http://glitzandglamor.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/canadian-flag.jpg
Hello, again, America. I know you’re busy stocking up on flags, burgers and beer in advance of Independence Day. I just want you to know that your cousins to the north are doing the same thing. Canada Day is tomorrow, July 1st, and we’ll celebrate it much the way you mark your own national holiday. Maybe at slightly lower volume. And with fewer exuberant shots fired into the air.
It has always tickled me that our national holidays come so close together. It seems appropriate, given how similar our countries are in so many ways, and how interdependent we are economically, culturally and even militarily. We do have our differences, however, and Canada’s monarchy is one.
Now, not all Canadians are big fans of the monarchy. Some find it odd, perhaps a little immature, that our head of state is a lovely old British lady, Queen Elizabeth II. There are those who would prefer Canada become a republic, perhaps with a newly-established Presidency proving that we’re a fully grown-up country.
Not I. No, I think our constitutional monarchy is one of the signal jewels in Canada’s crown. It’s a very good thing for Canada and for Canadians, and I hope we never let it go.
It’s fair to say that democracy is in a bit of a funk right now, in lots of places. In Europe and North America, people don’t think much of politicians. In Latin America, many are turning to charismatic populists who once again call for Action! and Revolution! and another reshaping and reordering of society. And in Asia, some countries are making a case that as long as you can promise citizens consistent economic growth and wealth creation, there’s no need to provide democratic rights and freedoms. That last sounds a bit too much like “bread and circuses” for my liking.
But here in Canada, we have our Parliamentary system that keeps chugging along, alternately infuriating the supporters of the centre-left or the centre-right - while actual government policy deviates very little, really, no matter which party is in government. And we have our Queen. And until he died in 1952, we had Her Highness’ father, King George VI.
Above all things, the monarchy speaks of stability, history and tradition. It’s a rock as solid as Gibraltar. It reminds us of whence we came as a country and a people, in spite of many things: in spite of the occasional silliness of particular monarchs or their heirs; in spite of the fact that Canada’s population will fairly soon be majority non-European and non-Caucasian.
It reminds us, too, of one of the defining facts of this country: how we obtained nationhood. Canadians are often seen, beyond our borders as well as among ourselves, as a little boring. In comparison to our American neighbours, maybe a little quieter, less eager to take bold risks, more incrementalist. It’s a fair perception, and when it’s true, it may be either advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on the circumstance. I suspect the differences in national character have some of their roots in our respective routes to independence.
America needed a revolution to become America. A tax revolt, mixed with some exciting (particularly for the 18th century) ideas about human governance, led your country to throw off both the shackles and the benefits of the British monarchy. Canada had to wait nearly another century, until 1867, to gain our independence gradually, ultimately via an Act of the British Parliament – and the assent of Queen Victoria.
Politics is about organizing society, achieving some level of consensus, and about making decisions in the interest of the common good. Humans being humans, this is a very hard thing to do. In North America, one path has led America to achieve this through the guidance and constant interpretation and re-interpretation of your exclamatory founding myths and founding documents. It’s been a spectacularly successful path, by any world standards.
The Canadian path requires a longer view. It’s laid with our own Constitution and other documents, but also with a call to remembrance of precedence and process. Our road to freedom and equality, with the monarchy as a constant presence, leads us back through the troubles and triumphs of the Mother Country.
To understand Canada today, it’s necessary to understand Britain in the past. How the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the wars civil and foreign, and the thousands of pieces of a changing legislative puzzle led tortuously from absolute monarchy to ceremonial constitutional monarchy.
Our monarchy is Canada’s monarchy. It intrudes not at all on how we live, but it exists, reliably and honourably, exactly where we want and need it. To help us remember. To tie us to, not a slippery and ever-changing present we can never truly grasp, but to the long progressive march of human achievement, freedom and prosperity.
We are impermanent, all of us. Our politics, our politicians and our national moments good and bad are impermanent. But for Canada, the monarchy is a piece of permanence. It grounds us, tempers us, provides context and scope to our memories and our identity – whether our families arrived here centuries ago or only last year. Our Queens and Kings will remain central to who we are as a country.
On Sunday, as always, I’ll raise a glass to America, our best friend, the nutty and delightful colossus to the south, the second best country in the world. Tomorrow, I’ll raise two glasses. One to Canada, the best country in the world. And one to our noble Queen, God save her.
Cam Battley lives quietly in rural Ontario, Canada.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Kerry Lauerman
Madame Bitch
Sandra Stephens
Liz Emrich
pretend_farmer
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
It's really very similar, except our beer is better. ;)
Have a look at this. It's the official anthem of the 2010 Soccer World Cup in South Africa. It's by a Somali-Canadian named K'naan.
I'm a hard rock guy, but I think this is a terrific, hopeful song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO0UQNBr2y0
But, aside from being nationally boring, I find your apology for still being part of the British Commonwealth offensive. What you failed to note is the inherent inequality of the Canadian or British monarchy--that some people, by birth alone, are inherently better than others. The Queen, through no action of her own, is afforded a greater status in your society; that because her great-grandfather was invited to rule over them by a bunch of nobles, she has a higher position in your country. I much prefer the American democratic system where all men and women are created equal, because it rightfully entails that I am just as worthy as my neighbor or my member of Congress. Keep your quiet subjecthood to yourself. Your lack of progress should be mocked, not held up for others to emulate.
But I do think you're mythologizing the importance of the monarchy in Canadian history. The defining historical act in Canadian history was The Quebec Act of 1763, which gave the inhabitants of New France inaliable rights to language and religion. Quebecers were fierece and experienced negotiators having spent fifty years negotiating treaty rights with the Indian nations that they fought and traded with since the Montreal peace treaty of 1701.
In 1775 American revolutionaries invaded Montreal in the mistaken belief that Quebecers would join them against the British. But Quebec had no delusions about what they would have to sacrifice to become Americans, their culture, language and institutions. So six months later Americans were forced to pull out. Had Quebec decided differently, we'd all be Americans. What makes Canada unique as a country is a constitution that acknowledges the need to balance power between founding nations within a country. And that framework was built from over 400 years negotiations between natives, the French and The British.
Monarchists immigrated to Canada much later. Most of the major waves of loyalists only happened in the mid 19th century. It's a far more shallow layer of Canadian history than people realize.
But I toast The Queen and wish her well. And feel in no way ashamed of doing that.
Besides, it sounds like you could use a visit up here. It seems your perceptions are a bit off. Separate tiers to our population? The Queen afforded a higher position and greater status in our society? No, no, no. You've been misinformed.
Canada has no aristocracy. No Lords or Ladies, Dukes, Barons or Viscounts. No hereditary peers or privileges. All are equal before the law, and equality of right and of opportunity are guaranteed by our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As to the Queen, she does have a certain status - and a role under our Constitution, albeit strictly ceremonial. But beyond that role she has no more rights or privileges than any Canadian citizen.
Now... some of your other comments deserve a more robust response.
Canada has no triumphs to celebrate? Our lack of progress should be mocked?
My friend, we have had our triumphs. In war (First & Second World, Korean, skipped Vietnam and Iraq, right beside you in Afghanistan). In literature and art. In business and science and medicine. (Do you like Blackberries and insulin?) In sport. (The last winter Olympics went pretty well.)
And the "progress" slam is a bit of a puzzle. Take a look around when you come visit. This is a pretty progressive place up here. We have the highest level of immigration per capita in the developed world. And no one blinks an eye, because it works.
We abolished slavery in 1834, along with the rest of the British Empire, and didn't need a terrible, terrible civil war to settle the question decades later.
We've had universal health care since 1966.
People are permitted to marry under the law in Canada, regardless of their sexual orientation.
We had neither bank failures, nor bank bailouts in the last recession.
And we have the strongest, healthiest economy in the G7.
Plus, we have poutine (look it up if you don't know what it is - it's fan-tastic) and we invented William Shatner.
Canada: marvelous place. Come see for yourself.
I'm delighted you brought up the role of Québec within Canada - both in preserving Canada against 18th and 19th century American annexation impulses, and in defining our national character.
As it happens, I'm a proud anglo-Québécois, and quite agree that Canada *sans* Québec is would not be Canada.
After the 1763 Treaty of Paris ceding New France to Britain, the Brits did experience mounting concern about what was happening in the colonies. And as you say, the British Parliament's Quebec Act of 1774 was vital to ensuring that the French-speaking citizens of British North America stuck with the devil they knew, rather than joining the revolt-rebellion-Revolution to the south.
It was, for its time, one of the wisest pieces of legislation in world history governing the lives of a so-called "conquered" people. It guaranteed that the Québécois would maintain their language, the right to practice the Roman Catholic religion (as part of an explicitly anti-Catholic Empire), and retain the French Code Civil of private law.
The difficult, fraught and thus far successful negotiation, accommodation and conciliation between English and French in this country, preserving and retaining the distinct society (yes, I said those words) of Québec within Canada has been one of our greatest and most unlikely triumphs.
I should emphasize that the "monarchist" label I'm using here is just to signify that I like and support our constitutional monarchy - and think it's a good and healthy thing for Canada. I'm not a member of the Monarchist League, or any kind of a monarchist with a capital "M".
I will grant it one thing - the Queen or her rep takes on the stupid ceremonial stuff that the U.S. prez has to handle on top of his governing duties, but that's hardly worth the $.
(And the Governor General here at home is as cheap as any other government's protocol department.)
Someday, though, I will be back to Montreal for the poutine. And the sexy shows.
We've established that Canada is more peaceful, less indebted, has more economic soundness and stability, and that Canada is more progressive.
But here you say of the US: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union" wrote down the laws of our country to give us stability, and it is that that we hold above all else. Such a written base is stronger and more right than placing faith in any group of people.
Rosiepigs, Canada, unlike the UK, has a written Constitution, just like the US. It has words and everything! And division of powers between the federal and provincial/territorial governments. And where you have a Bill of Rights, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
AND... we've got the monarchy, which provides us with that perspective of long history and reminds us of the good, the bad and the preposterous.
You're right about Montreal, though. My home town. As my Dad always said, it's the best damn town in the world. In the best damn country in the world.
Happy Canada Day!
Abrawang, that's a very good line, well applied to the constitutional monarchy. In fact, I believe it's been applied to Canada as a whole!
Emma Peel, what say we honourably disagree about the monarchy, and honourably agree about the wonderfulness of this under-appreciated (mostly by us) country of ours. I'm raising a Keith's to you as we speak.
And so we have one of the deepest and most ironic differences between Canadians and Americans. We have a history of mandating tolerance in law. Americans for all their focus on individual liberties, sacrifice the collective rights that give individuals strong enough communities to thrive. Sadly the American constitution entrenches the protection of the strongest and not the weakest. Our constitution entrenches both.
There seems to be some confusion here about how the Royals are paid. Canadian tax money does not go to the Queen. It never has.
Neither do the British taxpayers subsidize the Royals. HM Queen Elizabeth II, owns private land - the Duchy of Lancaster, a large tract of land. The tenants pay tax money to the British government which uses a percentage of that tax income to pay for the running costs of the Queen and her household. A percentage, not all of it. In fact, the monarchy subsidizes the government. HM the Queen and HRH Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, have of late gone on a belt-tightening binge whereby most of the members of the royal family are no longer paid from the Civil List (the money voted by parliament) but from HM The Queen's own finances. Since 1992, she has been paying income tax on her personal income (From Z on Yahoo Ask)
I have however developed a certain affection for the office of governor-general, as a respected Canadian who takes on a non-partisan role to represent the country, and recognize its heroes and those who have contributed greatly, with the heroism awards and the Order of Canada respectively. In recent years as the post has rotated through a more diverse group (starting with Vincent Massey, the first Canadian-born GG, and later including persons who were not conservative old white males), it's shown us all that there is something to be said for keeping that position occupied. So I'm all for losing the monarchic connection and keeping the G-G as the Peoples' Representative.
And happy Canada Day to you all. (Also happy 94th birthday to my mom.)
CANUCKIAN MONARCH">
LOL
People are, by and large, safer on your streets and in your cities than we are. In the "land of the free", the vast majority of our gay citizens have no freedom to marry at all. Canada has had this fundamental human right for years. We can learn from you, and should.
Above all, perhaps, impossible in our formalized system, you have inherited and adapted the extraordinary idea of "the government of the day". On issues of grave import your Parliament can change hands in an hour, and the Queen is obliged (by tradition, of course) to appoint a new First Minister. You can -- and do -- get rid of incompetents much more ably than we. It took us terrible years to get rid of Nixon. In your system, he would have been gone in a week.
I have no problem loving the beauty and strength of both nations. Happy Dominion Day! We couldn't have a better neighbour. (Please note my respectful spelling...)
otoh, the good part of british monarchy is you don't have to admit you voted for the head of state, in the face of current experience.
If I could make any kind of sense of your comment, I'd try to respond to it!