Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miesianiacal (talk | contribs) at 14:03, 28 June 2010 (rm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Debate between monarchists and republicans in Canada has been taking place since before the country's Confederation in 1867, though it has rarely been of significance since the rebellions of 1837. Open support for republicanism only came from the Patriotes in the early 19th century, the Red River Métis in 1869, and minor actions by the Fenians throughout the 1800s. However, paralleling the changes in constitutional law that saw the creation of a legally distinct Canadian monarchy shared with the other Commonwealth realms, the emergence in the 1960s of Quebec nationalism, and the evolution of Canadian nationalism, the cultural role and relevance of the monarchy altered and was sometimes questioned in certain circles, while continuing to receive support in others.

It has been estimated that only 0.6% of the population is actively engaged in any debate about a republic.

The debate

In the early 1800s, 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 Ukranian 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 theoriese 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 2000s 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, Andrew Coyne wrote in Maclean's: "e are not, as some imagine, a young country. We are an ancient kingdom, with a history of continuous monarchical rule stretching back nearly five centuries. For 20 generations it has endured, each king ascending on the death of the last—the Conquest is the sole discontinuity—much as 20 generations of Canadians have built upon their parents' legacy. You either think there is something glorious in that, or else you find it a little embarrassing. You either think this country is the cumulative work of generations, or you imagine it all began yesterday." Coyne went on to opine that the debate was ultimately futile, given the monarchy's place in Canada's constitution.

Polls

When constitutional amendments were being considered in the 1960s, the role of the monarchy was not strenuously questioned, as it was deemed to be "no great priority in the present round of constitutional changes." This statement was reflected in the four opinion polls conducted in 1970, which showed that the monarchy was favoured by two thirds of those questioned. 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% opted for retention of the status quo, 33% favoured a republic, and the remainder declined to answer. Further, the answers differed by region: in Quebec, 46% wished for a republic as against 23% for monarchy, while in Ontario the monarchy was favoured well above the national average, and support was even higher in the western provinces. Older persons (over 50 years) were the strongest advocates for the monarchy than any other age group, although those in their 20s also gave their preference for the Crown. Similarly, another poll that year revealed that in Canada, exclusive of Quebec, the monarchy was of no issue to 37% of the populace, and a further 41% rated themselves as loyalists, although many of the older responders "recognised that youth had different ideas which might have an effect in the future."

Through the 1990s, the Angus Reid Group conducted two national polls on the monarchy, one in 1993 and the other three years following. Both asked the question: "Thinking about the monarchy's role here in Canada, all things considered, do you think Canada should preserve its formal constitutional connection with the monarchy, or should Canada move to abolish its formal constitutional connection with the monarchy?" The responses in 1993 were 51% supporting and 42% opposing abolition, and in 1996 were 47% supporting and 44% opposing removal of the Crown. Monarchists found the wording of the question in these polls to have been the least biased of any survey taken on the subject of the monarchy from 1993 onwards. Republicans, however, felt the question's wording had influenced the results, with "preserve" indicating the safe status quo, and "abolish" sounding more violent. Another poll by Pollara in 1997 asked: "As you may know, Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain is also Queen of Canada, our official head of state. Do you favour or oppose abolishing the monarchy when the present Queen dies and having a Canadian head of state, or does it really make no difference to you?" The results were 41% favouring abolition, 18% opposing, and 39% not caring. While monarchists and republicans agreed that the wording was weighted, each thought so for different reasons; monarchists felt the Queen was made to appear as un-Canadian, wile republicans felt it was made too easy for respondents to offer a neutral response. Then, in 1999, Gallup surveyed Canadians, asking them: "Do you believe Canada should have a monarch as its head of state, or should Canada discontinue its ties with the monarchy?" 48% said the monarchy should continue, 43% said it should discontinue, and 9% offered no opinion. Republicans were disappointed with this question, stating that the alternative presented should have been "a Canadian citizen" or continued "ties with the monarchy", the exact type of wording monarchists felt skewed later polls.

A poll conducted by EKOS Research Associates in 2002 showed that support for the abolition of the monarchy was declining, yet also highlighted a number of contradictions in public opinion. 48% of respondents agreed and 35% disagreed 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 statement worded slightly differently: "it's time to abolish the monarchy in Canada," results that differed from those found in 1996, when 27% disagreed and 47% agreed. Monarchists suggested that the confusion may have been due to the skewed question that referred to a "British monarch" as Canada's head of state, unreflective of the reality that for Canada the sovereign served distinctly as the monarch of Canada. Indeed, only 5% of those surveyed 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. Still, 55% agreed that the monarchy kept Canada distinct from the United States, while 33% disagreed.

Ipsos-Reid also took a poll in 2002, and found that 79% of Canadians supported "the constitutional monarchy as Canada's form of government where we elect governments whose leader becomes Prime Minister," and a further 62% believed the monarchy helped to define Canada's identity. At the same time, however, 48% of Canadians said that "the constitutional monarchy is outmoded and would prefer a republican system of government with an elected head of state, like in the United States," and 65% believed that the royals were simply celebrities who should not have any formal role in Canada. The same poll found that 58% of the population felt 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?"

Two other firms conducted polls on the monarchy in 2002: Léger Marketing's showed that 50% said yes and 43% said no to the statement: "Elizabeth II is currently the Queen of Canada. Do you (yes or no) want Canada to maintain the monarchy?" Also, a majority (56%) answered in the affirmative and 39% negatively to the question: "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?" Monarchists were wary of the latter question's assumption that Queen Elizabeth had somehow not been influential in Canadian history, while republicans felt that the first question led respondents to answer in favour of the monarchy because the words "maintain the monarchy" implied safety and the status quo. The survey taken by COMPAS, as commissioned by the National Post/Global Television media outlet, showed that 63% of Canadians "believe the monarchy should retain or strengthen its role in Canada," while 12% felt moderately that the monarchy should be abolished, and 18% felt strongly about the same. 69% agreed with the statement: "the government accepts the Monarchy but doesn't give it much thought."

In 2005, The Strategic Counsel polled Canadians for The Globe and Mail, asking: "When you think of the Governor General of Canada, do you regard this position as very important, somewhat important, not very important, or not at all important to Canada?", to which a net 57% felt the viceroy was important, and 39% expressed the opposite opinion. To the question: "Under the Canadian Constitution, Queen Elizabeth holds the position of Head of State. The Governor General is the Queen's representative in Canada. Do you support or oppose that the British monarchy remain the Head of State in Canada?", the results were split with an identical 47% opposing and supporting, and 9% undecided. That same year, Rogers Media and Maclean's commissioned Pollara to mount a poll, which revealed that 46% supported and 37% opposed the question: "Do you support or oppose Canada replacing the British Monarch as Canadian Head of State?" 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 conducted after the announcement of Prince Charles's marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles– an announcement that was unpopular, even with some monarchists.

In 2007, Angus Reid Strategies took an online survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,032 Canadians, asking the question: "Under the terms of the Canadian Constitution, Queen Elizabeth II holds the position of Canada's head of state. Would you support or oppose Canada ending its formal ties to the British monarchy?" Supporters totalled 53%, 12% were unsure, and 35% expressed opposition. When asked the same question but also to consider Prince Charles as king, support for ending the monarchy was tallied at 55%, with 13% unsure, and 31% opposed. Monarchists perceived four flaws with this poll: the question referred to "formal ties", implying that the monarchy was both perfunctory and restraining; the reference to the Canadian monarchy as the "British monarchy" implied the institution was foreign; and the entire question was worded to favour a response that was negative towards the Crown, only a negative response to the question bringing a favourable result for the monarchy. Confusion was also expressed over the results of a third question in the poll that asked respondents: "Thinking about the future King of the United Kingdom and Canada, which of these options would you prefer?" with the three options being: Prince Charles succeeding Elizabeth II, Prince William succeeding Elizabeth II, or "neither, there should be no monarch after Queen Elizabeth II." The results were, respectively, 20%, 35% and 29%, inconsistently with the 55% support found for ending the monarchy by the initial question.

Despite its Director of Global Studies having received, according to the Monarchist League, the MLC Chariman's comments regarding freighted wording of questions, Angus Reid conducted another poll in 2008 in which people were again asked about "formal ties" with the "British monarchy", with 55% of respondents supporting an end to them. This figure rose to 58% when respondents were asked to consider the prospect of Prince Charles as our head of state. This poll also, however, revealed the same discrepancy as that which emerged in the poll Angus Reid had taken the previous year, where only 32% said there should be no monarch following Elizabeth II. Further, just 25% of those aged between 18 and 34 strongly supported abolition of the Crown, with the result rising only 2% when considering Charles as king.

A 2009 poll by Léger Marketing revealed that 78% of Quebecers qualified the institution as "useless", while only 11% wanted to maintain it. Canadians were more divided on the question, with 45% thinking that the monarchy is useless and 44% that it's a great tradition that should be maintained.

Reader's Digest in 2009 commissioned Harris-Decima to conduct a survey that found Queen Elizabeth II to be the person second-most trusted by Canadians, following behind David Suzuki.

The fact that many Canadians continue to not completely understand exactly what a head of state is, or the true nature of the Canadian monarch's role, can cause problems in drawing concrete conclusions from poll results. For instance, Michael Valpy pointed out in The Globe and Mail that the prevailing mood towards the monarchy suggested that there was no great need seen for changing the system; that, in and around 2002, polls showed that younger Canadians demonstrated majority support for the monarchy; and that, in general, Canadians took the attitude that if the institution works, don't fix it. On the other hand, Citizens for a Canadian Republic interpreted the results of the four polls conducted in 2002 as showing a majority of Canadians supporting the ending of the monarchy in three, and support divided equally for both camps in one.

According to an October 2009 poll commissioned by "Canadian Friends of the Royal Family" and conducted by the Navigator firm, more than 60% of Canadians felt that constitutional monarchy was an outdated form of government. At the same time, polls also found that nearly 60% approved of Prince Charles becoming king, and showed 53% desiring a severance of "ties" to the monarchy, 49% agreeing the country should be a republic with an elected head of state.

See also

• History of monarchy in Canada
• National symbols of Canada
• Annexationist movements of Canada
• Republicanism in Australia

Notes

1. In an interview in Saskatchewan, and in response to a question on the role of the monarchy in a sovereign Quebec, René Lévesque responded: "Are you joking? Why? I have great respect for the Queen... but what the hell part should monarchy have in Quebec?"
2. The Globe and Mail condemned the proposed changes as " of the symbol most central to Canada's identity" and "crypto-republicanism."
3. Valpy claimed about the debate: "The push to get rid of the Canadian monarchy comes from people like Citizenship Minister Lucienne Robillard who don't understand it, from people in the Prime Minister's Office desperate for something to merchandise as an idea, and from an arid assemblage of academic, bureaucratic and journalistic elites cemented into some curious antediluvian profession of anticolonialism and sort-of nationalism indecipherable in 1999 to all but themselves.
4. Reg Whitaker said on this: "If sovereignty is now to be vested in the Canadian nation or the Canadian people, what precisely is this? Is it Canada including a Quebec that thinks of itself as a different, perhaps separate nation? Is it Preston Manning's "New Canada," shorn one way or another of a distinctive Quebec? Is it a two-headed, dualist sovereign nation, perhaps even sprouting additional heads– Aboriginal nations, regional identities– like some genetically engineered Medusa?"

References

1. Smith, David. Watson, William (ed.). Policy Options: Bye-Bye for Good?. No. May 1999. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. p. 8 http://www.irpp.org/po/. Retrieved 10 February 2009. {{cite news}}: |contribution= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. ^ Hanon, Andrew (20 May 2005). "Monarchists, republicans square off" (). Edmonton Sun. Retrieved 17 February 2009.
3. Philips, Stephen (Summer 2003). "The Emergence of a Canadian Monarchy: 1867-1953" (PDF). Canadian Monarchist News. 7 (4). Toronto: Monarchist League of Canada: 1–2. Retrieved 8 February 2009.
4. Chevrier, Marc (2001). "Our Republic in America". In Venne, Michel (ed.). Vive Quebec!: new thinking and new approaches to the Quebec nation. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company. p. 87. ISBN 9-7815-5028-7349.
5. Horne, Alistair (2007), Cohen, Andrew (ed.), The Unfinished Canadian, Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, p. 42, ISBN 978-0771022869
6. Buckner, Phillip (2005), "The Last Great Royal Tour: Queen Elizabeth's 1959 Tour to Canada", in Buckner, Phillip (ed.), Canada and the End of Empire, Vancouver: UBC Press, p. 85, ISBN 0-7748-0915-9, retrieved 24 October 2009
7. "René, The Queen and the FLQ". CBC. Retrieved 10 February 2009.
8. ^ Michener, Roland (1971) . "The Empire Club of Canada Speeches 1970-1971". Toronto: The Empire Club Foundation. pp. 130–149. Retrieved 10 February 2009.
9. Heinricks, Geoff (2001). "Trudeau and the Monarchy". Canadian Monarchist News (Winter/Spring 2001-2001). Toronto: Monarchist League of Canada (published July 2001). Retrieved 10 February 2009. {{cite journal}}: |contribution= ignored (help)
10. ^ (Smith, p. 11)
11. ^ Phillips, Stephen. "Republicanism in Canada in the reign of Elizabeth II: the dog that didn't bark" (PDF). Canadian Monarchist News. Summer 2004 (22). Toronto: Monarchist League of Canada: 19–20. Retrieved 10 February 2009.
12. ^ Valpy, Michael. Watson, William (ed.). Policy Options: Bye-Bye for Good?. No. May 1999. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. p. 26 http://www.irpp.org/po/. Retrieved 17 February 2009. {{cite news}}: |contribution= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
13. Smith, David E. (1995). The Invisible Crown: The First Principle of Canadian Government. Toronto-Buffalo-London: University Of Toronto Press. ISBN 0802077935.
14. ^ "Liberals considering break from monarchy". CBC. 18 December 1998. Retrieved 11 February 2009.
15. Chrétien, Jean (2007). My Years as Prime Minister. Toronto: Knopf Canada. p. 248. ISBN 9780676979008.
16. ^ (Smith, p. 10)
17. Elkins, David J. Watson, William (ed.). Policy Options: Bye-Bye for Good?. No. May 1999. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. p. 24 http://www.irpp.org/po/. Retrieved 10 February 2009. {{cite news}}: |contribution= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
18. (Smith, p. 9)
19. Blizzard, Christina; Coren, Michael (2 July 2007). "The debate: Do we need the monarchy?". CNews. Retrieved 16 February 2009.
20. Simpson, Jeffrey; Valpy, Michael (13 April 2002). "Has the magic gone out of our monarchy?". The Globe and Mail. pp. F6.
21. O'Neill, Juliet (2 October 2002), "The fight for the Republic of Canada", The Ottawa Citizen, retrieved 16 February 2009
22. Heydel-Mankoo, Rafal; McCullough, John J. (2002). Today (Television). Toronto: CBC Newsworld. Retrieved 17 February 2009.
23. Fox, Jim (6 May 2007). "Quebec dredges up monarchy issue once again". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 17 February 2009.
24. Coyne, Andrew (13 November 2009). "Defending the royals". Maclean's. Toronto: Roger's Communications. ISSN 0024-9262. Retrieved 18 February 2010.
25. ^ Senex (2007). ""British Monarchy Ties" Wording Skews Angus Reid Poll on Crown Four Ways" (PDF). Canadian Monarchist News. Autumn-Winter 2007 (27). Toronto: Monarchist League of Canada: 3. Retrieved 20 February 2009.
26. ^ "Republic/Monarchy Opinion Polls in Canada 1993– 2007". Citizens for a Canadian Republic. Retrieved 20 February 2009.
27. Aubry, Jack (17 December 1997). "Support for monarchy plummets". Ottawa Citizen.
28. ^ (EKOS Research Associates, p. 51) harv error: no target: CITEREFEKOS_Research_Associates (help)
29. EKOS Research Associates (30 May 2002). "F. Monarchy". Trust and the Monarchy: an examination of the shifting public attitudes toward government and institutions (PDF). Montreal: EKOS Research Associates. p. 47. Retrieved 8 February 2009.
30. (EKOS Research Associates, p. 50) harv error: no target: CITEREFEKOS_Research_Associates (help)
31. ^ Ipsos-Reid (3 February 2002). "While Half (48%) of Canadians Say They Would Prefer a U.S. Style Republic System of Government With an Elected Head of State, and Two-Thirds (65%) Believe the Royals Should not Have any Formal Role and Are "Simply Celebrities"... Eight-in-Ten (79%) Support the Constitutional Monarchy as Canada's Form of Government" (PDF). Winnipeg: Ipsos-Reid. p. 4. Retrieved 19 February 2009. Cite error: The named reference "IR4" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
32. (Ipsos-Reid, p. 3) harv error: no target: CITEREFIpsos-Reid (help)
33. (Ipsos-Reid, p. 5) harv error: no target: CITEREFIpsos-Reid (help)
34. ^ Leger Marketing (March 2002). "Canadians' Attachment to the Monarchy" (PDF). Montreal: Leger Marketing. p. 2. Retrieved 19 February 2009.
35. Aimers, John (Spring/Summer 2002). "New National Polls Shown Canadians Support Monarchy 2-1" (PDF). Canadian Monarchist News. 7 (1). Toronto: Monarchist League of Canada: 1. Retrieved 19 February 2009. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
36. (The Strategic Counsel, p. 10) harv error: no target: CITEREFThe_Strategic_Counsel (help)
37. Maclean's. Toronto: Kenneth Whyte: 15. 21 March 2005. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
38. ^ "Monarchy: Over Half Think Canada Should Break Ties With the Queen" (PDF) (Press release). Angus Reid Strategies. 1 October 2007. Retrieved 20 February 2009.
39. ^ "Angus Reid Poll: Men, Wealthier Canadians More Willing to End Formal Ties with the Monarchy" (Press release). Angus Reid Strategies. 12 March 2008. Retrieved 20 February 2009.
40. http://lejournaldequebec.canoe.ca/journaldequebec/actualites/quebec/archives/2009/11/20091102-224851.html
41. "The Canadians You Trust". Reader's Digest (June 2009). Toronto: Reader's Digest Magazines Canada Limited. 2009. ISSN 0034-0375. Retrieved 25 June 2009.
42. Valpy, Michael (3 September 2002). "Affection for Queen remains strong in Canada". The Globe and Mail.
43. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/26/prince-charles-poll.html
44. Black, Conrad (31 October 2009). "Royalty for a grown-up nation". National Post. Retrieved 8 November 2009.

• Monarchy in Canada
• Politics of Canada
• Legal history of Canada
• Republicanism in Canada