The federal decision not to strike a medal was a lost political opportunity. In every riding in the country, there are individuals and organizations who would appreciate receiving recognition by way of a royal honour.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 6, 2022.

OTTAWA—The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee should be a time of celebration.

After 70 years as monarch, Queen Elizabeth is much admired and beloved.

She has survived the 21st century with the same warts that mar most families. From Prince Charles’ divorce to the lascivious behaviour of Prince Andrew, her children are not the same role models that she has proved to be.

In-laws appear to be much more beloved by the public than the Royals themselves. And the more the descendants distance themselves from the family, the happier they seem to be.

The decision by Prince Harry and his partner Meghan Markle to detach themselves from monarchical duties is just one example of a changing dynasty.

Couple that with an insider allegation of racism, levelled by the first racialized spouse of a Royal, and you have trouble.

Meghan and Harry seem to have survived their relocation to the United States.

Just last week, media reports claimed that Markle was considering a run for public office in the United States, with a potential eye on future presidential ambitions.

ITV’S Good Morning Britain hosted U.S. President Joe Biden’s sister, Valerie, who predicted that Markle could run on the Democratic ticket as early as 2028.

While the future of some exiled Royals seems bright, the same cannot be said of the institution itself.

The jubilee has offered an opportunity to celebrate the Queen’s longevity, but it also highlights the debate about terminating Canada’s relationship with the Queen’s successor.

Based on media coverage, there has been more interest in getting rid of the institution than in embracing it.

Even Prince Charles’ successful Canadian trip did not get much attention.

At the end of the day, the majority of Canadians are not seized of the issue one way or another.

Even ministers don’t seem to have that much interest in rendezvousing with the Royal family, as evidenced by the paucity of public Canadian Platinum Jubilee activities.

The federal government did not even strike a medal for the seventieth regal anniversary.

Instead, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia have done it on their own. They are seeking permission to include their medals in the order of precedence to be worn along with other commemorative medals in the Canadian Honours System.

Not surprisingly, Quebec did not join those provinces who are striking a medal. But the absence of Ontario was surprising, given the evidence of United Empire Loyalist history throughout the province.

The federal decision not to strike a medal was a lost political opportunity. In every riding in the country, there are individuals and organizations who would appreciate receiving recognition by way of a royal honour.

The decision was likely a political one, with the government not wanting to draw too much attention to what can be a controversial subject. But it was a mistake not to strike a medal, if only to give Members of Parliament a chance to honour active volunteers in communities across the country.

Say what you like, very few people turn their noses down on a personal recognition.

For Members of Parliament, the medal award process is an opportunity to reach out to multiple constituents, with zero political risk.

It is one of the simplest ways of turning a former political enemy into a friend.

Those who dislike the Queen don’t need to be involved or invited, and those who support the monarchy will be forever grateful for the Canadian recognition.

Sometimes a Member of Parliament can actually build personal support by reaching out to Royal Canadian Legions and others in a medal ceremony.

In a sense, the missed medal opportunity is reflective of the country’s ambivalence toward the monarchy in general.

There are some avid supporters of the monarchy, but most Canadians do not feel strongly about the issue. The biggest question is what would happen if the monarchy were to become redundant.

In most instances, the governor general has become a respected representative of the Queen, in carrying out duties on behalf of the royals across the country.

Mary Simon, as Canada’s first Indigenous Governor General, is particularly impressive.

Even those who ruminate about abolition following the passing of Queen Elizabeth, have no idea what to replace her with.

Republicanism does not curry much favour with most Canadians.

Abolition poses more questions than answers, which is why a heated Australian vote rejected it.

It is much easier to support a 1,200-year-old monarchical system than to blow it up.

Canadians may not enjoy a platinum celebration this month. But the monarchy is here to stay.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

And if Canada decided to go the route of monarchical abolition, we would face the same question. If not the monarchy, how would we structure a republic?

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 15, 2021.

OTTAWA—Every few years, the idea of abolishing the monarchy dominates Canadian discourse.

The stars are aligning for another such discussion not likely to end any time soon.

The Queen is nearing the end of her reign. Her spouse is almost 100, and she will be 95 next month. Her Royal Highness is slowing down although still very active for a nonagenarian.

Prince Charles is next in line for the crown.

Unlike his children, the prince has not captured the imagination of the public. He has an awkward demeanour and doesn’t appear to have the modern touch that is so evident in both of his sons.

For a moment, the solution seemed simple. Jump a generation and pass the monarchy to Prince William and his perfect partner Kate Middleton.

Prince Harry was the wild child but when he settled down to marry Meghan Markle, it seemed as though the perfect Royal Family portrait was complete.

Not only did ‘The Firm’ enjoy deep British roots, but the family tree also finally reached across the pond to an American and broke a racial barrier with a non-white partner.

That was before the globally covered family feud started to fray this perfect picture at the seams.

Every family has problems, and if they say they don’t they are not telling the truth.

But rarely does insider’s dirt make such a public splash as that heard around the world when mega host Oprah Winfrey interviewed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex about the state of their wedded non-bliss.

The interview laid bare internal quarrels inside the family, which is known widely as the firm, including a claim that unnamed royals worried about the colour of son Archie’s skin.

The immediate reaction of the larger public is to revisit the status of Canada as a constitutional monarchy.

The timing couldn’t be better, some argue, as the abolition could be triggered by the death of the current monarch.

And Canada would not be the first Commonwealth country to consider a break with the motherland.

Australia underwent a bitter internal debate during a referendum on the monarchy back in 1999. The official position of the Labour Party and some Liberals and Greens is still the establishment of a republic. But multiple prime ministers of all persuasions have dodged the bullet of another referendum.

Part of the problem is that monarchical abolition needs a replacement. In Australia’s referendum, there were initially three different paths to republicanism.

And if Canada decided to go in that direction, we would face the same question.

If not the monarchy, how would we structure a republic?

The first challenge would be to determine whether the replacement would even be elected.

Historically, Canada has focused its referendum energy on figuring out the rules on how to break up our country.

There has been a period of historic calm in the push for Quebec separation. Most supporters of the Parti Québécois and the Bloc Québécois use their energy to focus on economic issues and how to exit the COVID crisis with the least loss of life and jobs.

But a constitutional referendum would undoubtedly let that genie out of the bottle.

The vast majority of Quebecers would likely support dissolution while the numbers in other parts of the country would be quite different.

It would be just another exacerbated example of the solitudes that have defined our Canadian identity. Separatists would use the disagreement to drive a bigger wedge between Quebec and the rest of us.

Meanwhile, the rationale behind abolishing the constitutional monarchy appears to be all tied up in family dynamics.

It must have been quite a sacrifice for Prince Harry and his bride to opt out of royal duties, but the bottom line is that they wanted out.

Initially, they said they were planning to come to Canada, and that could have stuck our country with the bill for their ongoing security.

The Canadian government pays nothing for the Royal Family’s ongoing living expenses in the United Kingdom. However, when they come for a visit, our government is responsible for their internal travel costs and the security attached to a royal visit.

All in all, it is a pretty small price to pay for a connection to the Commonwealth that has wrought many wonderful things.

Canada would never have hosted the Vancouver-Whistler Winter Olympics, if not for the support of most of the Commonwealth.

Historical ties that bind are worth breaking if they hurt.

So if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.