Academy Fall Debate - Whither the Monarchy?

The Academy’s second fall forum focused on whether or not Canada should abolish the Monarchy. It’s a timely topic, with Canada having evolved into a multicultural nation with fewer ties than ever before to the United Kingdom.

Academy members were treated to a lively, informative and entertaining exchange of ideas so fundamental to our political system. Under the deft hand of moderator Linda Tu, the four debaters adhered to the strict time limits, allowing ample opportunity for subsequent discussion and summary.

A poll taken prior to the debate showed a remarkably even split: 14 participants in favour of abolishing the Monarchy; 14 opposed; 13, undecided.

Priscilla Platt began the debate by underlining the unrepresentative nature of the current Monarchy. Having a foreign non-resident ruler as our head of state seems incongruous, she maintained, to Canada’s present reality. Canada is no longer a colony but a distinctive nation in its own right. Why should Canada be bound to a British ruler? Moreover, why should Canada follow ancient rules of primogeniture passed by a foreign government?

The Crown, Priscilla pointed out, has presided over some highly disturbing aspects of Canada’s history. Over a million Indigenous children were forced to attend residential schools run chiefly by the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches. First Nations youngsters were ripped away from their parents, language and community and sent to live in harsh conditions designed to rob them of their culture. An estimated 10-15% died while in the care of these government-sanctioned institutions. Queen Victoria presided over Canada during much of this period. Perhaps, then, her successor, the Queen today, should apologize for the Monarchy’s role in this abysmal tragedy.

Continuing the abolitionist position, Sheila Neysmith contended that doing away with the Monarchy would pave the way for a “made in Canada” head of state. That office might take many forms. It might be a president, separate from the head of government, who would be elected or appointed. Having a British monarch might have made sense when Canada was in its infancy, a nation born of two founding nations. But that is no longer the Canadian reality or experience. Contemporary Canada has a rich diverse culture made up of peoples from all over the world and it is time to move away from a British ruler.

The opposing side was led by Chris Marston. He focused on the Monarchy’s longevity, ceremonial importance and its symbolism as an institution that rises above the politics of governing and therefore unites the nation. Noting the Monarchy’s 900-year history, Chris contended that “constitutional monarchy is brilliant,” providing an important ceremonial figure, the symbol of our nation. That person can allow us to celebrate good times and outstanding achievements, affirm our best aspirations and convey comfort and hope during difficult times.

The final debater, Greg King, outlined a series of practical problems. Doing away with the Monarchy in Canada would be no mean feat. It would require the approval of the federal parliament and all provincial parliaments. A lengthy and time-consuming process, this endeavour would take focus and energy away from other pressing issues such as the economy and reconciliation with the First Nations. Relations with the latter groups would be thrown into confusion since the treaties enacted by the various First Nations were with the Crown.

Many of the nations that enjoy the highest standards of living are constitutional monarchies (e.g. Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, and, of course, the United Kingdom). So, Greg asked, what would be the alternative to Monarchy?

Participants raised a number of issues. Some were amusing, e.g. if we were to abolish the Monarchy, what would happen to Queen Victoria Day? On the other hand, some contended that the current royal family seems dysfunctional (the Queen herself excluded). Some questioned the costs of maintaining the infrastructure of Monarchy federally and provincially as well as its outdated character. Others wondered if the Crown represents a unifying force across various nations as in the member states of the British Commonwealth.

Many thanks to the moderator – Linda Tu – and the debaters – Priscilla Platt, Sheila Neysmith, Greg King, Chris Marsden – who took the time to prepare excellent presentations, answered questions, clarified stands and carefully defended positions. It was a delightful hour and a half contemplating the future that might be Canada’s.

At the end of the debate, another poll was taken. Results favoured the abolitionists: 20 for abolition; 12 opposed; 6, undecided.

Barrie Wilson