Debate On The Monarchy in Canada - The Debate

The Debate

In the early 19th century, reform-minded groups began to form in the British colonies in Canada; from them rose William Lyon Mackenzie, who, along with Louis-Joseph Papineau, was the first prominent proponent of a republican Canada. Their causes were countered by the Lieutenant Governors and Executive Council members at the time, as well as a majority of the colonists, who did not espouse a break with the Crown, and the rebellions ultimately failed.

In the lead-up to Confederation in 1867, there was debate over whether the new polity should adopt a republican or monarchical form of government.

Alistair Horne observed in the late 1950s that, while Canada's cultural mix grew, the monarchy remained held in high regard: "At its lowest common denominator, to the average Canadian— whether of British, French or Ukrainian extraction— the Crown is the one thing that he has that the rich and mighty Americans have not got. It makes him feel a little superior." However, at the same time, he noted that the institution was coming more into question in Quebec and that it was sometimes perceived as having a "colonial taint", but theorises that this was because Canadians had an inferiority complex in relation to the British.

Controversy arose in the run-up to the Queen's 1959 visit, when CBC personality Joyce Davidson, while being interviewed by Dave Garroway on NBC's Today Show, said that as an "average Canadian" she was "pretty indifferent" to the Queen's forthcoming visit. Davidson was lambasted in the Canadian press and by many indignant Canadians for her comment.

Debates over the monarchy and its place in Canada also took place through the 1960s and 1970s, following the rise of Quebec nationalism. Republican options were discussed following the sovereigntist Parti Québécois' (PQ) election to power in Quebec, but only specifically in relation to the province. However, the non-Quebecker attendees at the 1968 Constitutional Conference agreed that the monarchy had worked well and was not a matter for discussion.

The Cabinet in June 1978 put forward the constitutional amendment Bill C-60, that, amongst other changes, potentially affected the sovereign's role as head of state by vesting executive authority in the Governor General, and renaming the position as First Canadian. Some academics, such as Edward McWhinney, supported these proposals, though they were opposed by others, like Senator Eugene Forsey, who said that the government had managed to " up a hornet's nest with a short stick." From that year's First Ministers' conference in Regina, Saskatchewan, the provincial premiers (including that of Quebec) issued a statement against what they saw as a unilateral attempt by the federal government to push through alterations 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 the pleasure of the federal cabinet" – a message that was reiterated at the conclusion of the 1979 meeting, and echoed in newspaper editorials. Decades later, David Smith stated that the federal government at the time had "misperceived the complexity of the Crown failed... to recognize its federalist dimension."

After his press secretary, Peter Donolo, in 1998 unaccountably announced through a media story that the Prime Minister's Office was considering the abolition of the monarchy as a millennium project, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien stated that he was open to a public debate, but never pursued the matter and expressed concerns about resulting divisions, saying that he "already had enough trouble on hands with the separatists of Quebec, and didn't want to take on the monarchists in the rest of Canada, too."

Other media at the time noted that, though there was "no longer any strong idea behind the Canadian monarchy and its representative," in the absence of which "there can be no pulse in common between the people and their constitution," there simply was no debate about any republic amongst the general populace, with discussion limited to a political and journalistic few. An inadequate number of willing participants was pointed to as a reason for this phenomenon – which was seen as a manifestation of what Carolyn Tuohy had called Canada's "institutionalized ambivalence" – as well as a lack of alternate model to be discussed, with no method put forward by which the powers of the Crown could be soundly transferred to a president, no definitive solution to where Canadian sovereignty would be placed should the sovereign be removed from Canada, nor any means by which the constitutionally required consent of all 11 parliaments (one federal and 10 provincial) could be achieved. It was also theorised that Canadians had a growing sense of distrust for politicians (which is what a president would be), more pressing issues to deal with, and no appetite for nationally divisive constitutional change. Political scholar David Smith expressed his thoughts on how the Canadian monarchy had benefited from this dearth of discussion.

Debate on the monarchy was seen through the first decade of the 21st century in other Canadian media, generally at times of national significance, such as Canada Day and Victoria Day, or during a royal tour.

In 2007, Quebec's Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, Benoît Pelletier, expressed his opinion that it was "not impossible that we might have to reconsider the role of the monarch, the lieutenant governor, and the governor general... I'm not saying that the monarchy must be abolished, but it will take some thought, especially on its usefulness and relevance.

At the time of the visit in 2009 of Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, self-described monarchist Andrew Coyne characterized loyalty to Canada's monarchy as being "the obsession of a radical fringe group dismissively referred to as 'monarchists'." In the same article, he portrayed Canada as an "ancient kingdom" having had "nine French and nine English" kings and queens, argued that the debate was futile because the monarchy was here to stay given all the references to the "Queen" throughout the constitution, but then also called for importing "not just a King of Canada, but a Canadian King" that would reside permanently in Canada.