Monarchy notes

I'm a bit irritated by a New York Times story, "One City Might Have Cracked the Housing Crisis," about a BC First Nation that is spearheading a large residential housing development in Vancouver's Kitsilano neighbourhood.  The theme seems to be that the one good thing about indigenous title is that it enables developers to thumb their nose at city-planning regulations.

I did laugh, however, where the reporter notes that NIMBY Vancouverites 

sent protest letters to Queen Elizabeth II. (In Canada, complaints about federal land are still addressed to the British sovereign.)

It is funny, I guess, that the New York Times promotes this medieval idea of how Canadian government works. But Canadian monarchists (and constitutional nerds, too often) often make much of the claim that there really is a Canadian monarchy and a king of Canada. Here's another proof that no one in the world takes them seriously. We shouldn't either. 

History of Governors General

I hope Louise Arbour will be an ornament to the office of Governor General. She is almost eighty, but like a lot of senior judges she seems to retain limitless energy -- enough, I hope, to carry her through a full term of office. Her distinguished public service and her globally recognized achievements in human rights and justice make her a symbol of Canadian respect for the rule of law in these times. It's an excellent appointment.  

Upon her appointment, Mme Arbour declined to call herself a monarchist, and went on to offer her preferred choice of words for her new role: 

I will be the representative of the crown in a constitutional arrangement that I think has served Canada extremely well.

That seems excellently phrased. To my ear, it acknowledges an actual monarch is superfluous to a parliamentary democracy -- as is indeed the case in most of the world's parliamentary democracies, from Ireland to India to Germany. 

Describing herself as "the representative of the crown in a constitutional arrangement," Mme Arbour nicely suggests we hardly need a foreign king and the royal family and all those trappings in our egalitarian society. A distinguished Canadian represents the state, and our politics are handled democratically through our elective institutions. What's not to like?

At his Substack, constitutional scholar Philippe Lagassé, an advocate of monarchy, calls Arbour's statement 

fairly pro-Crown when measured against contemporary Canadian attitudes toward the monarchy. It may not be sufficient for the decorative plates crowd, but it's sufficient for those who emphasize the constitutional in constitutional monarchy.

 I can agree with that. 

Meanwhile, Parti Quebecois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, he of the slightly aristocratic name and the democratic politics, said, "Regarding the institution, I repeat that it is one of the worst wastes of public funds."

It's not in any sense a waste of public funds to support the office of Governor General in the role Louise Arbour explains so diplomatically!  But I agree with him when he goes on to say: 

We are still in an archaic system where the king of England has anything to say in our democracy.

John Fraser approves, too   My notes on his recent book on the GGs here

Monarchical slop

AI slop -- the crazy stuff when AI starts to hallucinate or people use it to do really stupid things -- is in the news regularly, and the media are constantly being warned to avoid it.  But we need to pay attention to monarchy slop -- the crazy things that reputable publications will disseminate when it comes to the British royal family.

Here from CBC News no less, is a story about how Donald Trump's respect for King Charles is what has saved Canada from annexation.  

Now any sentient person knows that Donald Trump does not do respect. He is not into friendship. But this Charles-saves-Canada story seems to get all kinds of space, as if it were a real story with political significance  Here is Susan Delacourt, national affairs columnist at the Toronto Star, taking the whole thing at face value.

Thanks to a British author, we learned this week that all the 51st-state talk is now on the back burner for two reasons: one lies in Trump’s respect for King Charles, and, maybe more significantly, the president doesn’t have enough time to annex this nation.

Look into this story, and one learns it's from "a prominent royal commentator" with a new book being serialized in the Daily Mail. He reports that he happened to be chatting sociably with the American president when the matter came up. Does this happen? Did he buy a membership at Mar-a-Lago, possibly?   

History of soft power

While out walking over the weekend, I happened to catch a recent episode of "The Rest is Politics" -- two clever and well-informed British politicos discussing British and world affairs. It was a questions-from-listeners episode (#402 here), and someone had a question about Mark Carney and King Charles. Co-host Rory Stewart quickly explained that Charles III is the head of state for Canada, and went on to say that it was:

an interesting question of the ways in which British soft power could be used with Trump 

and they went on. The takeaway seemed to be the king's visit to Canada, however brief, would remind Trump, Americans, and the world that Britain's empire still has global empire, and its dependencies should not be messed with, for fear of Britain's reaction.

I wondered if any of our monarchically-inclined pundits and analysts -- constantly telling themselves about the "Canadian" crown, how vital it is to our parliamentary existence, and what a pillar of national strength and identity it is -- would have had a frisson of doubt if they caught this convo.  

"British soft power," nothing more, a means to prop up Britain's dwindling influence in the world: that seems to be the world's only interest in the whole matter.

 

Three Things that Won't Help Us Against Trump #2: The King

The Trump tariffs are on, sort of on, whatever. But the Canadian resistance seems continuous.  Good. Here are three things not to be too reliant on in the struggle: 1. Ending interprovincial "trade barriers." 2. The King. 3. Europe.

2. The King  (see #1 here)

John Fraser, a lively, genial, well-informed presence (I say from of a handful of encounters, no more) on the literary and journalism scene in Toronto and Canada  and an activist in monarchist circles for many years, had a piece about King Charles in the papers the other day.  Crucial sentences:

We are a sovereign nation with a democratic system of government that embraces a constitutional monarchy. That monarchy is now needed to defend our sovereignty. King Charles has actually been longing to come to Canada for several years and has been repeatedly put off.

Of the three sentences, I find the first acceptable, except for the word “embraces.” But the second sentence is dangerously wrong. And because it is wrong, I find the first part of the final sentence distressing and the second part reassuring, which must be about the reverse of what John Fraser would wish Canadians to take from it. 

The problem with the second sentence is this: the King cannot defend our sovereignty. He could only undermine it.

Some Canadians understand the complicated constitutional situation in which the King of the United Kingdom also has the constitutional status of King of Canada. If Canada and Britain ever went to war against each other (please not!), the constitution presumes he would somehow support, indeed embody, both sides.

We are almost in that situation right now. The British government feels an urgent need to keep as close to the United States as possible – such is always the British position. Yet the Canadian government declares we are in a trade war with the US that is also an attack on our borders, our sovereignty, and our national existence.

It may be true in some sense that the King as King of Canada could make a statement in support of Canada's existence. But should he do so, two profound problems would arise.

First as King of Britain, it appears Charles will also be following the emerging British/European consensus that in order to withstand the American assault on Europe, Canada will have to be abandoned. To play his role as head of two countries, he will soon be supporting two opposed policy lines.

As we said, it is constitutionally acceptable to imagine the king holding two such contradictory positions. But the king is a proud man, and it is hard to see him wishing to say simultaneously “My Canada must be saved” and “Canada is not my problem.” He could do it, I suppose, but no one would ever take the poor two-headed man seriously again.

Second, even if the Canadian government did tell King Charles he must robustly speak for Canada and he accepted the assignment, his intervention could only do harm to the Canadian cause. 

Canada is a proud, sovereign, independent, unique nation in the world of nations. It is on that basis we have united to defend ourselves from the American threat.

But the moment Charles presumes to speak for us in his plummy accent and too-English suits, the whole world’s reaction (okay, maybe not New Zealand's), will be to say, “Gee, I thought Canada was its own country. If it is still a colony of England, subservient to the English king, maybe they do need to be liberated and given some of that American freedom.” As our king, Charles is obligated to defend us should we ask him to. But little could do more to weaken our cause before the world (and here at home) than us seeking his leadership and him trying to provide it.

Which is why it is alarming John Fraser believes that Charles is anxious to come here, and reassuring that he has not yet come and may not at all, at least as long as the British Prime Minister is using him to curry favour with the American President, the declared foe of our national existence.  Let us defend our own existence. It just works better that way,

A way out of this awkwardness? 

I happened to hear an episode of the British podcast "The Rest is Politics" recently, in which Rory Stewart and Alasdair Campbell briefly took up the American threat to Canada. They agreed that Keir Starmer, as Britain's prime minister, and Charles III, as head of the Commonwealth, should each take a strong stand in support of Canada and its national sovereignty. 

Neither seemed to take seriously the notion that either PM Starmer or the king could, would, or should speak for and on behalf of Canada. 

That seems a sensible and detached position to adopt.

History of really bad ideas

I have been shocked, shocked, recently to see questions being asked about why King Charles has not weighed in to defend Canada against the Trumpazoid threats and insults.  The Toronto Star columnist Rosie Dimanno was recently demanding he save us.  And the usually sound Ottawa journalist Dale Smith declared it was not yet time for his intervention (and the government would have to ask him first), but it might be needed soon.

Surely any time sooner than never would be too soon. Involving the British King would only confirm American illusions about the colonial status of Canada and our "need" to be given American "freedom."  Whatever we do, we need to do this ourselves.  

We did not import any British hockey stars last night, did we?

I have no desire to change our structure of government, not much anyway. But the royal family... is foreign. Full stop. The aristocracy with the king at its centre, is part and parcel of British society and culture; the titled elite still owns half the land of Britain, is still prominent in society, business, the arts, and much else. The king and royal family make sense in that context, but NOT in any Canadian context. 

Nothing is more alien to Canada, nothing is more foreign. It just doesn't work here. The "Crown," meaning abstractly the federal or provincial state (as in Crown land, Crown prosecutor, Crown corporation), works well enough in Canada: it, the Crowns federal and provincial, are ours, are us. But we could operate with a Governor General, a vacant throne, and no royal family claiming any Canadian role. This gent over in Buck House.... no, just no.

History of the monarchy in Yukon

No king in Dawson City

Recently, the world had a little giggle over the oddity that is the "Canadian" monarchy from this story. (It seemed to get rather less coverage in Canada, judging by search links.)  This is The Guardian's lead on the story:

The council of a town in Canada’s Yukon territory has been locked for weeks in bureaucratic standstill after its members refused to swear a mandatory oath of allegiance to King Charles ....

I'm all in favour of Canadians declining to swear allegiance to foreign monarchs and I do support using Canada's constitutional power to rid itself of the whole thing. But I'm less keen on the reason why the Dawson City councillors have taken this stand at this time. They are doing it: 

citing the crown’s tarnished relations with Indigenous peoples in the region.

I can understand councillors' wish to stand in solidarity with the one indigenous member of the council, who first raised this concern. They mean well, no doubt.

But, you know, for more than a century and a half, deep back into Queen Victoria's reign at least, kings and queens have been purely figureheads in Canadian governance. All that has been done to indigenous peoples and their rights and titles was done by Canadian governments and officials accountable to Canadian parliaments themselves accountable to Canadian voters.  

I'm not enthusiastic for this effort to blame Canada's own failings on oblivious and disempowered foreigners long since (and quite properly) stripped of any real policy-making ability.  Let's stop swearing allegiance to Charles for good reasons, and take responsibility for our own problems at the same time.  In Canada the "Crown" is really us. The Dawsonians and all of us should swear allegiance to us.

Aren't you glad you don't use coins anymore?

 The Canadian Mint announces it is about to roll out King Charles's head on Canadian coins next month.

History of monarchy ... fading, fading.

One poll is one poll, but an endless sequence of polls all pointing in the same direction ought to mean something.

And the latest Leger poll on Canadian attitudes to the monarchy is something. When a consistent majority of the Canadian public, in all regions, in all age groups, on many kinds of questions, expresses this kind of detachment, discontent, dissatisfaction, whatever you choose to call it, about the country's relationship with the British monarchy... well eventually it has to leak over into our public discourse and our politics.

Summary here.  Full text of the survey report here. 

Another reason to abolish the monarchy - UPDATED

In Ontario the corrupt and incompetent Ford government announced (quietly, as the holiday weekend started) that "in honour of the coronation of" that British guy at Buckingham Palace, it was reinstating the honour of "King's Counsel," abandoned here forty years ago as a sinkhole of patronage. 

The surprise announcement included a long list of lawyers newly appointed as KCs, included cabinet minister Caroline Mulroney, who has never been qualified to practise law in Ontario, other cabinet ministers, a long list of party hacks and friends-of-Doug, and one or two respected counsel for cover.

Former premier David Peterson, whose government abandoned the granting of QC's in the 1980s, said

he was “shocked by the effrontery” of the Tories’ decision, saying his government had scrapped the designation because it had become “corrupted.

“It lost all meaning, and so any principled approach would have been to stop them,” said Peterson, a K.C. himself, who now serves as chair of Torstar, the Toronto Star’s parent company.

“I just think it’s unbelievable that they would reinstitute this.”

It's impossible not to notice how the scraps and tags of monarchical honours that survive in Canada are so often used for political manipulations like this. The Queen's Counsel designation originated in Canada in the 1840s, simultaneously with the achievement of responsible government, which empowered politicians to act in the name of the Crown -- and the QC was being denounced for being mostly about patronage and favoritism at least as early as 1867.  

Note: I searched this Toronto Star news item on Google and it came up no problem, despite all the news about Google blocking all Canadian news feeds. 

Update, July 5:  News reports inform us that the Ford government amended the Barristers Act to require the Law Society of Ontario to call to the bar former attorneys-general of Ontario without examination or payment of fees.  In the case of Caroline Mulroney, the law society complied three days before the Ford government awarded her the designation of King's Counsel.

I know when you decline an honour it seems a bit self-serving to honour oneself for having done so, but in this case it would be useful if someone could publish a list of all the genuinely distinguished lawyers who declined to be part of the Ford scam.   

Moore talks: about the monarchy

We have not yet seen the Charles III twenty-dollar bills, but the black-bordered toonies are circulating. I got this one when I returned my empties at the beer store. Which does suggest they are not all becoming collectibles.

Also, mark your calendars: 

June 22: Special meeting with Christopher Moore: Should the British monarch remain Canada’s head of state?

Christopher Moore leads a group discussion at an in-person meeting at St. John’s Anglican Church, corner of Humberside Ave. and Quebec Ave. at 7 pm.

This meeting is in a hybrid format with Zoom available for those who prefer not to attend in person. We would appreciate feedback after the event on whether this arrangement works for you.

Advance registration will be required to participate on Zoom. Details will be found here closer to the date. 

 

 

The monarchy is undermining the constitution

The Globe and Mail reports on the MPs and Senators, from in and outside Quebec, from the Bloc, the Liberals, and the NDP, who regret and resent having to swear an oath of allegiance to the British monarch in order to serve the Canadian people in the Canadian Parliament.

Quebec Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne also questioned the need for the oath. “The time has come to at least have a choice … to swear to the monarch or to Canada,” she said.

“I would prefer to swear to the people of Canada.”

This sentiment is becoming close to universal. In practice, in daily life, we have already abolished the monarchy in Canada. It means little to anyone now. For many years, Canada has been thoroughly disconnected from monarchist attitudes and British traditions. The monarchy no longer holds significant meaning for Canadians -- not positive meaning, at least. 

 And the best defence of the monarchy anyone offers nowadays? It seems to be, oh, well, it's not that big a deal, it's not worth doing anything about it.  From the same Globe article:

Michael Wernick, a former head of the federal public service and a former a senior official in constitutional affairs, said revisiting the oath with 220 parliamentary sitting days left until the next election would be “a huge waste of energy.”

“There’s more important things to focus on,” he said.

The Prime Minister, responding to the latest in a decades-long series of polls confirming the vanishing significance of the monarchy in Canada, said much the same a few days ago ("Trudeau says Canada's ties to monarchy 'not his focus.'") As if governments focus on one thing at a time.

The expectation seems to be that large numbers of the people we elect to represent us will continue to effectively perjure themselves, or at least engage in the kind of mental finger-crossing that allows them to declare on oath that their highest loyalty is to a foreign monarch who reigns by divine right, in order to fulfil their duties to us.

The oath question shows how important the monarchy problem has become. As the political scientist Emmett Macfarlane points out, Quebec's legislation -- exempting members of the Quebec National Assembly from having to swear the oath to the king -- is flatly unconstitutional. But since it is nearly universally popular and harms almost no one,  it is likely to endure indefinitely, constitutional or not.

It's a constitutional requirement, the revocation of which requires, at minimum, recourse to the general amending procedure (the House, Senate + 7 provincial assemblies), notwithstanding the blatantly unconstitutional Quebec bill to the contrary. https://t.co/MD3C0pNC3d

— Emmett Macfarlane 🇺🇦 (@EmmMacfarlane) May 2, 2023

Canada has a serious problem when some policy choice is so popular that simply ignoring the constitution becomes acceptable, even preferable. Indeed, it's likely to become infectious in other provinces, maybe also in Ottawa. When the monarchy is unpopular enough to bring our monarchical constitution itself into disrepute, we need seriously to consider changing the constitution, instead of blithely saying, "Oh, it's too much trouble, so it's impossible."

And it should not be only the constitutional standing of that oath that is examined. What we need is a prime minister ready to go to the provinces and say, " Are you willing to discuss a constitutional amendment on the monarchy? No side deals, no fish for rights, no referendum, a one-time, one-issue consideration of collective action on our head of state problem." Who knows, with Quebec already outside the constitution on the oath question, and seemingly determined to set itself aside from monarchy, even it might consider a one-time relaxation of its traditional veto on constitutional change.  

That would put our governments into the monarchy discussion. And yes, it would generate some "energy."  Good energy. The monarchy may be centuries old and the constitutional amending formula only forty. But if the obsolete monarchy is rendering the constitution obsolete, it's time for a review. If our governments can't address a problem that has already been settled everywhere else in Canadian life, they fail us too. It's worth some effort.

Join the Editor's Circle

Tomorrow Thursday Carolyn Harris, "the royal historian," and I (not so royalist, shall we say), are doing a webinar with Mark Reid, editor of Canada's History. We will be discussing our articles from the current issue of the magazine, hers reflecting on Queen Elizabeth II's history with Canada, mine, "Royal Dissent," talking about the challenges -- and opportunities -- we will face in abolishing the monarchy in Canada. I think we will have fun.

Carolyn Harris

Sorry, you are not invited. This podcast webinar series is for members of "The Editor's Circle"  -- that is, people who give generously to support the magazine and its works.  

Of course, you could join the Editor's Circle with a few clicks -- and get this premium content.

A lot of previously presented Canada's History material is available in podcast form.  Just not this one, not yet.

History of the Constitution

Thirty years ago Canadians voted in a national referendum, and voted down the Charlottetown Accord on constitutional amendments.

Some still regret that. Columnist Susan Delacourt of the Toronto Star was a Charlottetown cheerleader and wrote her first book to mourn its passing. (I remember that. I wrote a review panning the book for its accusation that the people of Canada had somehow failed their politicians.)  

Today she argues the referendum of 1992 sowed the seed for today's angry populism. Well, maybe, but it wasn't these bolshy No voters. It was the referendum process. Making complicated matters into a yes/no choice, encouraging polarization rather than negotiated outcomes, bypassing representative democracy: that sounds like the way to promote populist politics. These are good reasons to avoid referendums as much as possible, not to blame the voters who gave their best answers when asked.    

Delacourt also regrets that the failure of big constitutional rewriting and the consequent resistance to any constitutional reconsiderations. -- has set the stage for what she calls "unilateral" changes to the constitution such as Quebec Premier Legault's claim to rewrite language protections and Invermectin Smith's Alberta Sovereignty Act. 

But she might have noted that real constitutional change is returning to the agenda. Alarming uses of the notwithstanding clauses have been provoking malaise among constitution-watchers. ("It wasn't supposed to be used like this!") More significantly, the Bloc Quebécois proposed the other day that Canada must change the language of the (constitutionally required) oath of allegiance. And Quebec voices have been leading the demand to end the monarchy now that Elizabeth is dead.  Suddenly Quebec, long a holdout on any constitutional review, seems to be demanding one.   

This is promising. "A constitutional is more legitimate when there are real and regular opportunities to amend it," an American scholar wrote recently.  It's okay for it to be hard to amend a constitution. It's not okay to have one fixed and unchangeable forever. If King Charles can help bring about a pan-Canadian consensus that we need to open the constitution to dispense with the monarchy, he will do Canada one small servive.

History of colonial mourning customs

At Active History, Colin Coates offers a clever essay on the death of a monarch. Just not the monarch you are thinking of: 

Early September saw the death of the European monarch who had reigned the longest over the territory some call Canada. The death was not unexpected. In some quarters, it might even have been welcomed. But it took some time for the news to reach Canada. The last ships had left months earlier on their Atlantic crossing. When they arrived in September and October 1715 with their missives from the court, issued in the name of Louis XIV, no one in Canada knew that the king had died.

Image: Hyacinthe Rigaud, Musée du Louvre (full details in Coates essay). 

History of the Monarchy: It's okay to talk about it again UPDATED

The mourning period is over, and my essay on Canadians and the monarchy after Elizabeth II is now up at Canada's History's website

The reign of Elizabeth as Queen of Canada has been transformed instantly into the reign of Charles, the new king of Canada.

Yet Canadians can have a say, though not at this moment, when one monarch succeeds another. We form a sovereign nation. We have run our own affairs for a long time. We are also a democratic nation. In Treaty partnership with First Nations, our governments are accountable to the people of Canada. Canada has remained a monarchy because Canada has chosen to have it so. If Canadians wish to review that, or prefer to keep things as they are, the choice lies with us. If Canadians wish to have a Canadian head of state, we need only say so.

Update, September 23:  Trying to follow trends in the post-Elizabethan discussion of monarchy's future, I was struck by an op-ed by one Andrew Phillips in the Toronto Star.

It starts with bluster -- abolition is "an idea that is at once wrong-headed, historically ill-informed and constitutionally impossible" [not, not, and not -- see above] But then it gives us a sense of monarchists reading the room and thinking of cutting monarchy's losses in an attempt to preserve what they can. First, he wants to take the king off the money. And:

Second, let’s rewrite the oath that new Canadians must swear to qualify for citizenship. Right now, they must pledge to “be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, King of Canada, His Heirs and Successors …” and so on. It’s like something out of “Game of Thrones.”

To allow new citizens to pledge their loyalty first and foremost to Canada itself, Parliament can change the oath any time it wants — without altering anything essential about the role of the monarchy in this country.

We should look to the example of Australia, another of King Charles’s realms [!], which in 1994 dropped the oath to the queen and replaced it with an eloquent “Pledge of Commitment”....

Sure. Indeed, by continuing the processes by which the monarchy has lost any real presence in Canadian life and government, could be a useful babystep! 

Update, September 25:  Is this deal-cutting on the monarchy becoming a trend? I see Conrad Black in the National Post is suggesting Canada can have a "president" -- but also preserve the monarchy too. I like the hint of desperation about these offers. (Fortunately, most of the story is paywalled, so I don't have to read the whole thing.) 

History of the monarchists

Seemed like all those who think we need to reconsider this thing about the "Canadian" monarchy agreed there could be a moratorium on all that during the services in memory of Elizabeth II.  The statement from Citizens for a Canadian Republic was notable, particularly its close: 

There will be many occasions for making our case for a republic. This is not one of them. Therefore, in respect for the royal family and the millions of Canadians grieving the loss of the Queen, Citizens for a Canadian Republic will not be taking media interviews until next week.

There was, on the other hand, a flood of monarchist triumphalism to accompany the mourning. Insistance that Canada cannot, simply cannot, change its relations to the British monarch was everywhere. Maybe there can be less of that now.  My own piece on Canada after Elizabeth should be up at canadashistory.ca soon.

Of all the coverage, my own favorite was a tweet: "What, they are letting a man be the queen now? This woke nonsense has gone too far!"  Her Maj might have smiled.

History of the Canadian crown

The Prince of Wales has told Commonwealth leaders that keeping the Queen as head of state ... is “a matter for each member country to decide”.

Charles made the comments during the opening ceremony of a summit of Commonwealth prime ministers and presidents in Rwanda. He said he believed such fundamental changes could be made “calmly and without rancour.”

About the time the future king made this acknowledgment, I came across an old note in my files. Its from a twenty ten-year-old column by Chantal Hébert (Toronto Star, October 5 2012):

It is mostly in the margins that political branding is most effective these days and the Conservatives have proven particularly adept on that front. In the process, they have turned their party into a monarchist vehicle. But who speaks for the growing legions of Canadians who have no British roots and no inclination to see their country as a natural part of the anglophile compact that so recently spearheaded the misguided war on Iraq? It is hard to think of a stance that would go a longer way to reconnect the federal Liberals with Quebec and with many of the constituencies that make up the New Canada than the offer of a strong post-monarchy vision of the country.

This was published about six months before Justin Trudeau took up the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. But if Hébert was trying to offer him a policy hint, his strategy geniuses evidently missed it.

Maybe an opportunity for the next one? 

 

History of the Monarchy, again

Jared Milne writes from Alberta apropos of a recent post

While I respect Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth for handling her duties with dignity and class, I'm no fan of having our head of state reside in a foreign country. I'd rather we have a fully Canadian head of state, but I realize just how tall an order abolishing the monarchy would be. Constitutional requirements aside, here's a piece by Plains Cree writer Doug Cuthand on a First Nations view of their relationship with the Crown and why he doesn't think First Nations people would support abolishing it. (I vaguely recall Governor General Mary Simon saying something similar about the Inuit's relationship with the Crown too.)

A point very much worth addressing by anyone in favour of a Canadian head of state! 

(Lemme first say: I don’t follow the Star-Phoenix, but it’s striking how often Doug Cuthand columns turn up in my various media feeds.  And I can understand a First Nations inclination to diss Canada a little by asserting an indigenous right to deal with the real boss in England.)

But I also note that indigenous views on the monarchy vary. It's not hard to find indigenous commentators for whom the Crown represents nothing but colonialism. When Prince Charles dropped into the NWT recently, there was talk of reparations owed and respect to be paid. Indigenous activists tore down a statue of Queen Victoria in Winnipeg in 2021. and the Metis National Council president was among those who have spoken of the need for the Queen to apologize for residential schools, both as Queen and as head of the Anglican Church.  

Amidst this diversity of indigenous viewpoints, I was impressed to hear Murray Sinclair declare he does not agree with focussing responsibility on the Queen personally.  

Sinclair, former chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commissioner, said efforts to extract an apology from the Royal Family to account for what a government did might change little and could complicate the issue.

"It would bring them unnecessarily into the area of politics and then we're getting into a whole different controversy," Sinclair said.

"It will just detract from and distract us from the very important conversation we need to have about what can we do to change the way that we are, the relationships that we have."

The Queen and her predecessors long since delegated all authority and responsibility for indigenous relations to the Canadian state. Sinclair seems clear that it is the Canadian state that First Nations must hold to account. The monarchy, that is, is largely irrelevant to this as to most other Canadian issues. We talk of "the Crown" and "the government" interchangeably, but Sinclair is aware of which one actually matters to reconciliation and to treaty implementation. 

This is a good moment to stress that all discussions of how to replace the monarchy in Canada must presume full participation from First Nations.  

The constitution requires all provinces to consent to any constitutional change involving the monarchy, and I would say the Assembly of First Nations (or other appropriate indigenous bodies) would also have to be part of that consensus for it to be credible. It would be hopeless to proceed otherwise. Same thing when we get to a selection process for a Canadian head-of-state: full indigenous participation required. Actually, having indigenous confirmation of a head of state, with ceremonials drawn from Indigenous rites, would be pretty cool for Canada.  

But we would have to make some serious progress on reconciliation and treaty implementation to get or deserve that kind of indigeneous participation and consent – so I’d say it would be a double win!

History of the abolition of the monarchy

This was actually 1953... but who's counting?

According to The Times of London (paywall), spending on the Queen's Diamond Jubilee , centring on today, will add £6.4 billion to the British (English?) economy.  

Impact on the Canadian economy of celebrations of the jubilee of "our" "Canadian" queen of Canada? 

I'd guess somewhere in the vicinity of fifty cents.

See, we have already abolished the monarchy. The rest is just paperwork.

Also Her Maj became queen upon the death of her father in February 1952. Her coronation was on June 2nd, but in 1953.  Why is the seventieth anniversary being marked today? Marketing, I guess.