think we should proceed in camera. Is it agreed that we proceed in camera?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: If you do not want us to go in camera, we will not. Is it your preference that we not proceed in camera?
Senator Robichaud: I am simply asking: Why?
The Chairman: It is a tradition.
Senator Robichaud: I am all for tradition.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that we proceed in camera? If anyone objects, we will continue in public. I want to avoid a debate on the matter. I want to give as much time as we can to Professor Smith.
The committee continued in camera.
The committee resumed in public.
The Chairman: I would welcome Professor Smith who is a distinguished professor with expertise in procedural matters. He is Professor Emeritus, University of Saskatchewan. He graduated from Western Ontario and completed a doctorate at Duke University. He also has a DLit. from the University of Saskatchewan.
Since his arrival in the province in 1964, he was written extensively on Saskatchewan politics and political history. Of particular interest to his books' readers is his edited work, Building a Province: A History of Saskatchewan in Documents.
His current research project is the Canadian Parliament. The Canadian Senate in Bicameral Perspective was published by University of Toronto Press in 2003.
Professor Smith, the floor is yours.
David Smith, Professor, Political Studies, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, As an individual: Honourable senators, I would like to thank you for your invitation to address you on the oath of allegiance.
In truth, it is not a question which, at first glance, appears to be one of great moment, either to the public or politically. However, I think it is, because it deals with the Crown. I say that not only because I have a vested interest in selling what remains of my book, The Invisible Crown: The First Principle of Canadian Government, but because the question of the oath touches on some of the arguments in that book. I suspect I have been invited because of a couple of the books I have written, the one I just mentioned, and The Republican Option in Canada: Past and Present.
As honourable senators know, the oath of allegiance appears in section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and states, “...I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty...” in this instance Queen Elizabeth II.
As I understand the issue, the oath makes no reference to Canada and some senators and some members of the public, it is said, think it should. In other words, there is an antipathy set up between the oath of allegiance to the Queen and an unarticulated loyalty to Canada.
At the outset, I think the foregoing is a false dichotomy. There is no contradiction in expressing allegiance to the Queen and loyalty to Canada. Why? Because there can only be one allegiance and therefore only one oath of allegiance, in this case to the Queen as Canada's sovereign. Any other position as regards allegiance is, in my opinion, illogical.
Why do I take this position? I take this position because the Crown, represented by the sovereign, unifies the tripartite division of power that characterizes parliamentary government. Parliament makes the laws. Parliament confers power on the executive and other bodies. The judiciary interprets the laws, helping guard against abuse of power by the executive.
In the coronation oath, the King or Queen promises, with regard to judges, to cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all his or her judgments. With regard to the executive, the King or Queen, promises, “to govern my people according to our laws and customs.” Therefore, ministers and judges must regard themselves as the sovereign's delegates to perform these respective parts of her or his oath.
The tripartite division of power is not one of checks and balances — the favourite 21st century prescription of parliamentary reformers — but one of symbiotic power. The harmony of Parliament is internal and depends for its realization upon the sovereign or, in Canada, the sovereign's representative. This is the sovereign's allegiance to the people. The people's reciprocal duty lies in obedience and defence of the sovereign.
I do not want to get off track here, but I would argue that constitutional monarchy in Canada influences Canadian conceptions of the public interest, and draws that conception of the public interest closer to that found in northern European conceptions, for example, in the Netherlands and Sweden, both of which are monarchies, as opposed to ideas of the public interest found in the United States, even though Canada and the United States are federations and, thus, quite unlike most countries of northern Europe.
You have already been told by Jacques Monet that the constitutional monarchy is the glue of the Canadian federation. He and several other witnesses have commented on the uniform oath of allegiance taken by parliamentarians and provincial legislators in Canada. In The Invisible Crown I have argued that Canada is an arrangement of what I call “compound monarchies,” and that the development of Canadian federalism owes much to the presence of constitutional monarchy in the provinces. One example is the control and exploitation of natural resources. The contrast with the United States in this regard is very marked.
In reading the debate and testimony that has taken place prior to my appearance today, I am struck by what seems to me to be imprecise conceptions of allegiance. First, as political theorists Hobbs and Bodin taught, there can only be one sovereign which, in our current system of government, is the Crown in Parliament. Allegiance today, as always in the British Isles, and as in France before the revolution, is personal, that is, to the sovereign. As Shakespeare understood and taught, the King, weak as well as strong, admirable or indifferent, personified the virtues of the nation. The King can do no wrong because the King can wish to do no wrong.
What has this to do with the matter at hand? The sovereign is more than the state. He or she is personal, continuous, because he or she is hereditary; and, above all, since the 17th century, above politics, above factions, above region, class, race or religion. I believe it is these transcendent qualities of monarchy in Parliament that serve the Canadian polity so well, a polity of strong regional identities, of multiple languages and legal systems, and of immense size.
A second observation I would make is that oaths of allegiance are rare undertakings in our country. In the matter before you, they are confined to legislatures. Canadians do not take, and for much of their history did not subscribe to the idea of taking, oaths of allegiance. King and country were indivisible and immutable loyalties requiring no public affirmation.
The explanation for this attitude that more is less or that he protests too much, has already been noted by earlier witnesses. Any commitment or pledge to Canada, whatever that term might imply, could only detract from and undermine allegiance to the sovereign.
I have written and taught enough about constitutional monarchy to know that it is, put crudely, a hard sell. It is more than school children who do not understand. Journalists, academics and some parliamentarians are in need of education.
I am not talking about of the regalia or trappings of the monarchy, or of the personalities. It is immaterial who wears the crown. I am talking about constitutional principle, not some static Victorian or Edwardian state.
Allegiance to Canada's sovereign is a constitutional concept in the same way but with different content as is allegiance to the United States Constitution for American citizens. The sovereign is the personification of Canada's Constitution. In no way does it detract from Canada's distinctiveness.
Despite the litany of criticism at home, Canada's Constitution is admired around the world for the freedom it promotes, for the social policies it provides and for the tolerance it demonstrates. It is not perfect, as most First Nations, for example, would testify. Canadians need to turn from pathology to political anatomy and to consider their country's constitutional strengths. I believe part of the answer to that question lies in constitutional monarchy.
No one outside of Canada, and few within, have ever said, let alone demonstrated, that Canada would be a better place if it were a republic.
I apologize if I have gone far afield in my remarks. The subject of the oath of allegiance tends to have that effect.
I would conclude by saying that I see no contradiction between the oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II and a commitment, indeed an intense commitment, to Canada in all its rich and enriching diversity.
The Chairman: When Professor Monet appeared before the committee, we focused on the variation suggested in the motion by Senator Joyal whereby one would not take an oaths of allegiance.
His motion is that the Rules of the Senate be amended by adding, “Every senator shall, after taking his or her Seat” — and you can only take your seat once you have taken the oath of allegiance — “take and subscribe a pledge of loyalty to Canada, in the following form...” et cetera. It is a pledge of loyalty. I am speaking as one who supports the monarchy system that we have at present.
Do you feel that if we went that route, it would in any way — and I hate to use this phrase — water the wine of the concept of the oath of allegiance? Do you see that as being incompatible in any way? Would you be comfortable with it? What is your reaction to that proposition?
Mr. Smith: I would be uncomfortable with that. It would be contradictory, it would water the wine, and it would create problems.
I think oaths of loyalty are very dangerous matters. To say “may” make it permissive, then who takes it and who does not? If you do not take it, what is read into that? I think there is a real problem with that. We have an oath. We have a constitutional system and the Crown is the centre of it. It seems to me that is a logical focus for an affirmation. To add anything to it would detract from it and create its own problems. That is my view. I think permissiveness is dangerous because it creates difficulties.
The Chairman: We want your views. That is why we invited you.
Senator Di Nino: The chairman asked the question I was going to ask. Your presentation was excellent and I think it finds a great deal of support around this table.
I would like to take the question that was asked by the chairman a step further. If the oath of allegiance is taken by an individual on his or her own without being part of a ceremony at any particular time in his or her career, whether after swearing in or otherwise, would that in your opinion detract and create a problem?
Mr. Smith: I think it would detract. It seems to me that one's loyalty is evident by what one does and says. It immediately becomes a question of: If he has done it, why has she not done it? What is the answer? We have seen this in other contexts.
To create a formality that is voluntary is just asking for problems.
Senator Di Nino: If it were not a formality, there would be nothing stopping me from getting up tomorrow and pledging allegiance to my country.
The Chairman: We do that every morning.
Senator Di Nino: As I said, the question was answered. I wanted to see if you had a new angle.
Mr. Smith: I see no advantage to that. I can only see disadvantages.
Senator Andreychuk: I think you have clarified and supported what Professor Monet said last week.
Does the problem lie in the fact that we do not know our history and our Constitution? As you said, that applies to not just students but also to parliamentarians and others. I think the wish is to pledge allegiance to all that Canada stands for. Somehow or other the inclusion of the word “Canada,” will cause this oath to be distinct from all of others.
Would it be better for us to educate people about this rather than trying to tamper with allegiances and oaths, et cetera?
Mr. Smith: It is true that many Canadians, from all walks of life and all generations, seem to be not well informed about their Constitution or their history. I am not sure that they are any different from the French or Germans or Italians or Americans. Canadians like to think Americans are better informed, and they may be.
In the case of the parallel with the United States that I alluded to, the allegiance is to the Constitution, not to the United States. There is a lot of hagiography about the United States and America the beautiful as there is about Canada. You cannot live in North America and not be overwhelmed by the geography.
It seems to me that what one wants to promote is an understanding of the Constitution and its principles, which I understand to be toleration, freedom and so forth. That is what the Crown and Parliament is.
There is an archaic sound to that. I think most Canadians do not think monarchically very much. Maybe they need not do that. They must at least understand how the process works, what the judges and members of Parliament are doing. They are acting for the Canadian people and for the Queen, through Parliament. Then you get into a seminar situation.
I really do think the monarchical system does affect the way the way we perceive the public interest in Canada. That is one reason we have had historically quite strong national policies, in a way that is not true in the United States. I do not mean invidiously. I just mean that it is different way you go about creating — if you can call them this — national policies in the United States. They are really policies that come about as a result of coalition building of interests through a congressional system.
A parliamentary system does not work that way. It is partly connected to party discipline, the way the political parties historically have been formed, and a view that there is a duty aspect that comes in a monarchical system, that is, that certain things need to be done even though we have these strong regional divisions and different languages, and at least two legal systems. Nonetheless, there is a kind of agreement.
How does that convergence happen? Canadians like to talk about the thing falling apart, balkanization and all of that. In many ways, Canada is quite highly centralized. There is a criticism that it is too centralized. How does that happen? It happens partly because of the constitutional system we have which may be necessary to hold it together.
I am most suspicious of changing the electoral system. If you have PR, you have some difficulty building national majorities. It is one thing to talk about British Columbia or New Brunswick, but they are not Canada. Canada is an enormous country with fissiparous tendencies, and the electoral systems need to counteract that, not strengthen the fissiparousness.
I think the constitutional system fits Canada. It is true that Australia and New Zealand have a similar system, but they are not Canada. We have our own distinctive constitutional system, although it is based, as the preamble says, in principle, on the Westminster system.
Senator Andreychuk: Pledging allegiance to the sovereign, is that absolute and singular in the sense that we can only have one allegiance to one sovereign?
Mr. Smith: Yes. Canadians do not make that pledge. I am not sure about new Canadians who receive citizenship. The average child born in this country never does that. At least that applies to my generation. You do not wear your patriotism on your sleeve. That would be very suspect. Perhaps things have changed.
The Chairman: You reminded me that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Senator Robichaud: Professor Smith, the role of the monarchy and its powers, and even the rapport between its subjects, over the years, has definitely evolved or changed. That being the case, would it not also be appropriate to also change the formulas we use without renouncing the Queen as the Queen of Canada, but affirm loyalty, or whatever word we may choose, to the country, Canada?
Somehow the oath of allegiance to Elizabeth II does not have the same significance as an oath of allegiance to the country, at least in my estimation when I speak to the people at the corner store, the garage, et cetera. It would have more significance to them if Canada were included.
Mr. Smith: Not to be tendentious but most people are not required to do this. In a way, it is a non-problem. One could limit it to legislators. One question comes to my mind — and again not to open a controversy — and that is that one of the features of Canada is that there may be more than one Canada. There may be several Canadas; therefore, we would start taking oaths to Canadas.
In fact, Canada has strong regional identities. As I was saying, the Crown, historically, transcends that as it did in Britain. Britain has strong regional identities: Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The Crown was a way of binding that without pressing for clarity. You have a Prince of Wales. You have a Scottish parliament and so forth. You do not press too strongly in one direction. I do not see the need for an oath to Canada. I realize I may have to spend my life talking about the constitutional monarchy, and that is of interest to perhaps three people across the country.
I do think that the constitutional system has served this country well, and I think it does so because it is a constitutional monarchy. I would, therefore, want to opt for strengthening that understanding and appreciation rather than adding a new complexity — and I think it is complex — and that is, what an oath to Canada means. What does it mean to First Nations to take that oath? What does it mean to people in other provinces? I do not know. I think the question is not unrealistic one to ask. However, the Crown in no way is above all of that. We have a strong military tradition which is based on that.
Senator Robichaud: You are saying that what we have is what we should keep, and that we should not try to find a formula that would somehow indicate that people believe in Canada, the country.
Mr. Smith: This is what a dinosaur in a blazer looks like, right? Systems evolve. I am not saying that it has evolved. We are not a colony. We are not an imperial possession. We are a fully independent country and we have no colonial cringe with regard to Great Britain, which is an Australian phrase.
We do have a constitutional monarchy that is Canadian. I think there is no reason to supplement it or apologize for it. There may be a need to make people more aware of it. That would be a big enterprise that would take some time. As you say, things do change. It might be interesting to look at curricula and see what goes on in schools, as well as at our own Governor General and the visibility of that office in recent years. It is not immaterial.
Senator Robichaud: I see that I will not persuade you to my side of the argument.
The Chairman: We could beef up our system.
I now recognise “Viscount” Joyal.
Senator Joyal: It is a way to destabilize the witness.
Thank you for your presentation, professor. I wonder if the issue that is raised with this proposal does not appeal to two problematic elements. The first is linked to the point that you made when you stated that the constitutional monarchy is distinct from the person who bears the Crown. In the minds of many Canadian, the distinction is not made. For them, the person is the Crown. For example, an editorial of The Globe and Mail of three months ago concluded that Queen Elizabeth is an impeccable monarch who is the subject of much admiration from Canadians all over the country, even Quebec. However, when her successor, namely, the present Prince of Wales is crowned, then, of course, the discussion will be reopened. As a corollary, we do not have the same admiration and same sentiment for the person of the Prince of Wales.
This editorial, in my opinion, merged the notion of the Crown or the constitutional monarchy system with the person that happens to wear the crown. When you state that there is a distinction between the two that is embodied in the present oath of allegiance, it is difficult to read it because the oath of allegiance is personal. It says that “I” do swear and bear true allegiance to her majesty.
Do you recognize that this is one of the first hurdles that Senator Lavigne's proposal tried to reflect, in a way?
The second problematic element that Senator Lavigne's proposal reflects is that, like it or not, a certain number of Canadians tend to conclude that the monarchy is a remnant of our colonial past, and that we are on the path of evolution whereby one day Canada will have severed links with the Crown, the Crown not living in Canada or the person of the Crown not being chosen by Canadians, but by a law of succession whose essence we cannot change.
Those are the two elements in the proposal of Senator Lavigne that one can read in the arguments that are proposed to us in support of the change. How would you address that reality, which, as I say, is not peculiar to Senator Lavigne? The editorial of The Globe and Mail, one of the leading national papers in Canada, states that they do not seem to understand the system in which we work and which, as you say, has produced a level of prosperity and freedom which is, to a point, unique in the world. The three other countries that have recognised civil marriage, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, happen to be constitutional monarchies. If there is an opposition between the level of freedom in a country and the presence of a monarchy, there would be some discrepancy between the level of freedom that we recognise in a republican form of government versus a monarchical form of government. It does not seem that, in today's contemporary world, that happens.
How do we address the perception that confuses the system with the person and the fact that, in Canada, some persons, senators, parliamentarians or ex-parliamentarians might propose that one day we scratch “Crown” and “Queen” and put “GG” instead, and it will be a done deal.
Mr. Smith: They have been saying this forever. I do not know what prompts them to do it. The idea that you just take Whiteout and create a republic is ludicrous, if not worse than that. The Australians discovered that, so one should look closely at what happened in the 1990s in Australia. A large majority of Australians are republican, but they could not agree on a model. They could not agree on whiteing out the Crown because, in fact, the Crown does matter. The Crown has power. If you decide that there should not be a Crown, then where does that power go? Who will exercise it and under what conditions? These are subtle but important questions. It is not a simple question, but it is misleading to suggest that it is one of the great problems in the country. It is not a problem. It works very well. However, even if we insist on going ahead with this, then we will find ourselves in a situation of trying to decide how to work this out. Will Parliament elect a president? It is not just a matter of choosing a president but also of removing a president. The Australians discovered that they had problems when they realized that there was not a way of getting rid of a person if they did not like what he or she was doing. These are serious questions.
They had two constitutional conventions earlier in the 1990s on how to deal with the conventions of the constitution that guide the head of the constitutional monarchy and work quite well. The Queen, if you read Ben Pimlott's recent biography, is attuned to these conventions, as are our Governors General. How can one be assured if you have a system where there is an election that the person elected will be equally attuned, and why should he or she be? It is not a simple matter. It is a complicated matter.
We have these four countries — and a few islands, I guess — namely, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Great Britain who live in this unique constitutional world, who have a common monarch. How do we deal with it if we want to get out of it? There is no easy answer. That is in response to your second question.
With respect to your first question about the person, I will share my own experience when I was writing the book The Invisible Crown. I tend to hang out with fairly well-educated people, but when I would mention the Crown, not one of them would mention the Governor General. They all talked about the Queen. They all talked about Britain. There is a real dissonance when this issue is raised. It is from away. It is not here. It is not Canadian.
That is a big part of the difficulty of making people understand the system. When well-educated people with Ph.D.s act this way, then you think it is hopeless. I think that needs to be examined carefully in Canada. Children need to learn about the Constitution. The parliamentary system and, indeed, constitutional monarchy are fairly subtle and sophisticated concepts, because nothing is as it appears. The Crown has power, but again, it does not have power. Prime Ministers are elected and have powers, but things are done in other names, so there are many “Alice in Wonderland” aspects in Canada, whereas the American system is fairly clear. Presidents are elected, and presidents have power, and they have to deal with Congress. There is subtlety, but it is not beyond the wit of man to learn.
Senator Joyal: How do you address my second point, that the Crown in some people's minds is considered to be “a colonial remnant” and one day we will need to change that? It is the last link. The Constitution has now been patriated. Such people feel that Canada will only achieve full “sovereignty” when the head of state is Canadian controlled.
Mr. Smith: I think it is an assumption that feeds The Globe and Mail editorials. In my view, historically, republicanism has not formed a strong segment of opinion in this country. However, in Australia, and long before Australia was created, you had a republican movement there for reasons of immigration, religion and so on. That has never been the case in Canada, and that may be because of our proximity to the United States, because we share a continent and all of the exploration and settlement of this great continent of North America. It may be that it can be used as a political tool, if somebody wants to use it. I do not think it arose out of a sense of colonial inferiority, particularly. It was seen as a natural thing to do.
The Crown in Canada, in my own view, has been very much “Canadianized.” In the last 50 years or so, and even before that, when there were British aristocrats who held positions in this country, it was never rejected because it was British. It may be that that sentiment might produce some political benefit today. I do not know. However, it would be a small one.
Senator Joyal: You stated that the Crown has had an influence in the way that we perceive public interest in Canada. That appears to me to be a strong conclusion on the evaluation of the present constitutional monarchy system. In other words, what you tend to conclude is that if we spontaneously praise Canada, in the way my colleague Senator Robichaud wants us to do it, and we recognise and identify with Canada, the Maple Leaf and so on, we owe that to the political system in which we are living and have been raised, and that has evolved through the centuries. Could you offer some explanation of that?
Mr. Smith: On the link of constitutional monarchy and the public interest?
Senator Joyal: Yes.
Mr. Smith: In a constitutional monarchy, if you look at the way politics was practised in Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries, there was a view of the duty of politicians, and of politics and policies, to serve the nation. If you were a Labour Party supporter, you might say that they did not do very well and that it was too slow, and so forth, but there was a strong sense of duty with respect to public policy at all levels — gas and water socialism. Why was there no Marxism in Britian? It is an interesting question and of great significance to world history. It was not just the fact of the Crown; it involved other things. It affects the whole associational structure of society.
One of the things that the Crown continues to do today is this business of patronage, being the patron of various businesses, et cetera. This is an important aspect of the monarchy that is always ignored. It is recognised that it is important to individuals, those persons who are seen to benefit, but it is more than that. It has a very important structuring view of how you view that society, and the way in which we view Canadian society, even with all our regionalism, is that there is a Canadian society. There is no doubt in my mind, and I think in the minds of most Canadians, that Newfoundlanders and British Columbians are Canadians and, to that degree, so are First Nations.
This is an important point when it comes to First Nations. Why do we have the social policies that we have? Why did we have family allowance in the 1940s? What makes that acceptable? I know we are told that many Albertans think that they are paying more than their share, or Ontarians are, but most Canadians, regardless of where they live, believe that equalization is a constitutional principle in Canada. Perhaps it was not so 60 years ago, but it is today.
Part of the reason for this is a view of society that there is this sort of duty that we have to all Canadians because they are Canadian. I do not want to get pushed into a corner as saying that this is because we are a monarchy, but I do think that that is an important part of it. We view ourselves as a country. We do that despite all of the fissiparous tendencies here, and it comes about to some degree from the way in which we organize our social life, and to some degree that is affected by monarchy. It affects what we see as the duty of government. There is a duty of government to provide certain benefits. Not everyone will agree with that. Liberals and Conservatives and NDPers will see this differently.
How did we get Medicare? It is not just at the national level. How did T.C. Douglas, in 1944, get what he wanted, with the green paper and the feds? How did we end up, 20 years later, with Medicare as a national program? This is a fascinating story, and it could not have happened in too many other countries. It happened because of shared cost programs and an ideological party that was very committed. It happened because of left-leaning Liberals who sympathized with that view before a neo-Liberal view came along. I think much of that feeds into a view of social policy that sees a nation; that there is a nation, and that there are national needs.
Senator Joyal: Would you go as far as to say that some 200 or 300 years ago, when the revolution happened in the United States, that the role of the King to “take care” of his subjects and be responsive to the needs of his subjects influenced the way that the government of the day, be it a colonial government or, later on, a dominion government, triggered the kind of initiative that we have seen in Canada that did not find its parallel in the United States?
Mr. Smith: Yes, I would say so. There is something named after Louis Hartz, a philosopher at Harvard some years ago, called the Hartzian view of America, which says that America's sort of political ideas, ideology and philosophy were really established at the revolution. With a revolution you are cut off from the mother country so that the political dynamic of the mother country is no longer felt in the colony. America became independent at a time when Lockean liberalism was at its height, and Lockean liberalism perceived a relatively minor role for the state. All Americans are liberals in the sense of their commitment to the Constitution. That requires a lot of explaining these days, but they are liberal.
Robert Taft, the famous American Republican, was liberal in the sense of his commitment to the Constitution. That is why you can argue that those not committed to the Constitution are un-American. You can never say that in Canada.
Senator Joyal: The American oath of citizenship reads:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic...
In other words, the oath of allegiance of the United States is an affirmation against something to defend the new Constitution.
Mr. Smith: They renounce. We never require Canadians to renounce.
Senator Joyal: The oath of allegiance of the United States is based in the birth of the United States, the revolution of the United States, by forbidding another allegiance. In Canada, we were never compelled to renounce another allegiance.
Mr. Smith: The oath is the same, but the factual situation has changed in America because the Supreme Court of the United States has allowed Americans to have dual citizenship. I have not read the judgment, but it runs totally counter to the American view of itself.
Senator Joyal: You have not mentioned the oath of office to which we around this table refer. How do you qualify the oath of office versus the oath of allegiance?
Mr. Smith: The oath of office for a minister?
Senator Joyal: Yes, for a minister, a judge or any other contender for a public function that requires an oath of office.
Mr. Smith: I see no difficulty with that. An oath of office states that you have duties and responsibilities as an officeholder. A minister takes two oaths: one as a privy councillor and one as a minister with a portfolio and responsibilities. It is that which, in theory, allows the fixing of responsibility.
I do not consider members of Parliament or senators to be quite the same as a member of the executive. Although I should know, I am not sure what oath judges take.
I do not see members of Parliament and senators in the same category as members of the executive. I would not call them officials.
Senator Joyal: I raise this issue because, in some states in Australia and in Quebec, MLAs are requested to take an oath of office. Would you find it confusing to add an oath of office in the context of the duty of members of Parliament, senators or MLAs?
Mr. Smith: I see it as confusing and unnecessary in the Parliament of Canada and in my own province. Sometimes context is very significant. With regard to the issue here, I see it as adding a contradiction, and it is unnecessary. As I said at the beginning, I think it raises more problems than it solves.
Senator Milne: Professor, when we began this exercise, it seemed to me logical to be able to swear an oath of loyalty to Canada. However, your testimony and that of Professor Monet's have changed my mind. I believe that the system works very well with a Queen of Canada who is not resident in Canada. I wonder whether, if the monarchy were resident in Canada, this question would have arisen. I personally prefer them not to be resident here. With them being in Britain, they do not interfere; they do not cost us money. I believe that the system under the constitutional monarchy is working well; it is not raising all the other questions about which you spoke.
In effect, when we are pledging allegiance, we are pledging allegiance to the Queen of Canada. She is the head of state, so we are therefore also pledging allegiance to the state. Do you agree that is included within the oath of allegiance to the monarchy?
Mr. Smith: The Queen to whom we swear the oath of allegiance is the Queen of Canada. As I said earlier, I do not like the idea of “state.” It has continental European overtones that do not fit our constitutional understanding. The monarchy is important in the aspect of protecting us from the state and the arms of the state. That is the personal dimension.
As you said, things change. In Britain, there is much talk about citizenship, and there did not used to be. There may well be talk about oaths of loyalty. They have not yet arisen, but they will arise because of the nature of the international situation and because of uncertainty and unease at home. However, it does not fit the constitutional makeup of Britain to do that.
Senator Milne: It would be very interesting to see what would happen if Britain were ever to rid themselves of their monarchy.
The Chairman: We will not live that long.
Senator Milne: No, we will not, but it may be something with which Canada will have to cope in the future.
Mr. Smith: King Farouk said there would always be five kings; four in a pack of cards and one on the throne of England.
Senator Milne: I like that concept.
In the interests of public education and in the interest of reinforcing the existing principle, what would you think of adding the words “the Queen of Canada” to the oath?
Mr. Smith: The Queen is the Queen of Canada, so I do not see the point of doing that. In addition, she has titles. I am not sure about the legal aspect of it. I suppose it might satisfy some peoples' views, but I do not see the need for it.
Senator Andreychuk: I want to follow up on what Senator Joyal, and perhaps Senator Milne, were alluding to.
There has been a comment about the Queen of Canada. We have Canadianized the Governor General. Thus there is a lot of feeling that if we add more to the Governor General, in a Canadian way, that eventually the Queen will drop off and this capacity will come. As I understand what you are saying, it is that we will come into the same conundrum if we carry on these debates as the Australians did. It sounds nice to Canadianize the Crown, but how will we do it? Who will that person be? Whose heritage will we accept?
How do we get out of this? Politically, it has been rather easy to take shots at the Queen and her heirs and say, “Let us do something more Canadian.” It has a political resonance.
How do we get the message across that the constitutional monarchy is unique to Canada in the way that it has evolved, and that it provides the kind of system that has allowed this vast nation to survive?
Mr. Smith: I do not have an easy answer to your question, senator. The social scientist in me says that you need education, which in Canada is a provincial matter. I do not understand why Canadian history and Canadian politics are not taught in school. They are not. I presume that is the reason that students do not know any of this when they come to university. That needs to be taught.
I do not have an easy answer to the question.
In Australia, there was always a strong citizens' republican movement. I do not think there is that in Canada. If you go on the web you can find some Canadian republicans, but it is a small number of people.
However, in Australia, the government was, in a sense, responding to a quite strong popular view. I do not think that exists in Canada yet. My impression is that Canadians seem to be quite satisfied without being too specific about this.
Senator Andreychuk: Just as an aside, the anti-terrorism committee of the Senate travelled to London recently. The debate there was not about taking an oath of loyalty or an oath of allegiance for citizenship. From conversations with parliamentarians and bureaucrats, it appeared that they were enamoured and have started to institute the taking of an oath at the time one becomes a citizen. The debate is that those born on British soil do not have to do that, yet citizens will say, “We have already done it and we have no problem with it.” That is what I thought the debate was concerning, over there.
With regard to your not seeing senators and, perhaps, members of Parliament as officeholders, we have a case about which Senator Joyal is aware involving the Criminal Code which makes a distinction between public servants and parliamentarians. I will not go into it here. A judgment of the court blended the two, which has caused us some difficulty.
What do you base your assumption on that somehow we, as officeholders, or that we in the Senate are different from the executive, et cetera? Why do you not see us in the same light?
Mr. Smith: One of the reasons I made that comment is I wrote a paper for the Gomery commission on ministerial responsibility. When I went to one of the sessions, they used that language in one of their questions. I had to ask: What do you mean when you say “officeholders”? I was not sure of what they were speaking. As a result, I asked for clarification. I was told that they were speaking of members of Parliament. I would call it a trust or something. An elected member of Parliament has the trust of the people of Canada. I do not see it as an office. To me, that has an executive sound to it. In my mind, it is something that is continuing. However, I am not trained in law.
In a way, senators are continuous, while the House of Commons is discontinuous. Again, I see it as a trust. I do not see it quite as an office. I think of “office” in administrative or bureaucratic language, but this may be my own lack of clarity or confusion. I see parliamentarians as holding offices of trust.
Senator Robichaud: Professor, the motion before us is for a change to the Rules of the Senate, after having taken office. How much debate would that generate among professors and people who usually debate those fine points of responsibility? Or would that be just a one-day wonder and that would be it?
Mr. Smith: I feel I am being set up here for something.
Senator Robichaud: I never do that, sir.
Mr. Smith: In truth, very few Canadians would be aware of this committee or of this issue. Very few academics would be aware of it. If they were aware and they were told it was about the oath of allegiance, it would seem of minute significance to them. In fact, of course, it is not, as all these questions are not. As one knows, in law it touches on a principle. Once it does that, then it becomes a very central matter.
If I understand your question, it was: To what degree is there a kind of informed public awareness of this issue or of the Senate? I would say, very little. I am sorry to report that.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you. I was not setting you up.
Mr. Smith: If the sales of my book are any test, I can say that.
The Chairman: Professor Smith, I am sure we will all go out and buy your book for Christmas presents.
Senator Joyal: Considering the difficulty and the sometimes confusion in the minds of a large number of people with regard to the issue of the system per se of a constitutional monarchy versus the person who happens to wear the Crown, and considering the fact that there is a perception that is entertained that it is still a symbol that does not represent the future of Canada, would it not be appropriate for a university — and I am not addressing a request to the University of Saskatchewan — and experts at the academic level to have an opportunity to reflect on those notions in the context of today's evolution in Canada? They could then come forward with a seminar or a gathering of some sort where there could be lectures, or communications, and maybe an exchange of opinions that would take place in that context, and they could be published in a Canadian political science magazine. I know you have been involved, as the chair mentioned earlier, with many of those publications in Canada. In that way, we would have an opportunity to reflect on the very nature of our Canadian system in a context which would be helpful to all parliamentarians. There are not many textbooks in which one can find many explanatory notes, or even a dissertation on the nature of a constitutional monarchy in the Canadian context.
Mr. Smith: The Canadian Study of Parliament Group probably does a very good job here. The difficulty is the size of the country. It is difficult for people from outside this area to attend on a regular basis. However, they do quite a good job of bringing together not just academics but parliamentarians, journalists, et cetera. What you want to do is get some kind of ripple effect in terms of education. I think the Canadian Study of Parliament Group is good at it, but it is a relatively small group.
This is something that needs to be done. Perhaps it could be perceived as a special pleading, now that I have retired, but there should be internships in Parliament for academics so that they can see how it all works. Unless you are elected or appointed to the Senate, there is no way to do that other than by sitting in the gallery. You have young people as parliamentary interns. Perhaps you should have some older ones as parliamentary interns, for six months or something. You could bring them in so that they can proselytize when they leave.
Generally, the public has no understanding of what the demands of the job are for elected and appointed members. They do not understand the complexity of public policy. Why should they? Most of us do not. These are complex issues. They do not understand the multiple interests that need to be accommodated or satisfied, and the media do not communicate this aspect. Again, because of the different languages and the size of the country, anything that would help facilitate linkage would be helpful.
Senator Joyal: Some years ago, I participated in an annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association. There was a team for the summer meeting. I suggest to you in a very amicable way that if, in the future, the Canadian Political Science Association could devote one of its summer study sessions to the issue of Canadian constitutional monarchy and publish the contributions that you would gather from various experts in Canada, then it would be helpful for future debate in our country.
Mr. Smith: For 40 years, the University of Michigan has held a summer school on empirical methods. There is something similar at the University of Essex, in Britain. People come from all over the world to learn these skills. You could have something comparable to that, as opposed to internships, which could be held over the course of two weeks. I am a director of the Forum for Young Canadians in Saskatchewan. Our young people come to Ottawa. If academics and journalists could do something similar, it seems to me it would help.
The Chairman: We appreciate the fact that you came all the way from Saskatchewan, Professor Smith. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.