THE MONARCHY AND CANADA


Canadians who witnessed events such as the first televised Throne Speech in in Parliament in 1957 or the signing of the Constitution Act in 1982 on Parliament Hill (this page) were reported to have greater levels of respect for the monarchy.


disillusionment with politics and the monarchy are dimensions of the same issue. The label “demographic deficit” could be applied. But Robert Finch, Chair of the Monarchist League of Canada, probably captured it best when he said the greatest threat to the monarchy was not republicanism but “indifference.”


Seizing the youth advantage By this reasoning, the problem facing the monarchy is not really about the monarchy at all; it is about how younger citizens interact with and relate to governments and governance issues. The question we should be asking is therefore not, “Should we do away with the Crown in Canada?” but rather, “What can be done to help younger Canadians appreciate the Crown’s role in the decisions and social frameworks that affect their lives?” On this question, the Commonwealth’s own process of “renewal” provides some useful parallels. In 2009, an Eminent Persons


widening gap, often accompanied by expressions of distrust and antipathy, between citizens and the traditional organs of the state. What is more, these symptoms predominate among younger members of society. The notion that discomfort with


the Crown could relate to this same phenomenon seems borne out by evidence.


Canadians reporting the greatest


levels of respect for the Crown are those belonging to the generations that witnessed Queen Elizabeth II delivering the first televised Speech from the Throne in 1957, and signing the Constitution Act in 1982; and who read the headlines that accompanied her appearance at Expo ‘67 or the 1976 Olympics in Montreal. As the first television sets appeared in living rooms across the country, and as modern Canada took shape, the Queen was there to be seen and heard by Canadians. Unsurprisingly, the same


Canadian demographic continues


to favour the Crown today. A recent poll found that only 37 per cent of Canadians aged 55 and up supported abolishing the monarchy. This compares to 53 per cent of those aged 35-44, and 43 per cent of those aged 18-34. Canadians aged 55 and over were also most likely to assert that the monarchy is a home-grown Canadian institution. Even more intriguing is the


fact that voting patterns amongst Canadians of different age groups reflect an almost identical pattern. In the May 2011 federal election, for example, voter turnout was barely 50 per cent among 18-24 year-olds, and only a few points higher among those aged 24-35. Among 45-54 year- olds, by contrast, turnout was 70 per cent, peaking at 82 per cent among those aged 65-74. The reason given by the quarter of eligible voters who did not cast ballots was “not interested in voting”. These numbers lead me to wonder whether popular


Group was tasked with finding means to improve understanding, appreciation and effectiveness of the Commonwealth and its attendant institutions. The EPG’s top recommendation involved establishing a Charter of the Commonwealth following broad consultation in all Commonwealth countries. The proposal was agreed by Commonwealth Heads of Government in Perth, Australia, in October 2011. As Chair of the Standing Senate


Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I was honoured last January 2012 when Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs asked our committee to undertake Canada’s consultations on the Charter proposal. In the report that summarized our


hearings, one of our committee’s main suggestions was that the proposed Charter leverage what we termed the “youth advantage”. By building rapport with the under-30s who make up at least 60 per cent of the Commonwealth’s 2.1 billion citizens, we argued, the Commonwealth


could help secure its relevance into the future. Education, training and leadership initiatives needed to be placed closer to the centre of the Commonwealth’s mandate. The same logic applies to the


Canadian Crown. Citizens living in a technology-driven global arena engage and identify with peers and ideas that are increasingly complex and transnational in nature, causing traditional state organs to appear more remote, old-fashioned and archaic. The future relevance of the Canadian Crown, it follows, can be strengthened by mobilizing the youth advantage; that is, by taking steps to ensure that the system that supports our rights, freedoms and aspirations becomes as proximate to young Canadians as Queen Elizabeth II appeared to their parents. If, as I have argued, the history


of the Canadian Crown describes a constant yet adaptable institution, these adjustments can and must be made to secure the monarchy’s relevance as a 21st century institution. Legislated changes to the line of succession, and Christmas webcasts from the Queen are two such timely measures. But more can yet be done to meet the imperative of restoring appreciation for the Crown’s ongoing contributions to our national identity, self-government, independence and stability. With Canadians still almost equally


divided over whether we should abolish the monarchy, it is a debate that is not going away. The challenge lies in finding ways to use such discussions to connect with youth and to appeal to their intelligence and creativity.


Participatory and social media


provide a means to reach out. Parliamentarians, governments and civil society organizations must provide the impetus. Indeed, by engaging youth on issues of democracy and good governance, I believe we can revive an appreciation of the role of the evolving Canadian Crown in our system of government and ensure it remains a respected and relevant sovereign partner for generations to come.


The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue One | 25


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