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 in the 19th century. However, paralleling the changes in constitutional law that saw the creation of a distinct Canadian monarchy, the emergence in the 1960s of Quebec nationalism, and the evolution of Canadian nationalism, the cultural role and relevance of the monarchy was altered and was sometimes questioned in certain circles, while continuing to receive support in others.
In 2005, it was estimated that only 0.6 per cent of the population was actively engaged in any debate about a republic. The Monarchist League of Canada's chief executive officer, Robert Finch, stated the greatest threat to the monarchy is not republicanism, "it is indifference."
The debate
The first 100 years
In the early 19th century, reform-minded groups began to emerge in the British colonies in Canada. From them rose William Lyon Mackenzie, who desired a US-style republic for Canada, and Louis-Joseph Papineau. Their causes were countered by the lieutenant governors and members of the executive councils at the time, as well as a majority of the colonists, who did not espouse a break with the Crown, Still, in the lead-up to Confederation in 1867, there did take place 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 theorized that this was because Canadians had an inferiority complex in relation to the British. At the same time, controversy arose in the run-up to the Queen's 1959 tour, when Canadian Broadcasting Corporation personality Joyce Davidson said in an interview with Dave Garroway on NBC's Today Show, "like most Canadians, I am indifferent to the visit of the Queen." The CBC was thereafter flooded with telephone calls from angry Canadians, as well as letters supporting Davidson. Co-operative Commonwealth Federation Member of Parliament Frank Howard agreed with Davidson, but, many more did not, with some demanding Prime Minister John Diefenbaker "do something". Mayor of Toronto Nathan Phillips spoke out against Davidson as well.
Constitutional evolution Debates over the monarchy and its place in Canada 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-Quebecer attendees at the 1968 constitutional conference agreed that the monarchy had worked well and was not a matter for discussion. In 1966, when the Queen of Canada's consort, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, undertook a royal tour through Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto, he said that, if Canadians found the monarchy no longer useful, they could get rid of it without opposition from anyone in the royal family. As the Monarchist League of Canada later put it, "this characteristically outspoken remark—undoubtedly mirroring the sovereign's views—allowed such republican sentiment as existed to be discussed openly in Ottawa and through the country with the result that, some 60 years on, the institution functions well and is entrenched in Canada's constitution."
The Cabinet, in June 1978, put forward the constitutional amendment Bill C-60 that, among 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 Ted McWhinney, supported these proposals; though, they were opposed by others, like the editorial board of The Globe and Mail and Senator Eugene Forsey, who said that the government had managed to "[stir] 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 reiterated at the conclusion of the 1979 meeting. Decades later, David Smith stated that the federal government at the time had "misperceived the complexity of the Crown [and] failed [...] to recognize its federalist dimension."
Into the 21st century 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.
After Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's 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, 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 [his] 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 among 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 theorized that Canadians had a growing sense of distrust for politicians (which 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.
John Manley, a minister of the Crown from 1993 to 2003, was openly critical of the monarchy, beginning in 1997. He said in 2001 that the Canadian Crown was "an institution that's a bit out of date for Canada to continue with" and, when the Queen arrived for her Golden Jubilee tour the following year, Manley stated to reporters, "I don't think it's necessary for Canada to continue with the monarchy". In 2007, the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs in Quebec, 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.
Into the 2020s, the Monarchist League of Canada claimed, "opponents of the Canadian Crown frequently criticize the monarchy without fully being aware of the facts. In addition, opponents often deliberately spread misinformation." Peter Woolstencroft, a retired political science professor from the University of Waterloo, opined in 2021 that "the optimal republican pathway seems to rest upon attrition through rising indifference." However, he went on to write, "Canada's constitutional straitjacket makes abolition here highly unlikely. At best, it would take a long and contentious process, something Canadians likely do not want;" considering the differences in methods of choosing a president, in the sizes of the provinces and territories, and of their populations, in addition to the treaty relationship between First Nations and the Crown, Woolstencroft observed "over the long arc of previous constitutional discussions, a clear pattern is discernible. Matters on the table become more diverse, more complicated, more symbolically existential, with a widening set of actors, making it harder and harder to produce a coherent agreement."
Reign of Charles III Following Elizabeth II's death in September 2022, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated that the monarchy's role in Canada was not open for debate and did not see Canada replacing its monarchy in the near future. During an in-person meeting with King Charles III in London, UK, Trudeau described the monarchy as offering Canada "steadiness." The following month, Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet tabled a motion in the House of Commons, proposing that the "House express its desire to sever ties between the Canadian state and the British monarchy [sic]." Blanchet did not suggest an alternative form of government. The House rejected the motion by 266 votes to 44. Most members of Parliament condemned the move as a political stunt, as the Bloc's main aim is the separation of Quebec from Canada. Ten New Democratic Party MPs, one Liberal, one Green, and one Conservative turned independent MP supported the motion.
For some decades, many newspaper columnists and pundits had contended the death of Queen Elizabeth II would be the moment to replace Canada's monarchy with a president, giving them time to formulate solid arguments both against the status quo and for the republican system Canada should adopt and how. After Elizabeth passed, however, "remarkably little talk of abolishing the monarchy" was heard and what was uttered was a repeat of what had "been written months or years ago." Among the little that was written, Andrew Cohen complained in The Globe and Mail about Canada's constitutional monarchy being "shallow" and "small-minded", without recommending any alternative system; though, he did argue a "national referendum" and "citizens' assembly" should be added to the constitutional amending process. Retired University of Ottawa professor John E. Trent proposed in the Ottawa Citizen that the governor general be made head of state and, recycling an idea proposed by "a Toronto newspaper" years before, asserted Officers of the Order of Canada should select who occupies the office, something Chris Selley argued in the National Post would politicize both the head of state and the Order of Canada, itself. Selley also opined that "the strangest argument in favour of reform is the notion that it [the monarchy] reflects an 'immature' nation" and, in response, quoted Andrew Wudrick, of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute: "We don't have fighter jets or ships for our military. We can't process passports. We have yearlong waitlists for critical medical procedures. We can't build anything. Maybe our constitutional architecture isn't what's keeping us in prolonged adolescence."