Jump to content

Monarchy of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mb1000 (talk | contribs) at 21:22, 17 August 2005 (→History: New version of image). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

File:Queen-Canada-Flag.png
The Queen's Personal Canadian Flag.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a Commonwealth Realm with Queen Elizabeth II as its reigning monarch. As such she is de jure the head of state, while the Governor General is referred to as the de facto head of state [1].

In Canada, the Queen's official title in English is: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. In French, the Queen's title is: Elizabeth Deux, par la grâce de Dieu Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi. In common practice, Queen Elizabeth II is referred to simply as "The Queen" or "The Queen of Canada" when in Canada, or when abroad and acting on the advice of her Canadian ministers.

Constitutional monarchy in Canada

Politics of Canada
Government (structure)
The Crown
Executive
Legislative
Judicial
Elections
Local government
Foreign relations
Crown and Indigenous peoples
Related topics

The most notable features of the Canadian constitutional monarchy are:

"...The rather more delicate question arose about the retention of the words defender of the faith. In England there is an established church. In our countries [the other monarchies of the Commonwealth] there are no established churches, but in our countries there are people who have faith in the direction of human affairs by an all-wise Providence; and we felt that it was a good thing that the civil authorities would proclaim that their organisation is such that it is a defence of the continued beliefs in a supreme power that orders the affairs of mere men, and that there could be no reasonable objection from anyone who believed in the Supreme Being in having the sovereign, the head of the civil authority, described as a believer in and a defender of the faith in a supreme ruler."
As the Queen of Canada is also the Queen of the United Kingdom, the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic or married to one and must be in communion with the Church of England upon ascending the throne. This has led to a legal challenge (see O'Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen).
  • On all matters of state to do with Canada, the monarch is advised solely by the Canadian federal and provincial first ministers. See also Queen's Privy Council for Canada. Effective with the Constitution Act, 1982 no British government can advise the monarch on any matters pertinent to Canada.¹
  • All powers of state are constitutionally reposed in the Queen, who is represented at the federal level by the Governor General of Canada and at the provincial level by Lieutenant Governors. The Governor General is appointed by The Queen upon the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada. The ten Lieutenant Governors are appointed by the Governor General, in the name of The Queen, upon the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada.
  • The Canadian Royal Salute is the Royal Anthem, God Save the Queen, followed by the National Anthem, O Canada. The Vice-Regal Salute is the first six bars of God Save the Queen which then modulate into the first four and last four bars of O Canada. The Vice-Regal Salute is played only for the Governor General and each lieutenant governor, because they represent the Crown.
  • Royal Assent and proclamation are required for all acts of Parliament and of the provincial legislatures. Territorial legislatures are subject to the oversight of the Government of Canada. Provinces and their legislatures, as sovereign entities, are not.
  • The oath of allegiance to Canada, sworn by new citizens, soldiers, and parliamentarians, is an oath of allegiance to the monarch as sovereign of Canada, and to his/her heirs and successors according to law.
  • The Commissioners of Canada's territories of Nunavut, The Yukon, and the Northwest Territories are appointed by Governor in Council at the recommendation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. But as the territories are not sovereign entities, the commissioners are not representatives of the sovereign. They receive instruction from the said federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs.
  • The legal personality of the monarch in Canada is referred to as "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada", and likewise for the provinces and territories (i.e., "in Right of Ontario," etc.). For example, if a lawsuit is filed against the federal government, the respondent is formally described as Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. (Naturally, the Queen herself takes no more role in such an affair than in any other business of government. Indeed, in cases in which, for example, a province sues the federal government, it would formally be Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Prince Edward Island v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.)
  • As in the UK, the Queen's role is almost entirely symbolic and cultural, and the powers that are constitutionally hers are exercised wholly upon the advice of the elected government. In exceptional circumstances, however, the Queen or Governor General may act against such advice based upon her reserve powers – as when Governor General Byng refused a demand by W.L. Mackenzie King for a dissolution of Parliament and call for new elections, because the prime minister's request was blatantly unconstitutional, and it is the first order of the Crown to defend the constitution (see King-Byng Affair). For the most part, however, the monarch functions is a rubber stamp and a symbol of the legal authority under which all governments operate. It has been correctly said since the death of Queen Anne (1714), the last monarch to head the British cabinet (when almost all of Canada was still French colonial territory), that the monarch "reigns" but does not "rule". In Canada, this has been true since the Treaty of Paris (1763) ended the reign of Canada's last absolute monarch, King Louis XV of France. For more explanation of the Queen's role, see Governor General of Canada.
File:Queen canada throne.jpg
Queen Elizabeth II, The Queen of Canada, reads the Speech from the Throne
  • Queen Elizabeth II, as is common for all her other non-UK realms, is generally regarded as "Queen of Canada" only when she is actually present in Canada or when she otherwise performs ceremonies relevant to Canada, such as conferring Canadian honours in the UK or participating in the Canadian World War II memorial ceremonies in France. Except for a few duties which must be performed by the Queen (e.g., signing the appointment papers of governors general and lieutenant, which no governor general can do), or which require assent by the Queen as well as the Governor General (as when Prime Minister Mulroney expanded the number of Senate seats to assure passage of the Goods and Services Tax), all of Queen's federal duties are performed by the Governor General and all of her provincial duties are performed by the pertinent lieutenant governor.
  • The Queen is a regular visitor to Canada. The cultural importance that Canadians attached to the monarch, however, visibly declined in the decades following World War II as Canada began to emerge and blossom into a mature nation in her own right. For example, though the Royal Union Flag remains an official flag in Canada, a distinctly Canadian flag was adopted in 1964; God save the Queen remains as the Royal Anthem and forms a part of the Vice-Regal Salutes, but O Canada has been adopted as the national anthem instead of God Save the Queen; patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982; and so on. The Queen's image remains on Canadian coins, some currency and postage stamps. Her portrait is still found in all government buildings, military installations, some schools, and all of Canada's embassies abroad.
  • The Queen is ceremonial head of the Canadian honours system. As such, only she can approve the creation of an honour, which she does as requested by government of Canada. The Governor General administers all responsibilities relating to Canadian honours on the Queen's behalf. See Canadian honours system.

History

Since the establishment of New France, Canada has been the territory of a monarchy or a monarchy in its own right. Kings and queens reigning over Canada have included both the monarchs of France (from Francis I in 1534 to Louis XV in 1763) and those of the UK (from Anne of Great Britain in 1713 to Queen Elizabeth II today). Following Confederation in 1867, the gradual "Canadianization" of the Crown began.

The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 initiated the gradual replacement of the concept of a singular crown throughout the British Empire with that of a shared crown making each dominion (as well as the United Kingdom) a separate Realm with the Crown worn by the common monarch. This idea was further enhanced by the Statute of Westminster 1931, which granted the dominions of the Commonwealth autonomy from the British parliament and equality with the United Kingdom. When a new Royal Style and Titles Act was passed at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, it explicitly identified the Queen's role in the United Kingdom and her role in Canada separately, with her role as Queen of the United Kingdom listed before her role as Queen of Canada. This format was consistent with the form of the Queen's titles in the other Realms, as had been agreed upon by all the Realm governments in 1953. As of 2005, only Canada and Grenada retain this form. The Queen's title in the UK is similar but only lists that realm by name in the title.

When the Canadian House of Commons debated the Queen's title in 1953, Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent asserted:

"Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom... It is not a separate office" Hansard February 3, 1953, page 1566.[2]

(see also List of Titles and Honours of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom).

Canada gained full independence as an autonomous constitutional monarchy when the constitution was patriated under Prime Minister Trudeau in 1982, making it Canadian law rather than an act of the British parliament that required amendment in both jurisdictions. See Canada Act 1982.

The Constitution Act of 1982 also entrenched the monarchy in Canada. Any change to the position of the monarch or the monarch's representatives in Canada now requires the consent of the Senate, the House of Commons, and the legislative assemblies of all the provinces.

File:Canadian senate throne.jpg
The Throne of Canada in the Senate chamber

The great majority of the Queen's Canadian duties are performed by her representatives in Canada except those that explicitly or implicitly require the Queen to perform them. There have often been instances when the Governor General has appeared alongside the Queen at events abroad. Canada's political leaders have, on occasion, appealed to the Queen's authority. In 1990, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appealed to the Queen (under Section 26 of The Constitution Act, 1867) to temporarily add new seats to the Senate. This provision was designed to ensure deadlock in the Senate could be broken. It requires approval by both the Governor General and the monarch. Mulroney made this move to secure passage of the controversial Goods and Services Tax in the face of threats by the Senate to block it. Although Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party had a massive majority in the House of Commons, the Liberals held a majority in the Senate – until new PC senators were appointed at Mulroney's recommendation to avoid that problem.

This was an occasion on which the Queen played a significant role in Canadian government, although as the monarch's advisers made clear, she felt bound to follow the advice of the Prime Minister, who was answerable to cabinet, parliament, and the Canadian electorate. They argued that to overrule prime ministerial advice would have involved the Queen directly in controversy; by automatically accepting advice, she placed the responsibility on the person giving the advice. It is also possible that if the Governor General decided to go against the Prime Minister's or the government's advice, the Prime Minister could appeal directly to the Queen or even recommend that the Queen dismiss the Governor General.

Beginning January 1, 2005, the Letters of Credence that foreign diplomats present when beginning an assignment in Canada are addressed to the Governor General of Canada without making any reference to the Queen. This is also the case with Letters of Recall presented when a diplomat finishes a sojourn in Canada. This change in protocol has been criticised by Canadian monarchists as an example of the government reducing the Queen's role, and has been welcomed by republicans for the same reason.

Some monarchists contend that since Paul Martin became prime minister, his government seems to be attempting to further distance Canada from the Queen and elevating the Governor General to more of a presidential figure.

On her 2005 trip to Alberta, the provincial government wished to have the Queen sign a bill into law. This was not done – in theory because the constitutionality of the Queen doing so was questioned; however, Rideau Hall also stated it would conflict with the "Canadianization" of Canada's institutions.

Royal visits

See Royal visits to Canada

The Crown and the First Nations

File:HM-tablet.jpg
Her Majesty the Queen of Canada presents a tablet of Balmoral granite with the ciphers of both herself and her great-grandmother Queen Victoria, at the First Nations University of Canada, May 17, 2005.

As with the Maori and the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand, Canada's First Nations view their treaties as being agreements directly between them and the Crown, not with the ever-changing government. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 made clear that the First Nations were autonomous political units and affirmed their title to lands. It remains an important document, mentioned in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, outlining the Canadian Crown's responsibility to protect First Nations' territories and maintain the bilateral "nation-to-nation" relationship[3] [4].

The Queen, during a visit to the First Nations University of Canada in Saskatchewan in May of 2005, presented a piece of Balmoral granite engraved with the ciphers of Queen Victoria and herself. The gesture behind the gift was outlined in the Queen's words:

"This stone was taken from the grounds of Balmoral Castle in the Highlands of Scotland – a place dear to my great great grandmother, Queen Victoria. It symbolises the foundation of the rights of First Nations peoples reflected in treaties signed with the Crown during her reign.
"Bearing the cipher of Queen Victoria as well as my own, this stone is presented to the First Nations University of Canada in the hope that it will serve as a reminder of the special relationship between the Sovereign and all First Nations peoples."[5]

Nevertheless, First Nations groups complained that their role during the Queen's visit was a purely symbolic one, and were disappointed that neither the provincial nor federal governments granted them a private audience with the Queen to express concerns about treaty violations. [6]

The Crown and the military

The Queen retains a strong link to the Canadian military. The Constitution Act, 1867 states that the Queen is Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, but the Letters Patent of 1947 specify that the title and its duties are held and performed by the Governor General of Canada on behalf of the Sovereign. The Queen's position and role in the military is reflected by Canadian naval vessels bearing the prefix Her Majesty's Canadian Ship (HMCS), and all members of the armed forces must swear allegiance to the Queen and her heirs and successors.

She has presided over many military ceremonies, including Trooping of the Colours, inspections of the troops, and anniversaries of key battles. Whenever Her Majesty is in Ottawa she lays a wreath at the National War Memorial. As well, two other examples of Elizabeth II acting as Queen of Canada abroad were associated with the Canadian military; one in 1996 when she dedicated the Canadian War Memorial in Green Park, London, and the other in 2003 when she attended the Canadian 60th anniversary of D-Day ceremonies in Normandie, France.

She is Colonel-in-Chief of many Canadian regiments, including: le Régiment de la Chaudière; the 48th Highlanders of Canada; the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise's); the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery; the Governor-General's Horse Guards; the King's Own Calgary Regiment; le Royal 22e Régiment; the Governor-General's Foot Guards; the Canadian Grenadier Guards; the Regiment of Canadian Guards; the Royal New Brunswick Regiment; the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps; the Canadian Forces Military Engineers Branch; and the Calgary Highlanders.

She is also the Honorary Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.[7]

Debate on the monarchy

In contrast to Australian republicanism, 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 the issue of the role of Quebec within Canada (see Quebec sovereignty movement) 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 the American Revolutionary War. A key justification for this migration was supposedly their Tory, monarchist beliefs which they felt the US revolution was betraying.

File:Queencanada.jpg
Portraits of the Queen (here with the Duke of Edinburgh) can be found in most Canadian government buildings

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.[8].

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

During the 1995 Quebec referendum campaign on independence, the Queen was tricked into revealing her personal opinions on Canadian unity when a radio DJ, impersonating then Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, managed to reach her by telephone at Buckingham Palace. When told the current number of votes was showing a victory for the Yes side, she was reported to have said that it was then not "going very well." 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). 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" [9]. 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. Monarchists such as Stephen Phillips 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, in fact, not above politics. One example they point to is the support the current Queen's parents showed for British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain upon his return from Munich having signed a Pact with Nazi Germany. [10]

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

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 the Act of Settlement is part of the Canadian constitution, and thus 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.

File:Queen of canada.jpg
Queen Elizabeth II wearing the Sovereign's insignia of the Order of Canada and the Order of Military Merit

In his ruling on the matter, Justice Rouleau included the following comments:

[36] The impugned positions of the Act of Settlement are an integral part of the rules of succession that govern the selection of the monarch of Great Britain. By virtue of our constitutional structure whereby Canada is united under the Crown of Great Britain, the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain.

Further, he wrote:

[38] In the present case the court is being asked to apply the Charter not to rule on the validity of acts or decisions of the Crown, one of the branches of our government, but rather to disrupt the core of how the monarchy functions, namely the rules by which succession is determined. To do this would make the constitutional principle of Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries unworkable, would defeat a manifest intention expressed in the preamble of our Constitution, and would have the courts overstep their role in our democratic structure.[11]
See also: O’Donohue v. Canada, 2003

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 is setting a goal for the end of 2005 for his country becoming a republic, and 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.

Recent polls

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.
  • A March 2005 Decima Research Poll found some interesting support levels for members of the Royal Family. 71% of Canadians had a favourable impression of the Royal Family. Only 20% had an unfavourable impression of the Royal Family. The poll found that 28% of Canadians saw the Queen as their favourite member of the Royal Family, Prince William was second with 26%, Prince Harry was third with 9%, Prince Charles was fourth with 6% and Prince Philip last with 2% support.
  • An opinion poll conducted by Environics Research Group Ltd. for the CBC taken on the eve of Prince Charles' wedding to the Duchess of Cornwall found that 65% of Canadians support Charles as King. Only 27% of Canadians did not support him as King. (Poll results)

Notes

  1. In 1997, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intended to offer a Life Peerage to Canadian businessman Conrad Black. Citing the 1919 Nickle Resolution, the Canadian government advised the Queen that they have objected to such honours for many years. If Blair had not backed down, the Queen would have been in the situation of having to grant an honour on the advice of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and to object to the same as Queen of Canada on the advice of then Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien. The problem was resolved when Black renounced his Canadian citizenship. Canada raised no further objections and he was granted his peerage, becoming Lord Black of Crossharbour.
  2. Refer to the Constantian Society's detailed comparison of the costs of monarchies versus republics. The Constantian Society

See also

Official sites from the Canadian government

Monarchist views

Republican views

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&oldid=21242664"