Republicanism in Canada - National Identity

National Identity

Monarchy and inherited rights in government, symbolic or otherwise, is a concept incompatible with Canadian values of egalitarianism.,

Republicans in Canada assert that their country's monarchy, due either to its popular associations with the United Kingdom, its shared nature, or both, cannot be representative of the Canadian nation. Their position is that because of its hereditary aspects, the sovereign's role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England (in England only), and the provisions of the Act of Settlement, 1701, that currently bar Roman Catholics from the line of succession, the monarchy is inherently contrary to egalitarianism and multiculturalism. Further, though it diverges from both the official position of the Canadian government and the opinions of some judges, legal scholars, and members of the Royal Family themselves, republicans deem the King or Queen of Canada to be either a solely British or English individual representing a British institution foreign to Canada. Founded on this perception is the republican assertion that national pride is diminished by the monarchy, its presence negating the country's full independence achieved in 1982, and makes Canada appear colonial and subservient to the United Kingdom, under which they feel Canadians suffered "military, economic, and cultural subjugation." Instead, equating anti-monarchism with patriotism, they desire a Canadian citizen to act as head of state, and promote the national flag and/or the "country" as a more fitting locus of allegiance.

This questioning of the monarchy's role in Canadian identity arose as a part of wider cultural changes that followed the evolution of the British Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations, the rise of anti-establishmentism, the creation of multiculturalism as an official policy in Canada, and the blossoming of Quebec separatism; the latter becoming the major impetus of political controversy around the Crown. Quebec nationalists agitated for an independent Quebec republic – such as the Marxist form desired by the Front de libération du Québec – and the monarchy was targeted as a symbol of anti-Anglophone demonstration, notably when assassination threats were in 1964 made against Queen Elizabeth II and Quebecers turned their backs on her procession when she toured Quebec City that year. In a 1970 speech to the Empire Club of Canada, Former Governor General Roland Michener summed up the contemporary arguments against the Crown: From its opponents, he said, came the claims that monarchies are unfashionable, republics – other than those with oppressive regimes – offer more freedom, people are given greater dignity from choosing their head of state, the monarchy is foreign and incompatible with Canada's multicultural society, and that there should be change for the sake of change alone.

However, though it was later thought the Quiet Revolution and the period beyond should have inspired more republicanism amongst Canadians, they did not. Reg Whitaker blamed this on a combination of Quebec nationalists having no interest in the monarchy (as full sovereignty and their own form of government was their ultimate goal) with the remainder of the population simultaneously struggling with "bilingualism, dualism, special status, distinct society, asymmetrical federalism, sovereignty-association, partnership, and so on." Even the rise in multi-ethnic immigration to Canada in the 1970s did not inspire any desires to alter or remove the role of the Crown in Canada, the ethno-cultural groups not wanting to push constitutional change over a matter they had little concern for.

Instead, until the appointment of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister, successive governments made subtle efforts to diminish the stature of the Canadian monarchy—as David Smith said: "the historic Crown with its anthem, emblems, and symbolism made accessible a past the government of the day rejected"—though never, since the reaction to some of Pierre Trudeau's proposals for alterations to the monarchy and its role in Canada, publicly revealing their stances on the Crown.

The notion of a republic was raised publicly in the early 1990s, when Peter C. Newman wrote in Maclean's that the monarchy should be abolished in favour of a head of state "who would reflect our own, instead of imported, values." Then, in 1997, Deputy Prime Minister John Manley echoed Newman when he expressed at the end of a television interview his opinion that Canada should abolish its monarchy, citing Australia's contemporary discussions around the Australian Crown. Then, in December of the following year, the Prime Minister's press secretary, Peter Donolo, who also complained that the monarch made Canada appear as a "colonial outpost", unaccountably announced through a media story that the Prime Minister's Office was considering the abolition of the monarchy as a millennium project, though no definitive plans had been made. Donolo later supported Manley when, on Victoria Day 2001, Manley said on CBC Radio that he believed that hereditary succession was outdated, and that the country's head of state should be elected. Then, just prior to the Queen's pan-country tour to celebrate her Golden Jubilee the following year, Manley (at that point the designated minister in attendance for the sovereign's arrival in Ottawa) again stated his preference for a "wholly Canadian" institution to replace the present monarchy after the reign of the Queen; he was rebuked by other Cabinet members, a former prime minister, and the Leader of the Opposition, as well as a number of prominent journalists. Then, in 2002, just prior to the Queen's pan-country tour to celebrate the Golden Jubilee, Manley (at that point the designated minister in attendance for the sovereign's arrival in Ottawa) stated: "I continue to think that for Canada after Queen Elizabeth, it should be time to consider a different institution for us, and personally I would prefer a wholly Canadian institution."

Lawrence Martin called for Canada to become a republic in order to re-brand the nation and better its standings in the international market, he cited Sweden – a constitutional monarchy – as an example to be followed.

In 2002, the group Citizens for a Canadian Republic was established to promote the abolition of the Canadian monarchy in favour of a republic, at approximately the same time The Globe and Mail newspaper began a campaign against the monarchy, with three republican journalists on staff – Margaret Wente, Jeffrey Simpson, and Lawrence Martin – though the editorial board argued Canada could dispose of its monarchy without becoming a republic. Tom Freda, chairman and co-founder of Citizens for a Canadian Republic, called for simply replacing the monarchy with the Governor General, saying that he's not in favour of destroying Canada's identity or cultural institutions: "All we're advocating is that the link to the monarchy, in our Constitution, be severed. Our governor general for the past 60 years has performed all the duties of a head of state, and there's no reason we shouldn't make our governor general our official head of state."

Such calls issued in 2009, at the time of the tour of Canada by Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, were critiqued by Maclean's journalist Andrew Coyne when he wrote: "The view is on parade again, in all its preening, modish finery, as it is on the occasion of any royal visit. It is a kind of custom, a ritual show of disloyalty as hoary in its way as any gathering of the Daughters of the Empire. Scarcely have the Queen or Prince Charles set foot on Canadian soil before they are greeted with a 21-gun salute of newspaper columns complaining at the outmodedness of it all. Here we are in the 21st century, and still a monarchy? Well, yes. And while we're at it, isn't democracy getting a little long in the tooth as well? How long has it been, 2,000 years? And that system of English common law, whew, isn't it time we replaced the liner on that?"