The Constitution

Constitutional Monarchy: Debate on the Monarchy

In contrast to Australia, which held a referendum on the question of becoming a republic, there has been little national debate about ending the monarchy in Canada. This may be because Canadians have historically been more focused on more immediate political concerns such as national unity, and the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces. Historically, many Canadians have seen the monarchy as a traditional institution that forms a key part of the nation's raison d'être and justifies Canada's sovereignty from the United States. One of Canada's national myths is the story of the United Empire Loyalists, a group of British-North? American settlers who migrated from the United States to Canada after their homes were ransacked during the American Revolutionary War.

In recent years, a Canadian republican group has been formed, and some politicians, such as former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley, have expressed interest in ending the monarchy. In 2002, Canada's first nationally organised republican movement, the Citizens for a Canadian Republic, was established to bring the debate into the mainstream. The CCR promotes eliminating the Queen's role as Canada's head of state and replacing her with an elected president of some form. The monarchist side is represented by the Monarchist League of Canada. This national group was formed in 1970 and currently exists as a lobby group to advocate for, educate about, and promote the monarchy in Canada. Other politicians such as former Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps have been strong supporters of the monarchy in Canada. Copps was widely praised for her organisation of the Queen's Golden Jubilee tour of Canada in 2002.

Public opinion polls have clearly shown Canadians' mixed feelings towards the monarchy. Some polls show a majority of Canadians support the creation of a republic, while others show a majority favour retaining the current system. Generally, however, the prevailing mood towards the monarchy suggested by most polls is one of indifference or apathy.

Quebec, however, is currently the only province where the population might be seen as strongly supporting a republic. This sentiment became pronounced during the Queen's visit to Quebec City in 1964 when she was greeted by antimonarchist demonstrations. The route of her procession was lined with Quebecers showing their backs to the monarch. On Samedi de la matraque (Truncheon Saturday), police violently dispersed antimonarchist demonstrators and arrested 36, including some who were there to cheer the Queen. The Queen did not visit Quebec City again until 1987, and has rarely visited Quebec with the exception of Hull, which is across the river from Ottawa and within Canada's National Capital Region.

In 1976, many Quebec nationalists and sovereigntists complained about her role in officially opening the 1976 Montreal Olympics.

Today, many Quebec politicians, especially separatists in parties such as the Bloc Québécois, often actively ignore the governmental role of monarchy on the grounds that it is an institution of "English Canada" with no relevance to Quebec. However, for the same reason, they have not generally advocated republican reforms be taken, as they do not consider reforming Canadian institutions to be their responsibility. Quebec's former separatist premier Bernard Landry has said that if Quebec separates, the new nation would become a republic.

Since the mid-20th century there has been a downplaying of the role of the Crown in Canada. During the centennial year of Canadian confederation in 1967, some Canadian newspapers, including the Toronto Star, advocated the creation of a republic as a mark of the country's independence. While the Toronto Star is no longer officially pro-republic, through the 1990s The Globe and Mail advocated making the Governor General head of state in place of the monarch. From the early 1970s, references to the monarch and the monarchy were slowly removed from the public eye (e.g., the Queen's portrait from public buildings and schools, and the Royal Mail became a crown corporation, Canada Post). The Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force were merged into the unified Canadian Forces; however, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police remain the national police force. In recent years, there have been some attempts at removing references of the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance. So far, only the oath taken by federal public servants has been altered; new citizens, members of the armed forces and police forces, and Members of Parliament continue to give their allegiance to the Queen.

Some monarchists argue that the process of downplaying the monarchy has led to widespread misunderstandings about the institution and how Canada is governed.

Support and opposition

Monarchist arguments

Canadian monarchists have historically celebrated the monarchy as a link to the United Kingdom, and thus a tie to Canada's British heritage. However, in recent generations, Canada has become a nation in which only a minority of immigrants can now claim British roots. As such, while monarchists will still celebrate the monarchy as a historically significant institution, contemporary arguments will also often centre on the perceived political advantage of a constitutional monarchy system of governance, as well as what they assert are the distinct Canadian aspects of the Crown in Right of Canada, which is sometimes referred to by Canadian monarchists as the "Maple Crown." They state that as the Crown is shared with the other Commonwealth Realms in an equal fashion (by the Statute of Westminster), the monarchy is therefore partly Canadian. Some monarchists reject republican assertions that the monarchy as it operates within Canada is a British, rather than Canadian, institution.

Monarchists argue that the monarchy is a fundamentally unbiased institution, and the apolitical nature of the Crown enables the Queen to be a non-partisan figure who can act as an effective intermediary between Canada's various levels of government and political parties - an indispensable feature in a federal system. It is argued that the monarchy makes the provinces in their fields of jurisdiction as potent as the federal authority, thus allowing for a flexible federalism. Also, the Queen holds no favouritism towards any specific political party, group of voters, donors, etc., allowing them to be an unbiased referee during any potential governmental crisis.

Monarchists thus say that it is impossible to imagine that any elected head of state can remain as apolitical and unbiased as the Queen currently is. They argue that having both an elected president and prime minister could lead to the two coming to odds over who holds more authority; each could claim to be "elected by the people."

However, republicans have argued that the monarchy is not above politics. One example they point to is the alleged support King George VI and his wife, Queen Elizabeth showed for British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, by inviting him onto the balcony of Buckingham Palace upon his return from signing the Munich Pact with Nazi Germany. The King's decision to do this has been described by some as "unconstitutional."

Monarchists also argue that a republican head of state would cost more, not less, than the current monarchy due to additional costs involved in updating the Governor General's residences to full head of state presidential palace level, the costs of state visits, political advisers, increased ceremonial functions, etc.; functions that in many cases do not exist for a Governor General, given that he or she is not a full head of state, but which would be required for a Canadian president.

Republican arguments

Republicans have traditionally argued against the monarchy on the basis that it is a historic relic, or a colonial holdover with little relevance in modern Canada. Members of both the political left and right have also argued that it is an institution of elitism that undermines democracy. Republicans argue that the monarchy is not a Canadian institution but a foreign and specifically British one, even though the monarchy is no longer an exclusively British institution. Like monarchists, however, the majority of contemporary republican arguments tend to centre on political justifications of such a change.

In response to monarchist claims of neutrality, republicans will argue that it is entirely possible to have an apolitical, elected head of state. Perhaps it is even inevitable, given the current trend in government to make institutions more transparent, accountable and democratic. One example of this type of head of state in a Westminster-style parliamentary republic is the President of Ireland.

Republicans point out that in the current system, the prime minister is elected by his or her party, not by popular election. Canadians, therefore, do not vote for a prime minister; they vote for members belonging to the party that the prime minister leads. Also, there are other methods for electing a president, with popular election being only one option of many. India's republican system is a model many Canadian republicans see as one that could be applied at least in part in Canada. Other republicans argue that an elected president could serve as an effective check on the power of the prime minister, and help encourage a greater separation of power within the nation's political culture. The current powers of the Prime Minister of Canada are often criticised as being excessive, so the creation of a revised, independent executive branch may be a solution to this. The fact that these different arguments are often contradictory highlights the fact that in many cases Canadian republicans are not yet fully united on what sort of republican form of government they believe the nation should adopt. The Westminster-style parliamentary republican model, which is advocated by other Commonwealth republican movements, has been embraced by Citizens for a Canadian Republic as the preferred model for Canada.

Tony O'Donohue, a Canadian republican and civic politician, observed that the Act of Settlement 1701 explicitly excludes Roman Catholics from the throne and the Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, requiring her to be an Anglican. This discriminates against non-Anglicans, including Catholics who are the largest faith group in Canada. In 2002, O'Donohue launched an ultimately unsuccessful court action that argued the Act of Settlement violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that it discriminates against Catholics. His case was dismissed by the court, which found that as the Act of Settlement is part of the Canadian constitution, the Charter of Rights does not have supremacy over it. Also, the court pointed out that while Canada has the power to amend the line of succession to the Canadian Throne, the Statute of Westminster stipulates that the agreement of the governments of the fifteen other realms that share the Crown would first have to be sought if Canada wished to continue its relationship with the other Commonwealth Realms. An appeal of the decision was dismissed 16 March 2005.

In March 2004, Citizens for a Canadian Republic proposed changes that would avoid a new round of constitutional negotiations by advocating a parliamentary reform of the office of the governor general, an office generally expected to be transformed into a presidency should the monarchy end. The group claims their proposal will address divisive aspects such as the duties and selection process of the new head of state without constitutional amendment, leaving the remaining issue of who should occupy the position to be decided in a referendum. However, monarchists point out that this proposal does not address the provinces, especially concerning the importance of the Crown in their relationship with the federal government, and the positions and powers of the lieutenant-governors; both issues which would weigh heavily in any constitutional debate on the Crown, regardless of the selection process of the governor general.

One constitutional scholar, Ted McWhinney, has argued that Canada can become a republic upon the demise of the current Queen by not proclaiming a successor. However, McWhinney's proposal remains unstudied, and thus publicly unsupported by either the Canadian government or other constitutional experts. Monarchists have also pointed out that his proposal, like that put forward by republicans, assumes no input from the provinces regarding this attempt to change the status of the Crown and ignores certain prescriptive clauses of the Constitution Act, such as Sections 9 and 17.

The republican objectives of fellow Commonwealth Realms Australia, Jamaica, and Barbados could possibly factor into the Canadian debate. The Prime Minister of Barbados had set a goal for the end of 2005 for the country becoming a republic, however that deadline passed without consensus being reached. The Prime Minister of Jamaica has proposed same for his nation by 2007. However, both need only a majority vote in Parliament to implement, while Canada requires a much more difficult process to attain provincial consensus.

---

Related Links

• Monarchist League of Canada
• Canadian Monarchist ONLINE
• Citizens for a Canadian Republic