Canada Red Ensign Flag - 1867-01-01 01:01:01 - Public Domain

The counter argument to this debate on the Monarchy and Canada is Against the Monarchy in Canada : Let the Republic Be Born.

Discussions of Canada's monarchy tend to appear in major newspapers on Victoria Day, Dominion Day, royal visits, and other similar festivals. By the time this is read, Dominion Day (commonly called Canada Day) will probably be right around the corner, and I should be surprised if some discussion of the monarchy had not been raised. But I am writing now in the wake of the marriage of William Windsor and Catherine Middleton, now the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The recent royal wedding affords a good opportunity for bringing up, discussing, and possibly reevaluating Canada’s monarchy. There are many different ways the topic might be introduced, but I will simply plunge into it now without preamble.

I have no sympathy whatsoever with the opinion of those who believe that Canada should disestablish the monarchy. Common arguments about alleged cost, imagined subordination to an imperial power, or offensive appeals to non-British 'diversity' collapse under scrutiny. First, an elected president would be far more expensive than our current arrangement: apart from when she visits, the Queen costs us precisely nothing. Second, though Westminster rubber-stamped all bills passed in Canada until 1982, the Canadian parliament post-Confederation was never strictly speaking subordinate to White Hall. Now, however, no one on the present world-stage would doubt that Canada is a sovereign country, and more importantly, Canadians (as everyone knows) are usually mistaken not for British subjects, but for Americans. If anything, our monarchy prevents this identity problem from going too far. Third, the idea that Canada's monarchy should be abolished because it is 'British', and therefore somehow not inclusive of Canada's new diversity is dangerous. The same train of thought would see us abolish parliament, do away with the rule of law, and kick out the English language, all of which are of British origin.

Now, to call the opponents of the Canadian monarchy 'republicans' or to attribute to them any kind of ideology at all is to give them undue respect and to impute a level of organization, which they do not possess. The possibility of Canada becoming a republic has never even been part of any government mandate, nor has it been mentioned or even alluded to in parliament. At present, whatever polls may indicate, the non-monarchist 'cause' is little more than a fringe movement called 'Citizens for a Canadian Republic'. I would be very surprised if most Canadians had heard of it.

If I may be permitted something of a digression: the Upper Canada rebellion of 1837 is sometimes cited as evidence of a long-standing revolutionary republican tradition in Canada. My father, Dr Allan Bonner, once said so to Steve Paikin on “The Agenda.” But I have to say that I disagree. It is true that republican sentiment, as the story goes, flared up as a reaction to an excessively bureaucratic system of land allocation controlled by the Tory clique known to history as the Family Compact. But the ‘rebellion’, led by William Lyon Mackenzie (first mayor of Toronto and grandfather of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King), amounted to little more than a quickly-subdued drunken brawl outside Montgomery’s tavern, which is now a post office at Yonge and Eglinton bearing the appropriate name of “Dominion Public Building,” and outfitted with the Queen’s coat of arms. In any case, in the minds of many Canadians, this failed rebellion will always be overshadowed by Tory opposition to Mackenzie, which preceded the uprising. Members of the Family Compact, disguised as Indians, put an end to Mackenzie’s republican newspaper by destroying his workshop and throwing his printing press into Lake Ontario—Upper Canada’s answer to the Boston “Tea Party”. Canadian republicanism has not really recovered since, and it is clear which of these two traditions is still dominant. Upper Canada’s royalist history was far more formative than the failed revolution of 1837.

In any case, the fact is that—whatever anyone thinks of the monarchy—public opinion must always yield to practical considerations. Disestablishing the Crown is as good as impossible. Any bill to this effect would need to pass through both houses of parliament and through all provincial parliaments—and in each case it would have to pass unanimously. The likelihood of this is ludicrously minute, and it is difficult to see why any government would consider doing so. Those of us who remember the anger and bitterness surrounding the Meech Lake Accord—the most recent attempt to modify our constitution—will know that any government that tampers with the constitution does so at its own peril. In any case, Canadians are eminently sensible people: why would we reopen the constitution when there is no reason to do so?

Now, for my purpose here, all of this means only one thing: the monarchy “question” in Canada is not actually a question. There is no reason why it needs to be debated or even addressed at all. There is no meaningful objection to be attacked. What I am after, though, is not only a list of reasons to leave the monarchy alone, or reasons why it will simply carry on whatever people think of it. Are there (I wonder) any positive reasons not only to retain it, but also to celebrate and promote it?

Producing such reasons is a difficult task. The Monarchist League of Canada, for instance, attempts to justify its cause by debunking common myths about our monarchy. Perhaps the two most compelling points made on the League's promotional material are that the ten highest-ranking countries on the United Nation's Human Development Index are all constitutional monarchies, and a head of state who does not pander to an electorate allows harsh criticism of the government without entailing accusations of treason. These are not altogether unconvincing: monarchy is not incompatible with Canada's standing as a modern, developed country, and a non-political head of state is a good thing. But we are still far from positive arguments for Canada's monarchy per se.

I am going to give three reasons—doubtless controversial in the extreme—why we should retain and celebrate our monarchy.

1. The monarchy vastly increases Canada’s prestige. This may come as a surprise to those who remember 1992, the Queen’s annus horribilis. But even the most bizarre antics of the royal family failed to extinguish the pomp and majesty of the throne. Compare this to the appalling philandering of Clinton and Berlusconi, the destructive Mesopotamian débâcle of Bush, and the incompetent nepotism of Sarkozy: these men and their actions discredit the offices they hold, and whatever prestige they once had is gone forever. Moreover, none of these people are in any way dignified or gentlemanly. The British monarchy has survived every crisis, which it has ever faced. This gives our head of state, the Queen, and our whole parliamentary system, which flows from her, prestige, which only other Commonwealth countries can equal. There is simply no other institution, apart (perhaps) from the papacy, that commands so much respect, and even the president of the United States of America bows to the Queen. This is good for Canada.

2. The crown is the main reason why Canada was founded and why it still exists. As Robertson Davies put it once upon a time, the crown is the heart and soul of our country. The Dominion of Canada was founded people who chose deliberately to retain their personal connection to the British monarch, and at every step in the evolution of the Canadian constitution this link has been strengthened—especially in the oft-misconstrued Constitution Act of 1982 which more deeply entrenched the monarchy than any previous constitutional document. In short, to deny the importance of the monarchy to the Canadian identity is to destroy that identity altogether. Canada would not be Canada without the monarchy: it would be yet another New World republic, culturally indistinct from the United States yet for no good reason divided from it by means of a thoroughly artificial border. This is why the rebel Mackenzie advocated in later life not an independent Canadian republic, but rather the American annexation of Canada. Anti-monarchists should ask themselves what reason Canada would have to exist without the monarchy? I have never received a good answer to this question. Any way, to put my point in more positive terms: preservation of the monarchy is not only the historic reason for Canada’s existence, it is also a “selling point” unique in North America.

3. Our monarchy has a beneficial effect on social stratification. I know that this reason will probably draw the most ire from my critics, so let me be absolutely clear: I do not in any way advocate a rigid hierarchy of social classes as in pre- and post-revolutionary Russia, or Sasanian Iran, or caste-ridden India, nor do I wish to insinuate that social immobility is inherently good. But we have to admit that Canada, like any other country, is a stratified society. The last thing we want, though, is a society where manners, courtesy, and class (in the best sense of the word) mean nothing, and in which money means everything. The United States of America is supposed to be an egalitarian society, but in reality it is far from it. Possession of money and access to resources (which are nearly the same thing) are the only stratifying factors in the USA. Vulgarians like Donald Trump and scoundrels like Bernie Madoff illustrate my point. We can be thankful that the person at the top of Canadian society is not a boorish plutocrat, like an American president or senator, but a dignified and affable lady. Our monarch sets a high standard of dress, speech, reserve, dignity, duty, and taste in general. If all upwardly-mobile and aspirational Canadians imitated the Queen instead of gangsters, pimps, Hollywood débauchés, and other scum, then everyone would be better off. In Canada, we are very lucky to have the opportunity to aspire to something better than the American Dream and modern European notions of radical equality.

The next most important opportunity for taking stock of the monarchy will probably be the 200th anniversary of the war of 1812—next year. For this was an early, formative opportunity for Canadians to fight for king and country. Yankee ambition meant to swallow Canada whole, and incorporate it into the young American union. But the British and Canadian victory was a dramatic rejection of American aims, perhaps more significant than confederation itself, which obviously could not have happened had Canada been annexed. At the time there was no question about maintaining Canada’s loyalty to the crown, and the necessity of defending it was felt keenly. We have much to be grateful for in celebrating this victory. I hope the celebration will afford not only happy reflection upon our royalist past but also joyful expectation of Canada’s future as a monarchy.