Independence

 

Canadian Independence

A Process Rather Than an Event

by HJ TOBY

The Commonwealth is rather deceptive if it's thought of simply as synonymous with the British Empire. In more understandable terms, the development of the Commonwealth might be seen as gradual autonomy, first in domestic affairs, and later in international ones, by mutual consent. No revolution, but instead an evolution. Britain ceased to be involved in Canada's internal affairs in 1867. By Canadian consent, Britain had a large but decreasing role, over time, in Canada's external affairs. Up until WWI our external affairs were well served by being under the British umbrella. There were long-standing ties of loyalty and tradition and "connectedness".

Neither the British monarchy nor the British parliament has had any power to meddle in Canadian affairs, any more than, say, the United States would, since roughly the end of the first world war for external policy, and back to 1867 for domestic policy.

Americans sometimes seem to find it hard to understand the concept of loyalty to the British Crown. Canada felt it very strongly, and to some extent it still does. Don't mistake this loyalty and sense of tradition and obligation for coercion or lack of free will. By 1917, Canada, Australia, and other commonwealth countries were equal partners in imperial war councils, and that was all they wanted at the time.

The Treaty of Versailles was signed by independent Canadian delegates (over the objections of the United States which did not want to see a proliferation of nations closely sympathetic to Britain). The treaty was later ratified in the Canadian Parliament.

In the 1922 Chanak Crisis in Turkey, Lloyd George threatened Turkey with the "full might of the British Empire". When he cabled Canada to ask what aid Britain could expect in the event of war, Prime Minister Mackenzie King replied that since Canada had not been consulted, no Canadian action could be expected without the authority of the Canadian Parliament.

When Canada concluded the Halibut Treaty with the United States in 1923, the British government decided that the British ambassador to the United States should sign it. Canada's Prime Minister King flatly refused to let him do so.

At the Imperial Conference of 1926 a committee made up of representatives of Great Britain and the Dominions declared that "Great Britain and the Dominions are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to each other in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of nations."

Britain's authority over Canada and other self-governing nations of the Empire was by this point over, but the Statute of Westminster (1931) formalized what was already in practice. Britain formally renounced authority over Canada.

Britain declared war on Germany on September 3rd, 1939. Canada declared war by an Act of the Canadian Parliament on September 10th.

from "The Winds of Change" (see bibliography)

The "re-patriation" of the Canadian Constitution in the 1970s was one of those "I'll get around to it" sort of things that didn't mean much. Nothing could ever be done by the British to change it, and Canadians didn't feel the need. Eventually, it was seen as symbolically significant to "bring it home." Residence of the Canadian Constitution in London never represented anything but a certain laziness to do anything about it, or lack of importance attached to it. Repatriation was considered strictly symbolic (except to government and political types). The general population made little of it.

Some people, particularly Americans, believe that the Queen, through the Governor-General, who is a Canadian appointed to represent her, has real power in Canada. She has absolutely none, and had none even before repatriation. But that seems to be difficult to explain to people who can't get past the form to the substance. Neither the British monarchy nor the British parliament has had any power to meddle in Canadian affairs, any more than, say, the United States would, since roughly the first world war for external policy, and back to 1867 for domestic policy.

---

I once had an American friend write to me, saying, "It's my impression that Canadians of other national origins (German, Icelandic, Eastern European, French, etc.) don't share this loyalty for the British Crown."

I replied that large numbers of even fairly newly-minted Canadians fought in the last Imperial war - World War I. They fought for "King and Country".

I also wrote:

"The impression that European immigrants did not buy into the constitutional monarchy is incorrect. I have very close personal experience with this and I can tell you that most European immigrants have been respectful of the monarchy and its traditions. It was and is, however, a different story in Quebec where British rule has always been equated with the conquest of New France and the pre-eminence of English over French. Even in the country as a whole though, over time, enthusiasm for monarchical ties has been gradually waning, despite probably doing so to a lesser extent than, say, in Australia. There are actually good arguments to be made that the empire and later the commonwealth were more of a free trade arrangement than most anything you can find today. British-administered colonies, which later developed into independent countries, have some of the best records of forming viable governments and strong economies within the Commonwealth. I realize the United States, through its revolution, chose a different path, but it wasn't the only path to democracy and prosperity. I am convinced that Americans want themselves to be seen as benevolent overseers of the world good, and I think they deserve to do so. A hundred years ago the British deserved to do so as well. They had the most enlightened rule of an empire the world had seen up to that point.