Skip to content

Opinion: Canadians fortunate to have hereditary monarch

Many people bemoan the cost of having a monarchy.  However, does anyone really think that having an elected president would cost taxpayers less money?  Our Governor General costs far less than having an elected president, even including sometimes extravagant travel expenses
prince charles - amb106-39_2020_160225

Role of the Monarchy in Canada

The coronation of King Charles III is generating considerable media coverage about the monarchy. 

Unfortunately, most media coverage treats the monarchy like a reality TV show.  We learn that King Charles is less popular than Queen Elizabeth, which is no big surprise.  We also learn that many Canadians do not have a good understanding of why we have a monarchy. 

That is not surprising because our system of government is very complex.  We have a hereditary monarchy whose powers are restricted by our constitution.  Hereditary monarchies are fundamentally undemocratic and, in theory, should have no place in democratic governments.  However, hereditary monarchies have provided excellent government, and there may not be a better way to govern a country. 

The monarchy can be likened to a fire extinguisher.  I have owned a fire extinguisher for many decades.  I even replace my fire extinguisher from time to time.  However, I have never needed to use my fire extinguisher.  In fact, I hope that I never need to use it.  Sometimes, I even forget that I have one.  Should I just get rid of it?  Not likely.  A fire extinguisher can keep a small fire from becoming a catastrophe. 

We inherited our constitutional monarchy from Great Britain.  The British North America Act, of 1867, (now called The Constitution Act, 1867), stated that Canada would have “a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom”.  That nifty bit of legal shorthand incorporated hundreds of years of constitutional development in which the absolute power of the monarch slowly transferred to an elected parliament.  However, the sovereignty of the nation remained vested in the reigning monarch.  While our monarch mostly performs symbolic duties, as sovereign he or she has always retained important powers.

What makes our constitution confusing is that a distinction is made between the day-to-day exercise of political power and the formal exercise of sovereign power.  Elected governments and prime ministers exercise real political power.  The monarch, or his or her representative the Governor General, only exercises formal sovereign powers.  For example, an elected government may pass new legislation in parliament, but only the monarch, or the Governor General, can transform an Act of Parliament into law by granting royal assent.  It is understood that parliament itself cannot make legislation into law.  It is also understood that the monarch will grant royal assent without question. 

So where do the monarch’s real powers lie?  To answer that question, we need to understand a little more constitutional law. 

As the absolute power of the monarch slowly transferred to an elected parliament, parliament itself evolved.  The statement that Canada would have “a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom” also imported the concept of responsible government.  Responsible government means that the government, strictly speaking, the prime minister and cabinet, is responsible to the House of Commons.  That is, the government only holds power with the support of a majority of the elected members of the House of Commons.  If the government loses a majority of support in the House of Commons, it is expected to either resign and let another political party form the government, or call an election.  In turn, the members of the House of Commons are responsible to the people of Canada. 

But what stops the prime minister from refusing to resign or call a new election? 

Our monarch!  That is our monarch’s primary role; to ensure that prime ministers comply with the constitution.  If a prime minister refuses to do so, the monarch can remove him or her.  That is when the monarch’s considerable sovereign powers come into play. 

King Charles is now Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, not the prime minister.  Likewise, King Charles is the Commissioner-in-Chief of the RCMP, not the prime minister.  In a constitutional crisis, the army and the RCMP would follow orders issued by King Charles, not the prime minister.  Further, all that King Charles has the authority to do would be to dismiss the current prime minister, and either appoint a new prime minister or call an election. 

He has no right to exercise any real political power.

Our system of government works so well, that such constitutional crises almost never occur.  Prime ministers never attempt to hold onto power.  Everyone knows the rules and follows the rules.  We never hear of anyone declaring themselves to be “prime minister for life.”

However, no system of government is always going to produce good government.  Much depends on the honesty and competency of those who are elected to office. 

People living in democracies are free to make bad choices when voting.  However, the advantage of responsible government is that it is quick and easy to remove unwanted politicians from office.  For instance, the once popular British Prime Minister Boris Johnson lost the support of the British Parliament in July of 2022 and was forced to resign.  Prime Minister Liz Truss, who replaced Johnson without having to call an election, was herself forced to resign in October of 2022.  In 1980 Canadian Prime Minister Joe Clark was forced to call an election because he had lost a majority support in the House of Commons.  In June of 1993, the once popular Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was forced to resign and was replaced by Kim Campbell as prime minister without calling an election.  

Like my fire extinguisher sitting unused, in none of these cases was Queen Elizabeth required to step in and exercise her sovereign powers.

If we were to abolish the monarch, as some people propose, what system of government would we replace it with?  The primary alternative to having a constitutional monarchy is for Canada to become a republic.  In a republic such as the United States, an elected president is both head of government and head of state.  That is, the president exercises both political power and sovereign power.  The President of the United States, for example, is Commander-in-Chief of the American armed forces.  When a president goes rogue, it can be difficult to enforce the Constitution against him or her.  Around the world, many elected presidents, such as Vladimir Putin in Russia, have become autocrats.  Many others have done their best to become autocrats, such Recep Erdoğan in Turkey. 

Many people bemoan the cost of having a monarchy.  However, does anyone really think that having an elected president would cost taxpayers less money?  Our Governor General costs far less than having an elected president, even including sometimes extravagant travel expenses.

So, whether you like King Charles as a person or not, Canadians are fortunate to have a hereditary monarch.

Trevor Schindeler

North Bay