THE MONARCHY AND CANADA
religious and land rights to “all His Majesty’s Canadian Subjects within the Province of Quebec,” the majority of whom were French Catholics.
Defining principles Though not always fully respected, these measures began defining ways in which the Crown in Canada gradually assumed functions distinct from those exercised in other British colonies. They established the basis of Canada’s identity as a bilingual, multiracial state, while also demonstrating an early predisposition to treaty-making over conflict in dispute resolution. Finally, the Canadian Crown’s promise of protection to minorities – a ground- breaking concept at the time – would prove instrumental in attracting the waves of immigration that allowed us to populate and consolidate our vast territory under a single flag. As the Canadian journalist and author John Fraser wrote: “The truth of the matter is that
by some evolutionary constitutional miracle directly attributable to the presence of the Crown, we have found an official and constitutional way to include minorities of every description in the national and regional life of the country.” Canada and its Crown similarly
co-defined themselves through their innovation of responsible government and federalism. Arising as a response to pressures
for local representation influenced by the American Civil War, the system of responsible government bound Governors exercising authority on behalf of the monarch in Canada to follow the advice of elected local Assemblies. As stated by history teacher Nathan Tidridge in his book Canada’s Constitutional Monarchy, responsible government was ”the uniquely Canadian solution to balancing American republicanism with British monarchism”. Indeed, through responsible government Canadians chose to remain loyal to their Crown, while adapting it in a manner that provided for greater control of their domestic affairs. In a further evolution of local
accountability, Canadian federalism is a system in which the Crown’s sovereign authority operates simultaneously in each of the 10 provinces, as well as in the federal government itself. Cumbersome as this arrangement can be, Canada’s so-called “compound monarchy” strikes a useful compromise between the dual imperatives of regional diversity and national unity. Responsible government and
federalism helped consolidate Canada’s emergence as a strong and independent country, while bilingualism, multiculturalism and treaty-making underpinned the success of the New World Canadian social project. Illustrating the Crown’s enduring capacity to adapt to the complex needs and aspirations of Canadian statehood, self-government and identity, they paint the picture of a uniquely “Canadian Crown”¸ whose character and relationship with Canadians is quite distinct from the colonial Crowns that preceded it and the Crowns that exist in other Commonwealth realms today.
An organizing principle The Crown’s formal functions in Canadian government also run deep, but go mostly unobserved. Frank MacKinnon described this paradigm in his 1976 book, The Canadian Crown: “[The Crown] works so unobtrusively that many citizens are unaware it is at work at all – a fact which is an asset in its successful operation, although a hindrance to public appreciation of it.” Thirty-seven years later, in the transparency-oriented, 24-hour-news age, this observation rings truer than ever. Few Canadians see the Crown’s constitutional powers at work in the daily function of our federal and provincial governments. Largely this is because direct sovereign intervention has in the past been typically reserved for crisis situations. Still, the rarity of such situations does not diminish the importance of having an institution of last resort. As former Canadian Senator Eugene Forsey wrote: “The Queen or Her representative is the guardian of our democratic
24 | The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue One
constitution against subversion by a Prime Minister or cabinet who might be tempted to violate that constitution and deprive us of our right to self- government. The Crown does not govern; but it makes sure that we, the people, are not prevented from governing ourselves.” Abstract as its powers may be,
the Canadian Crown’s authority underpins the operation of the executive, the Legislature and the courts in a manner designed to guarantee enlightened self- government by and for the people. Prof. David E. Smith aptly described it as “the organizing principle of Canadian government”.
Precautionary note Understanding the Canadian Crown in these terms, one appreciates the need to approach discussions about changing our constitutional arrangements with caution. Technicalities aside, a transition away from our Westminster parliamentary system would entail much more than constitutional amendment; it would literally require us to renegotiate the myriad ways in which the powers and structures of government and society at large interact.
And for what benefit? It is noteworthy that most British ex-colonies that chose alternate forms of government following independence did not adopt systems that vary considerably from ours. A number of them chose dualist systems, with heads of government separate from their Parliaments, while others chose to keep their governments in Parliament, often with the Crown or a local alternative as the separate head of state. Nearly all chose to maintain ties to the Crown through membership in the Commonwealth. This reinforces the need to
consider how abandoning the Westminster system – in favour of, say, American- or French-style presidentialism, or German-style federal parliamentary republicanism – would usher in any significant improvements in the way Canadian
society functions. Certainly, Canada’s social and economic achievements appear to underscore the continuity, strength and stability our comparatively youthful democracy has enjoyed under the Canadian Crown. This leads one to question the motives for changing a system that has served Canadians well for 150 years and more?
Confronting democratic deficit Short of a solid theoretical or evidentiary basis upon which to believe that an alternative constitutional modality would afford Canadians more freedom, more efficient or effective government than we enjoy under current arrangements, what could be motivating some Canadians’ calls to abolish the Crown? One possible explanation could be
associated to what political scientists around the world have for years been describing as the “democratic deficit”. The term is used to explain a
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92