What the Media and Republicans Don't Tell You About the West

A Navigator poll, released a few weeks ago, indicated that Canadians don't feel our Constitutional Monarchy is relevant anymore. (Most Canadians probably think Harper, Ignatieff, Duceppe and Layton aren't relevant either, but our disconnection from civic life is another post.)

Since the Navigator poll was leaked, national media have been trying to push the idea that Charles, Prince of Wales or his heir, William, will not be King of Canada. They neglected to cite other polls, such as one on CBC's own website that had results opposite to the Navigator poll cited on The National. (That too is another post.) And they've downplayed the crowds in Hamilton, who screamed "We want the Duchess" and "We want the Prince in favour of snide comments about attendence in towns of less than 500 people." (Another post.)

A few day later, Global News released another poll, which the claimed more than 50% of Canadians favoured a republic. They also didn't explain discrepancies in two questions, both asked whether or not Canada should keep the Crown with different results. (Canadian confusion with what a Head of State is, after years of a deceitful agenda by elites to confuse Canadians on this issue is yet another post.)

What Global failed to highlight was that no province, other than Quebec, had more than 50% of poll respondents wanting any change to the constituon. Only British Columbia approached the 50% mark. Yet another, under-reported poll last week suggested BC is pro-Crown. (I need to do a post about how a stint with a polling company led me to distrust polls. I do not believe you get accurate results on constitutional questions in a telephone poll.)

The Province most strongly supportive of the monarchy, according to the Global News poll,is Alberta, In Alberta, 60% of poll respondents rejected a Canadian republic outright. Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Maritimes showed similar results. (This means that the Quebec figure, 60% support for a republic, skews the poll results.

Interesting to note that 40% support the Crown in this 81% Franco-phone province, even after decades of anti-Canada, anti-British propaganda. That result puts to lie the idea that no Quebec Francophones supporters the Crown. (Another post.)

What Canadians aren't told by Republicans:
The role of the Crown in Canada cannot be changed without the consent of the Federal Parliament and all provincial legislatures. I suspect Nunavut, Yukon and the Northwest Territories would also insist on being heard if such a major move is ever considered.

Why? The Crown plays a crucial balancing and linking role in Canada. It is the vehicle by which former independent colonies (with their own legislatures and laws) became united in the federation formally known as the Dominion of Canada (Dominion means Kingdom, not colony, by the way.) Provinces, favouring retention of the monarchy, would be well within their rights to secede from a new republic. These new nations might decide to form a new federation or they might become independent Dominions in the Commonwealth. (Although the assumption is that secession from Canada means loss of the Crown, there is absolutely nothing that says an independent Alberta could not be Dominion within the Commonwealth. And if that possiblity were presented, you might well see support for that type of arrangement surge beyond the 15% rating Separation now has in Alberta.)

Canada's place in The Commonwealth, much denigrated under CDN Liberal and ignored by UK Labour regimes, of the past 50 years, has great trade and culture potential for all Canadians. The answer to weak ties between Commonwealth countries is not to sever them, but to revive them. (Another post.)

It took the Fathers of Confederation decades to create an agreement which united British North America.

Our Federation is possible because we separate the Head of State from the Head of Government. And because that Head of State is not partisan. (Nor should her representatives be. Another post.) The Fathers of Confederation went to considerable effort to devise a federation in which one party, one region, one religion, one ethnic or language group could not trample on the rights of citizens and regions.

Electing a Head of State would make that role a partisan one. It would also lead the devaluing of Members of Parliament, including the Prime Minister, and the accumulation of power in the hands of an elected President or Governor General. Undoubtedly, this person would appeal to the political whims of provinces with large populations.

Canada's federal system, so delicately balanced, would be even more prone to tensions and threats of separation from regions not represented by the new elected Head of State.

Republicans seem to think republicanism is a sign of maturity. They suggest that Canadians, who value our Constitution and Canada's traditonal friendships, are out of date and neo-colonial in their thinking.

That is an elitist view. It smacks of the elitist decisions that nearly broke up this country up in the late 20th Century. And it derides the rights of peoples in smaller provinces and the territories to be equal partners in the federation called Canada.

Remember Meech Lake? Charlottetown? Those agreements failed because people in the provinces,including Indigenous peoples who have a special role with the Crown, (Another post,) realized that the elites' agenda to change the rules of Confederation were not in Canadians interests.

Canadians learned something for those horrendous episodes: We don't have to accept what the elites are telling us. We don't have to leave provinces behind (as Quebec was left in the night of the long knives.) It is unlikely Canadians will be cowed by threats and insults telling them to 'get with the times,' when getting with the times means losing constitutional rights.

Should there ever be a real discussion of any Constitutional change regarding the role of the Crown, many Canadians (including Quebecois) who now claim a 'lukewarm' affinity to the Crown may suddenly find themselves with a deep and abiding love for the system that has protected ethnic and religious miniorities and small communities since Confederation.

Our system may look funny to outsiders, but, I believe, most Canadians have moved beyond a childish desire to impress Americans or Europeans. Canada works. Canada is a prosperous, peaceful country. Canada has international links that should be deepened, not eliminated, thanks to her place as a realm in the Commonwealth.

Even though Elites have tried to refute the role of the Crown in building Canada, the wisdom of great Canadians remains. Western Canada's most loved Liberal Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, explained our country to the French this way: "Here in France, people are surprised at the attachment French Canadians feel for the Queen. We are faithful to the great nation which has given us liberty."

God Save the Queen! God Bless Canada!

What I Sent the Globe and Mail

I never heard back from the Globe and Mail about this submission to their Op-Ed Page. Fortunately, I have a blog.

Is Time Running Out for Canada's Republicans?

Well, this was the week for republican rants in The Globe and Mail. Allan Fotheringham (05 May 08), gave a dubious account of history that linked Canada's Crown to the mess Mugabe's making in Zimbabwe. Then Bloc Leader, Gilles Duceppe, attacked the Governor General for doing her job by representing all Canadians, including Francophones outside Quebec.

So what's causing these outbursts from depression babies like Fotheringham (only six years younger than the Queen) and proto-boomers like Duceppe (who's turns 61 in July)? Could time is running out on their dreams of re-creating Canada/Quebec in their own images?

It appears that, even in like countries like Australia, supposedly way ahead of Canada on its path to a presidential utopia, republicans are in trouble. This showed up in my in-box this morning:

"The West Australian 2006 survey of youth attitudes showed that support for a republic in the 18 to 30 age group had fallen to 38%. Then the Morgan poll of 22 February 2005 found that only 37% of those aged 14-17 were in favour of a republic. Now in 2008, this has fallen to a dismal 23%, with 64% supporting the constitutional monarchy and 13% undecided. Some undecided voters may be just unwilling to reveal their intentions; in any event they tend to vote No in a referendum. And it is not only that young people are disinterested in a republic. It is that they are positively interested in their past and their heritage. The republican attempt to shred our flag has collapsed. It looks now as if the republican attempt to shred our constitution is going the same way. The overall result is equally dismal for republicans. Support for a republic is at 45%, the lowest for 15 years.

There are signs the same trend is showing itself in Canada. For example, a 2005 Globe and Mail poll put support for the Monarchy at an unprecedented 82%. A 2007 Angus Reid poll found that youth supported the monarchy more strongly than Canadians aged 35-54. (This increase in support among youth was evident even though the survey questions have been attacked as biased and confusing. For example, Angus Reid asked Canadians if they wished to end formal ties to the British Monarchy. In fact, the Queen ended formal links between between the Canadian and British Monarchies when she signed the Constitution Act of 1982)

Despite their negative nit-picking at our Constitution for the last 40 years, republicans haven't succeeding in convincing enough Canadians that their vision is best for Canada. They claim to support democracy and accountability. So why is it that they never mention this article in the Constitution Act 1982?

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of each province:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;


In plain English: The Crown's place in Canada cannot be changed without approval from the Senate, House of Commons and every provincial legislature.

Since in some regions, like Atlantic Canada, support for the Crown reaches over 80%, that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Besides, on her worst day, the Queen's poll results are usually higher than the Prime Minister's.

Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the man who reformed of Canada's Divorce Act and legalized homosexuality, presided over the Repatriation of the Constitution. Trudeau was clearly not afraid of unpopularity or change. But in 1982, when he had his chance to weaken the Crown's place in the Constitution, he entrenched it. Why?

Maybe after years of governing this country, Mr. Trudeau came to the same conclusion the Fathers of Confederation came to in 1867: That remaining a Constitutional Monarchy with a shared Head of State is the best path for Canada.

Canada could have become a republic in 1867. It could also have become part of the United States. (Some British bureaucrats wanted to buy peace and trade with the Yanks at almost any price.) But those options were rejected. Not by the British. They were rejected by Canadians.

Canadians, not British bureaucrats, came up with the vision of nationhood for Canada, fully equal to Britain, and a shared Crown. They believed they could retain their cultural, economic, and political connections and still be a sovereign nation. That success of that vision led to the birth of dozens of nations. And eventually to the creation of the Commonwealth. Canadians should take great pride in this.

The guy who convinced Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier to pursue this dream was Sir Alexander Tilloch Galt. In the 19th Century, Galt was as controversial and enigmatic as Trudeau was in the 20th.

By the time Galt died in 1893, this one time annexationist and rebel, was as attached to his radical new vision of reforming the British Empire into a Federation (decades before there was a Commonwealth) as he had been to federating British North America in the 1850's and 1860's.

The Fathers of Confederation considered many options for Canada. But they came to the conclusion that a federated empire with a shared Crown was the best political, economic and cultural path for Canada.

Could they have stumbled on something that took psychologists like Abraham Maslow another 60 years to discover: that self-actualized, creative people flourish in an interdependent state that values relationships and gives them leverage in the world?

Maybe sharing a Head of State isn't a sign of immaturity. If so, then monarchists may have a broader view of Canada's place in the world. And maybe, just maybe, their eyes are more firmly fixed on Canada's future.

-30-