Debate on the monarchy in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In contrast with republicanism in Australia, there has been little national debate on the Monarchy in Canada.

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 separateness 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 the American Revolutionary War. A key justification for this migration was supposedly their Tory, monarchist beliefs which they felt the US revolution was betraying.

Today, polls show that many contemporary Canadians are simply unaware of the Crown's role in their system of government, though this does not necessarily reflect a decrease or increase in the Monarchy's popularity. A 2002 EKOS poll found that only 5% of Canadians could correctly identify Elizabeth II as Canada's Sovereign and Head of State.^[1]

[edit] Debate

[edit] History

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.

At the first meeting of the Constitutional Conference, held in Ottawa in February, 1968, delegates from Quebec indicated that a Provincial President might suit the Province better than a Lieutenant Governor. However, there was overall a feeling that the Monarchy "has served us well and that its reform has no great priority in the present round of constitutional changes."

Two years later, in 1970, members of the Parti Québécois refused to swear allegiance to the Queen, as required by the constitution; all the other parties in the National Assembly of Québéc agreed that the oath was outdated and should be amended.^[2]

Former Governor General Roland Michener

Governor General Roland Michener summed up in a speech in that same year:

"From the opponents of our monarchy, one hears: 1. [that] monarchies are out of fashion, 2. [that] republics give more freedom (if one is careful not to cite the Soviet Union, or numerous other republics with repressive regimes, which come readily to mind), 3. that it gives more dignity to humans to choose their own head of state, 4. that it is not Canadian but British; for this reason some regime of our own invention would be more acceptable to our multi-cultural society, 5. then there is the argument: 'change for its own sake'."

However, he went on to say further:

"On the other side of the case, I saw a very effective statement by one Robert H. Hilborn... 'The strength of the monarchy lies not in the power it gives the Sovereign but in the power that it denies to anyone else,' he commented as follows: 'The monarchy provides a basis for political continuity, so that parties can change but the essence and theory of government can continue... Its influence may be more apparent than real but it is real enough for a political system that works on consent'... The monarchy is beyond partisan politics which cannot be said of an elected head of state. In fact there have been numerous examples of battles for power between an elected president and his elected prime minister... [The Monarchy] is our own by inheritance and choice, and contributes much to our distinctive Canadian identity and our chances of independent survival amongst the republics of North and South America. Finally, from the polls it is clear that many Canadians refuse to consider the question at all on the simple ground that what we have works. Isn't this the acid test of any system?"^[3]

These arguments for and against reflect those put forward by Canadian monarchists and republicans over 35 years later.

Former Québec premier René Lévesque

During an interview in Saskatchewan, Parti Québécois leader, René Lévesque, when asked if there would be any role for the monarchy in a sovereign Quebec, stated: "Are you joking? Why? I have great respect for the Queen... but what the hell part should monarchy have in Quebec?" However, University of Toronto Professor Richard Toporoski held the theory that a sovereign, not independent, Quebec would still be under the sovereignty of the Queen; "...the real problem of the Quebec bill is not separation from Canada: Quebec has said that it wishes to preserve common elements - Canadian currency (issued officially by whom? - the Queen of Canada), for example, and the possibility of Quebec citizens being Canadian citizens (and who are Canadian citizens? - subjects of the Queen)."^[4] In 1976, many Quebec nationalists and sovereigntists complained about Queen Elizabeth's role in officially opening the 1976 Montreal Olympics. Lévesque sent a letter to the Queen asking that she turn down the invitation to open the games. She did not oblige this request.^[5]

Through the 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.

Still, the Monarchy held substantial support during this time, as was demonstrated in the public reaction to the government's Constitutional Amendment Bill C-60, put forward in June, 1978. Amongst other changes, it made propositions to vest executive authority in the Governor General, and rename the position as First Canadian. Some academics, Edward McWhinney for example, supported these changes, however they were strongly opposed by others. Senator Eugene Forsey said the government had managed to "[stir] up a hornet's nest with a short stick." From Regina, Saskatchewan, in 1978, the provincial premiers issued a disparaging statement against the federal government's attempt to unilaterally push changes to the Monarchy, and expressed their opposition to "constitutional changes that substitute for the Queen as ultimate authority a Governor General whose appointment and dismissal would be solely at the pleasure of the federal cabinet." This message was reiterated at the conclusion of the First Ministers conference in 1979. ^[6] Editorials in the Globe & Mail condemned the proposed changes to the constitution, describing such moves as "[a downgrading] of the symbol most central to Canada's identity," and "crypto-republicanism."^[6]

Leading up to the end of 1999, it was leaked from Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's office that there had been a plan for "severing the final ties" with the Monarchy by the turn of the new millennium. However, as soon as this was revealed, many denounced the plan, including Chrétien, who said on CTV News that the topic was not a Liberal priority, nor one for average Canadians, admitting "There's no big debate in Canada." A survey of commentary by the ten provincial premiers at the time revealed one in favour of a republic (Newfoundland), one abstaining from comment (Quebec), and the remaining eight in support of Canada's Monarchy. Also, after the initial story by Lawrence Martin for Southam Newspapers, in which he praised the move as "a burst of momentum and pride", many newspaper editorials were unsupportive of the initiative, with the Ottawa Citizen's headline reading: "Which millennium?" ^[7]

While the Toronto Star is now 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.

[edit] Present

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, 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 anti-monarchist 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 anti-monarchist 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.^[8]

Today, many Quebec politicians, especially separatists in parties such as the Bloc Québécois, often actively ignore the governmental role of the Monarchy, on the grounds that it is an institution of the federal government, with no relevance to Quebec. Still, for the same reason, they have not generally advocated republican reforms be taken either, 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.

A few federal politicians, however, have openly voiced their either republican or monarchist views. Much of this was triggered when then-Deputy Prime Minister John Manley stated in a 2002 interview that he was in favour of abolishing the monarchy - comments that came shortly before a scheduled royal tour of Canada. In general, aggressive monarchists and republicans remain fairly rare in Canada, with most simply accepting the status quo with little question. The Globe and Mail's Michael Valpy stated in a February, 2002, article, his seven statements on the Canadian Monarchy:

"1) In a 21st century, postmodern, multicultural, immigrant nation with floating global citizens and melted borders, having super-celebrity Elizabeth II as the head of state is funky. Charles as head of state will be funkier, more cool.

2) Constitutional monarchy is a gift to Canada's surly federalism

3) Canada has been a monarchy of some kind or another for 500 years. The tradition may be eccentric, it may be irrational, but it belongs to us, rooted deep in time in a world of nanosecond disposable obsolescence.

4) The Canadian Monarchy irritates the political, academic and journalistic elites. Good. If ever a country was overwhelmed by tedious, anal-retentive elites in need of irritation, it's this one.

5) The institution works. It works with a minimum of fuss, which is why we seldom think about it. It has been thoroughly Canadianized over the years, which is why - have you thought of this? - Conrad Black no longer lives here.

6) In a world ruled by widget-sellers and moneychangers, Canada has a head of state from the realms of fairy tales and imagination. Lucky us. (See Statement 5.)

7) Getting rid of the monarchy would be a constitutional nightmare."^[9]

Queen Elizabeth II with former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson during the Queen's 2005 tour of Saskatchewan and Manitoba

At the time of the Queen's 80th birthday, the Globe published an editorial echoing its former calls for the Governor General to become head of state, under the guise of "patriating the monarchy," and arguing that Canada could cut its ties to the Crown without becoming a republic. However, in response to this, the Globe published a piece by John Ibbitson which denounced the editorial board's reasoning as flawed and contradictory.

In recent years, there have been some attempts at removing references to the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Citizenship. In the latter case immigration issues drive the discussion for change. To date, only the oath taken by federal public servants has been altered, but they continue to sign contracts with the Queen in the right of Canada. New citizens, members of the armed forces and police forces, and Members of Parliament continue to take Oaths of 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.

[edit] Citizens' groups

The Monarchist League of Canada, a national group founded in 1970, and currently existing as a lobby group to advocate for, educate about, and promote the Canadian Monarchy, formed to counter the anti-monarchy moves by the Trudeau government of the time. Politicians such as former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and Richard Hatfield were ardent believers in Canada's constitutional monarchy. Other recent politicians such as present Prime Minister Stephen Harper and 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.

In recent years some politicians, such as former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley, have expressed interest in ending the monarchy. In 2002, Canada's first nationally-organized 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.

[edit] Support and opposition

[edit] Monarchist arguments

In philosophy and political science, two broad justifications are given for monarchy: the doctrine that monarchs are part of a social contract, founded on the autonomy of the individual (illustrated in the reciprocal Coronation Oath and Oath of Allegiance), and the doctrine that the monarch is an embodiment of the will and character of a people.

The Monarchy's use as a living symbol of Canada's history is also seen as a fundamental asset, as well ae Monarch's position above the political fray; this removal of partisanship from the office allows it to be representative, not only symbolically but also functionally, of every member of the nation, regardless of their personal views, ethnic background, or financial standing. NDP MP Bill Blaikie said: "[The Queen] symbolizes for many the merits of a constitutional monarchy in which the head of state... is separate and apart from the ongoing political struggles of the day."^[10]

Thus, while monarchists will today still celebrate the Monarchy as an institution significant within Canada's history, and as a tie to numerous other diverse nations around the world with a shared history, contemporary arguments will also often centre on the perceived political advantage of a constitutional monarchy system of governance, as an integral part of the functioning of Canada's modern government, 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."^[11]

[edit] History and symbolism

Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, with the Canadian flag, and wearing the regalia of the Canadian Monarch (the Sovereign's insignias of the Order of Canada and the Order of Military Merit) symbolising her role as Queen of Canada as separate from her position as Queen of the United Kingdom.

Canadian monarchists, in particular, historically celebrated the Monarchy as a link to the United Kingdom and British Empire, and thus a tie to Canada's British heritage. However, with the decline of Empire, and in reaction to Quebec separatism, the enhancement of multiculturalism as an official policy, and the growth of a distinct Canadian nationalism through the 1970s and 80s, less and less attention was paid to Canada's British heritage, of which the Monarchy was deemed to be at least partly representative. Into the 1990s the Monarchy began to take on more distinctively Canadian aspects, including the enhancement of the role of the Governor General as a national and international representative of the Queen and Canada, as well as the federal and provincial governments recognising and promoting the Queen's role as Monarch of Canada as separate to her position as Queen of the United Kingdom.

Monarchists 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; a perception in line with the Department of Canadian Heritage.^[12] Also, monarchists such as Stephen Phillips reject republican assertions that the Monarchy as it operates within Canada is a British, rather than Canadian, institution. The Canadian Crown, it is argued, is the modern incarnation of an unbroken chain of monarchs starting with the first European settlement in Canada, which gives Canada an apolitical institution that embodies the country's long history. Monarchists state that because of this monarchical history, republicanism is not a part of the Canadian psyche, and any move towards such an end, without provocation or real reason, would run contrary to the national persona.

It will often also be argued that the Sovereign acts as the symbolic head of the "Canadian national family"; as monarchist Father Jacques Monet expressed: "Her Majesty remains at the head of the State, the living symbol of the roots and continuity of the values we hold in common and those that are our permanent ideals... She is the one entrusted with the conscience of the nation..." Journalist Andrew Coyne said in 2002: "...our ability to love inclines most naturally to persons, and in the person of the Queen we can invest all those many fractured loves that make up patriotic love: love of country, love of nation, love of culture, love of land, all combined and channeled through one person, one family..."^[13] This, it is asserted, puts a human face on government, as opposed to republics where the objective constitution or flag is revered in place of a human being, and allows people to give allegiance to a person, rather than inanimate objects, or vague notions such as "the land" or "the country." It is also seen by monarchists as making the Sovereign an ideal representative of the Canadian state, as opposed to a president, who, due to the election process, would cause a relative amount of division between his or her supporters and detractors. Monarchists opine that in a country such as Canada, where regional, linguistic, and cultural divisions already exist, a divisive head of state would be detrimental rather than beneficial.^[10]

Sir John A. Macdonald, one of the Fathers of Confederation, who upheld the monarchical principal in Canada.

John A. Macdonald, speaking in 1865 about the proposals for the upcoming confederation of Canada, said:

"By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practise of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle - the sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized so that we shall have a sovereign who is placed above the region of party — to whom all parties look up; who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another; who is the common head and sovereign of all."^[14]

[edit] Democratic principals and governmental role

Monarchists argue that the Monarchy is a democratic institution as the position of Canadian Monarch is created, and filled, by and according to the Canadian constitution, which continues to be supported by the Canadian people through their elected representatives in government. Further it is stated that the Crown is a fundamentally unbiased institution, and its apolitical nature enables the Queen, or her vice-regal representative, to not only represent all Canadians, regardless of age, race, gender, income, or political leanings (again demonstrating a democratic nature), but also 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.^[10] Ireland, whose presidency is one which Canadian republicans theorise could be copied in Canada, is not a federated country, and thus a hypothetical Canadian president's role would not be the same as that in Ireland.

Further information: Monarchy in the Canadian provinces

Also, the Queen holds no favouritism towards any specific political party, group of voters, donors, etc., theoretically allowing her, or her representatives, to be an unbiased referee during any potential governmental crisis. The fact that the Crown holds all executive authority is seen as a bonus by monarchists, who state that the Crown is a guarantor against the misuse of constitutional power by politicians for personal gain, and has the usefulness of an observer within the Executive who is unaffiliated with political parties, who does not owe her job security to the Prime Minister of the day, and who can afford to scrutinise political controversies that may sweep the incumbent Prime Minister from office.^[10] The Monarch has no policy powers - that is the domain of the elected government, headed by the Prime Minister - but is a required, formal co-signatory to political instruments, who has a personal stake in protecting constitutional government from non-justifiable abuses. The most famous advocates of this view were Canadian historian Eugene Forsey (a Canadian Senator, whose defence of the monarchy formed part of his doctoral thesis in history at Oxford) and Australian lawyer H.V. Evatt (later a High Court Judge and Australian attorney-general, whose treatment of Westminster law concerning the monarch and reserve powers was the basis of his doctoral thesis in law). It is interesting to note that both Forsey and Evatt were social democrats, heavily involved in the labour movements of their respective countries. Their work built on that of Alpheus Todd, the 19th century librarian of the Canadian House of Commons. Todd's encyclopedic work effectively contradicted the popularly-known, class-obsessed treatise by Walter Bagehot, whose opinions on the monarchy as a "bauble" to distract the "lower" classes remain influential in Britain. In recent decades Bagehot has been effectively discredited, his historical, political and legal assumptions disproved. (For example, his belief that the Queen's position exists solely at the pleasure of the Parliament, without reference to the electorate, does not withstand detailed scrutiny.)

Despite any public perception of wealth and privilege associated with monarchy, the Todd/Evatt/Forsey case argues that the reserve powers of the Crown and the peculiar nature of the office render it a useful, if limited, asset against the "presidential" aspirations of prime ministers, and a superior safeguard for Executive oversight than anything available in a republican context. The case suggests she is an external observer who, when combined with the conventions of ministerial responsibility, enhances the democratic accountability of the Executive branch to the elected legislature, and the accountability of the elected legislature to the electorate. Put simply, requiring prime ministers to bow the knee and show deference and humility on a regular basis is a useful way of keeping their egos under control.^[15]

The analogy monarchists use is that the Crown is like a fire extinguisher: rarely used, but highly visible and there in case of emergencies. As Earl Russell put it in The Spectator in 1997: "The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, and there is a lot of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing." Or, as Sir Michael Forsyth said in 1999: "The monarchy's most important constitutional function is simply to be there: by occupying the constitutional high ground, it denies access to more sinister forces; to a partisan or corrupt president, divisive of the nation; or even to a dictator. The Queen's powers are a vital safeguard of democracy and liberty."

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", as happened in East Timor in 2006.

[edit] Costs

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.²

[edit] Quebec

In response to the republican claim that Canada becoming a republic would appease the drive for Quebec sovereignty, monarchists say that those in Quebec who wish for their province to secede from confederation view any federal authority as repressive, regardless of whether that authority is republican or monarchical; hence, the future of the Monarchy is regarded as a non-issue by separatist parties like the Bloc and Parti Québécois. Monarchists also say that Canadian presidents would be more often selected by and/or from the majority English population of the country, and thus sovereigntists would argue that Quebecois are not being represented by the head of state.

[edit] Constitutional implications

The difficulty of removing the Monarchy is also pointed out by Canadian monarchists; namely the amending formula of the Constitution which states that any alteration to the Crown requires the consent not only of both Houses of Parliament, but also of the legislatures of all ten provinces. Further, Dr. Stephen Phillips, Chair of the Department of Political Science at Langara College, stated the Crown was more entrenched in Canada than generally realised, with three reasons to support this opinion: 1) "The Monarchy has undergone profound change since Confederation... By surviving and being itself transformed by, Canada's transition from the status of a self-governing Dominion to that of a fully independent state, the Crown arguably pre-empted the rise of a republican movement in Canada of any significance. 2) "The institution of the Monarchy in Canada... performs its political functions satisfactorily for the most part. This makes it difficult for republicans to build popular support for its abolition." And 3) "The Monarchy today has a powerful, if under-stated, symbolic value to many English-speaking Canadians. In particular, the Crown is an important sense of their identity vis-a-vis the United States."^[16]

[edit] Republican arguments

[edit] Symbolism

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.^{[citation needed]} 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.

[edit] Political role

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 a 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 criticized 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.

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.

[edit] Constitutional implications

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.

[edit] Other Commonwealth Realms

Republican objectives within fellow Commonwealth Realms Australia, Jamaica and Barbados could possibly factor into the Canadian debate. The Prime Minister of Jamaica has proposed that Jamaica become a republic by 2007. However, he needs only a majority vote in Parliament to implement, while Canada requires a much more difficult process to attain provincial consensus.

Further information: Canadian republicanism

[edit] Polls

At the time when Canada was beginning to consider constitutional changes in the late 1960s, the role of the Monarchy came somewhat into question. However, it was deemed to be "no great priority in the present round of constitutional changes." Reflecting this, four opinion polls conducted in 1970 showed the Monarchy was favoured by 2/3 of the Canadians questioned.

That year, the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion asked nationally: "Do you think Canada should continue to pay allegiance to The Queen, or do you think we should become a republic with an elected president?" To this, 50% said Yes, 33% favoured a republic, and 17% declined to answer. Further, the answer was different by regions; in Quebec 46% favoured a republic as against 23% for monarchy, and 31% offered no opinion. In Ontario the Monarchy was favoured well above the national average, and the West was even higher. Older persons (over 50 years) were stronger advocates of the Monarchy than any other age group, although even those in their 20s gave preference to the Monarchy.

Another 1970 poll revealed that in Canada, exclusive of Quebec, the Crown was of no issue to 37%, and a further 41% were rated as loyalists, although many of those older ones "recognized that youth had different ideas which might have an effect in the future."^[19]

Support for the monarchy in Canada dropped to record lows in the late 1990s. In the first half of the new century, support for the monarchy has risen to include the majority of Canadians. However, the fact that many Canadians continue to not completely understand exactly what a "Head of State" is, or the exact nature of the Queen's current role in Canada can cause some problems in drawing concrete conclusions from poll results.

In 2002, the year of the Queen's golden jubilee, polls were taken by Canada's three biggest polling firms on Canadian views of the monarchy.

• The 2002 Ekos poll found that support for abolition of the monarchy is declining, yet also highlighted many contradictions in public opinion. 48% agreed and 35% disagree with the statement, "Instead of a British monarch, we should have a Canadian citizen as our head of state." Yet at the same time 43% disagreed and 41% agreed to the same question, worded slightly differently: "it's time to abolish the monarchy in Canada." Again, monarchists suggest the confusion may arise from the skewed question which refers to the "British monarch" as Canada's head of state. (As the distinct Queen of Canada, sovereign of the Canadian Crown, many argue the monarchy is, in part, Canadian.) Only 5% were even aware that the Queen was in fact Canada's head of state, with 69% thinking it was the Prime Minister and 9% believing it was the Governor General. 55% agree that the monarchy keeps Canada distinct from the United States, while 33% disagree. This survey has often been cited as evidence of the lack of knowledge that many Canadians have of their government's institutions and functions. (Poll results—PDF document)

• The 2002 Ipsos-Reid poll found that 79% of Canadians support "the constitutional monarchy as Canada's form of government where we elect governments whose leader becomes Prime Minister." However, republicans suggest the result may have been skewed by the inclusion of "where we elect governments whose leader becomes Prime Minister." Also, 62% believe the monarchy helps to define Canada's identity. At the same time, 48% of Canadians say that "the constitutional monarchy is outmoded and would prefer a republican system of government with an elected head of state" and two-thirds (65%) believe the royals are merely celebrities and should not have any formal role in Canada. The same poll also found that 58% believe that "the issue of the monarchy and the form of Canada’s government isn’t important to them and if the system is working OK why go through all the fuss to change it." (Poll results—PDF document)

• The 2002 Leger Marketing poll found 50% said "yes" to the statement, "Elizabeth II is currently the Queen of Canada. Do you (yes or no) want Canada to maintain the monarchy?" 43% said "no". Also, a majority (56%) said "yes" to: "In your opinion, should we replace the head of Queen Elizabeth II on the Canadian dollar by those of people who have influenced Canadian history?" 39% said "no". (Poll results—PDF document)

• A March 2005 poll prepared by Pollara Inc. for Rogers Media Inc. and Maclean's indicated that 46% supported, while 37% opposed the statement: "Do you support or oppose Canada replacing the British Monarch as Canadian Head of State?" (Source: Maclean's magazine, March 21, 2005, p.15). This survey was deemed by monarchists as skewed for two reasons: It mentioned the "British Monarch" rather than the "Queen of Canada", and it was taken at after the announcement of Prince Charles's marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles — an announcement that was seen as unpopular even by some monarchists.

[edit] See also

• National symbols of Canada
• Monarchism in Canada
• Canadian Republicanism
• History of monarchy in Canada
• Oath of citizenship (Canada)
• Oath of Allegiance (Canada)
• Monarchy in Australia
• British Monarchy

[edit] References

1. ^ Eskos poll
2. ^ CBC Archives: René, The Queen and the FLQ
3. ^ Speech by Governor General Roland Michener, Nov. 19, 1970
4. ^ Toporoski, Richard; A Subject Speaks: Separation & The Crown; April, 1996
5. ^ CBC Archives: René, The Queen and the FLQ
6. ^ ^{a b c} Phillips, Dr. Stephen; Republicanism in Canada in the reign of Elizabeth II: the dog that didn't bark; Summer 2004
7. ^ Premiers Nix Monarchy Abolition: "NOT A GOVERNMENT PROJECT AT THIS POINT"
8. ^ CBC Archives
9. ^ Valpy, Michael; The Globe and Mail: Reasons to love the Queen: No. 1, she's funky; Saturday, February 2, 2002
10. ^ ^{a b c d e f} [http://www.monarchist.ca/new/arguments.html Monarchist League of Canada: A Crown for the 21st Century: Arguments in Support of Canada's Constitutional Monarchy
11. ^ Arguments for the Maple Crown
12. ^ [www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/fr-rf/index_e.cfm Department of Canadian Heritage, The Canadian Monarchy]
13. ^ Coyne, Andrew; Southam Press; April 10, 2002
14. ^ Macdonald, John A.; On Canadian Confederation; 1865
15. ^ See Nigel Greenwood, For the Sovereignty of the People, Australian Academic Press, 1999, for a discussion of the Crown as a legal and political instrument of parliamentary democracy in the Westminster system, giving a detailed examination of Todd, Evatt and Forsey, and a contrast-and-compare of modern US and French problems with 20th Century executive lawlessness; e.g. the post-Watergate findings of the US congressional committees re the absence of an executive figure outside the corrupted chain of command. See also Evatt and Forsey on the Reserve Powers, Legal Books, Sydney Australia, 1990; Todd, A., Parliamentary Government in England, Longman Green, London 1869.
16. ^ Dr. Phillips, Stephen; Canadian Monarchist News, Republicanism in Canada in the Reign of Elizabeth II: the Dog that Didn't Bark; Summer, 2004
17. ^ Citizens for a Canadian Republic: Goals
18. ^ Monarchy Free Canada: Republican quotes; Wente, Margaret; Globe and Mail; February 2001
19. ^ Speech by Governor General Roland Michener, Nov. 19, 1970