Abolishing the Crown in Canada: A Dormant Movement … For Now.

Have we had enough of the Monarchy?

King Charles is meant to be the embodiment of the state. In the UK, the Prime Minister meets with the King every week and bows to the country that they are serving in the form of the King. This symbolism has been at the forefront of the argument for maintaining the Crown in the UK. However, in Canada, the Monarchy has been rendered a concept that is increasingly distant to everyday Canadian politics. Though the symbolism surrounding the King in Canada may be an important factor in the argument for retaining Crown presence in Canada’s political system, many have made the case that it is a dispensable constitutional concept in the Canadian governmental system. Proponents of this argument point to the measures that have been taken over the years to limit the Crown’s external influence over Canadian political practice, which renders it a mostly symbolic convention used today. However, a Monarchist would argue that dispensing with the Crown may create issues that outweigh those that come with the continuation of Crown procedure in Canada.

The popular interpretation of the Crown’s role in the Canadian government system remains that it is mainly kept around for symbolic purposes, to represent the state of Canada, which indirectly makes it easier to criticize politicians without criticizing the state of Canada itself. Despite this, many notable figures have disputed this notion, including David Smith, an author who has written extensively on the Crown in Canada. Smith views the Crown as a major constitutional concept and as a part of Canada’s practical form of government, revealing that the Crown’s role in Canada’s government system goes beyond simply representing the holy state, and that it is deeply entrenched in how Canadians govern themselves. Smith argues that “the Crown… permeates the political system and empowers the political executive.” Smith also argues the importance of the Crown in Canadian politics by acknowledging the powers of the Crown over appointments, government spending, and policies, as well as providing necessary information to the Canadian government through the Royal Commission. Though Smith does acknowledge the role of Canada’s responsible government in this argument, which gives a crucial convention that the Governor General cannot withhold consent to a bill put forth by the elected house in the legislature, Smith still emphasizes that the Crown nevertheless possesses a power that goes beyond the legislature that it uses to give Royal Assent to the these bills.

It seems as though Smith’s view on the importance of the Crown in the Canadian government may form an overemphasis on the written declarations on what the King’s influence on Canadian governmental practice is. While it is true that under the Constitution of Canada, the King “has the power to withhold consent from bills that pass both houses… of parliament,” a convention present in Canada’s government outlines that the King, represented by the Governor General, must act upon the advice of the political executive.  This places the power that the Crown technically possesses within the hands of Canada’s executive. In relation to Smith’s rebuttal of the view that the Crown is mostly symbolic in Canadian politics, the reason as to why this is the popular view of the Crown in Canada is most likely the existence of these kinds of measures limiting the Crown from having substantial influence over Canadian politics. Furthermore, as Smith argues, Canada’s regionalism and federalism is a direct product of the Crown’s involvement with the creation of Canada with the Constitution Act of 1867. 

Despite the Crown’s involvement in the creation of Canada and the principles of federalism that are heavily relied on today, Canadian politics since 1867 have followed a pattern of becoming increasingly independent of Britain and the Crown. This culminated in the Constitution Act of 1982, which not only prevented any action from the British Parliament to have any effect on Canada’s policies, but also included a procedure for “amending the Monarchy’s status in Canada.” This entails that if Canada wanted to, they could completely cut ties with the monarchy and either elect their head of state or merge the position of the head of state with the head of the government. Though currently the Governor General is appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada anyways, the question of whether abolition of the monarchy is even worth it arises. The King is Canada’s Head of State, represented by the Governor General, and though it seems, in its description, that the King holds a considerable amount of power in Canada, it remains a formality. That is to say that the presence of the Crown in Canada could be viewed as a remnant of the colonial history of Canada that is tolerated because of the inability of the Crown to pose a threat to Canadian sovereignty.