a second opinion IS Canada’s British connection a source of strength or a cause of weakness? For some, the heritage and tradition associated with British institutions — such as our parliamentary system and the Crown — ure crucial ele- _ments of Canadian citizenship. For others, these reminders of our colonial past have become increasingly irrelevant and even a source of embar- _rassment. After ail, our vaunt- ed British parliamentary system certainly hasn’t inspired much confidence in public lite of late. And the continuing soap- opera of the Royal Family hardly makes us proud to think of Queen Elizabeth’s family as our very own symbols of respect and authority. ’’ A couple of wecks ago in this space I said that the num- ber of British Columbians who “are of British origin today rep- ~ resent about 40% of the’ province’s population. Technically, that’s an exag- geration, for it includes anyone : with even a single parent who ‘has a family tie traceable to ~ Great Britain. But the number of British Columbians whose parents’ families both hail from -the British Isles has now - dropped below, 25%. That’s the reality of our multicultural land. This prompts me to ask once again: What happened to the British in British Columbia? And, of course, this question is related to the larger issue of whether it makes sense any longer to continue with the Queen as our head of state. It’s instructive to consider events in another former colony of Great Britain. 'm referring to our Commonwealth cousins in Australia. As you may have heard, there’s a move afoot down under to transform Australia into a Republic. What would that mean? The only real change involved would be that an Australian citizen, rather than the British monarch, - would be the coun- try’s head of state. This person would become the : President of Australia, replac- ing the Queen’s representative, the Governor General. ; | The new president would- n’t be elected, but would be a non-partisan appointment approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Australian parliament. " Since such a move would require a change to their con- stitution, Australians would - need to approve such a reform “Public opinion research shows a growing majority of Australians — as many as two- thirds — favor the switch to a Republic. by means of a national referen- dum. A referendum on the matter has been proposed for 1998 or 1999, ‘dlowing plenty of lead time for Australians to celebrate che centenary of their nationhood in 2001 as a Republic. This idea was championed by the former Labour Prime Minister, Paul Keating. His governnient took the view that only an Australian can really erabody the qualities that unite their nation. According to Keating, an Australian head of state would also be a much more appropri- ate unifying symbol — and a mutch less remote one — for their country’s culturally diverse population. Earlier this year, Keating's Labour gov- ernment was defeated and Australia elected a new Conservative Howard. Bur the Republican idea lives on. In fact, public opinion research shows a growing majority of Australians — as many as two-thirds — favor the switch toa Republic. ‘This sentiment is particularly strong among younger Australians, suggesting it’s only a matter of time. The new prime minister has promised a constitutional con- vention to address the issue. However, some say he should ‘We know you've been waiting... vem go direetly to a national refer- endum. Many Australians believe their country’s new president — not the Queen — should open the next Olympic Games, which Australia will host in the year 2000. We should pay