Debate on the monarchy in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Debate on the Monarchy of Canada has been taking place since before Confederation in 1867, though it has rarely been of significance since the rebellions of 1837.

Historically, many Anglophone Canadians have not challenged the significance or symbolism of the monarchy, seeing it as a link to the United Kingdom, and as a mark of Canada's distinctiveness 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, loyal to the Crown, who fled to Canada from the United States after the American Revolutionary War, and who were met with hostility by Americans immediately after the conflict. However, paralleling the changes in constitutional law that saw the creation of a legally distinct Canadian monarchy shared with the other Commonwealth realms,[1][2][3][4] the emergence in the 1960s of Quebec nationalism, and the evolution of Canadian nationalism, the cultural role and relevance of the monarchy in Canada altered and was sometimes questioned in certain circles, while continuing to receive support from others.

Today, polls show that many Canadians are unaware of the monarchy's role in their system of government. A 2002 EKOS poll found that only 5% of Canadians could correctly identify the Queen as Canada's head of state.[5]

Contents

[edit] The debate

[edit] Colonial period and post-Confederation

William Lyon Mackenzie, leader of the Upper Canada Rebellion.
William Lyon Mackenzie, leader of the Upper Canada Rebellion.

The first open rebellions in Canada against the Crown were the Upper Canada Rebellion, lead by William Lyon Mackenzie, and the Lower Canada Rebellion, lead by Louis Joseph Papineau and his Parti Patriote, both in 1837; republicanism was a driving force behind Mackenzie's actions, however most colonists did not espouse a break with the Crown.[6] After the failure of the uprisings, Mackenzie fled Toronto with 200 supporters and established, with the help of US American sympathisers, the short-lived and never recognised Republic of Canada on Navy Island, in the Niagara River. Those who were caught in Upper Canada were put on trial, most being found guilty of insurrection against the Crown. However, these persons were not given these convictions because their views were in line with the liberalism of the United States, and thus an offence to the Tory values of the Canadian colony. Rather, as revealed in the ruling of Chief Justice John Beverley Robinson, a Lokean justification was given for the condemning of the prisoners over a Burkean one; the Crown, as protector of its subjects' life, liberty, and prosperity, could "legitimately demand allegiance to its authority." Robinson went on to say that those who preferred republicanism over monarchism were free to emigrate, and thus the participants in the uprising against the Crown were guilty of treason.[7]

After being imprisoned in the United States, having his requests for amnesty denied by President Martin Van Buren, and living in the country for some time, Mackenzie eventually became disillusioned with the American republic, and returned to Canada in 1850, though he theorised, near the end of his life, on Canadian annexation into the United States should enough people in the former country become disillusioned with responsible government.[8]

Louis Riel, President of the provisional government of Red River.
Louis Riel, President of the provisional government of Red River.

Later, after the Red River Rebellion, Louis Riel established a provisional government, with John Bruce as President, in the south of what is present day Manitoba, with the intent of negotiating a provincial relationship with the federal Canadian government. As negotiations proceeded, Riel was eventually elected President by the council, and his delegation to Ottawa was successful in working out with the federal government an agreement on which the province of Manitoba was founded in 1870, with a parliamentary constitutional monarchy system the same as the other provinces.[9]

[edit] 20th century and the rise of Quebec nationalism

Latent republican sentiment remained a factor in Quebec where Henri Bourassa and other nationalists endorsed English liberalism and liberal imperialism, but opposed Tory British imperialism and advocated Canadian independence from the British Empire in response to the Boer War and, later, the Conscription Crisis of 1917 during the First World War. The Toronto Star advocated the end of the office of Governor General as early as 1918.[10]

Paralleling a rise in nationalist sentiment in Quebec, anti-monarchical feelings became pronounced in the province during the Queen Elizabeth II's visit to Quebec City in 1964, when she was greeted by demonstrations. Separatists regarded this tour, part of a larger trip by the Queen that included Prince Edward Island and Ottawa to celebrate the centennial of the Quebec Conference, as a symbol of Quebec's oppression by the federal government, and insisted that the Queen of Canada only be invited to the territory by the government of an independent Quebec. They also took issue with the head of state being, as they took it, the Governor General, representative of the monarch, and not the Prime Minister.[11] When the Queen arrived, the route of her procession was lined with Quebecers showing their backs to the monarch, and on Samedi de la matraque (Truncheon Saturday), police violently dispersed anti-monarchist demonstrators and arrested 36, including some who were there to cheer the Queen. The Queen did not visit Quebec City again until 1987.[12]

In the centennial year of Canadian confederation, in 1967, the Toronto Star again advocated the creation of a republic, as a mark of the country's independence. The following year, at the first meeting of the Constitutional Conference, held in Ottawa in February, delegates from Quebec indicated that a provincial president might suit the province better than the Lieutenant Governor. However, there was overall a feeling that the monarchy "has served us well and that its reform has no great priority in the present round of constitutional changes."[13] Pierre Trudeau, by then in the Cabinet of Lester Pearson, stated "I wouldn't lift a finger to get rid of the monarchy... I think the monarchy, by and large, has done more good than harm to Canada."[14]

In 1970, members of the Parti Québécois continued their anti-monarchical tendencies, and refused to swear allegiance to the Queen before taking their seats in the National Assembly, as required by the constitution; all the other parties in the National Assembly of Quebec agreed that the oath was outdated and should be amended.[15]

Former Governor General Roland Michener.
Former Governor General Roland Michener.

That same year, in a speech to the Empire Club of Canada, Governor General Roland Michener summed up pro- and anti-monarchy arguments that were circulating at the time:

"From the opponents of our monarchy, one hears: 1. [that] monarchies are out of fashion, 2. [that] republics give more freedom (if one is careful not to cite the Soviet Union, or numerous other republics with repressive regimes, which come readily to mind), 3. that it gives more dignity to humans to choose their own head of state, 4. that it is not Canadian but British; for this reason some regime of our own invention would be more acceptable to our multi-cultural society, 5. then there is the argument: 'change for its own sake'."

However, he went on to say further:

"On the other side of the case, I saw a very effective statement by one Robert H. Hilborn... 'The strength of the monarchy lies not in the power it gives the Sovereign but in the power that it denies to anyone else,' he commented as follows: 'The monarchy provides a basis for political continuity, so that parties can change but the essence and theory of government can continue... Its influence may be more apparent than real but it is real enough for a political system that works on consent'... The monarchy is beyond partisan politics which cannot be said of an elected head of state. In fact there have been numerous examples of battles for power between an elected president and his elected prime minister... [The Monarchy] is our own by inheritance and choice, and contributes much to our distinctive Canadian identity and our chances of independent survival amongst the republics of North and South America. Finally, from the polls it is clear that many Canadians refuse to consider the question at all on the simple ground that what we have works. Isn't this the acid test of any system?"[16]

These arguments for and against reflect those put forward by Canadian monarchists and republicans over 35 years later.

Former Québec premier René Lévesque; did not want the monarchy in Quebec.
Former Québec premier René Lévesque; did not want the monarchy in Quebec.

During an interview in Saskatchewan, Parti Québécois leader René Lévesque, who advocated a sovereignty-association relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada, was asked if there would be any role for the monarchy in a sovereign Quebec. He responded: "Are you joking? Why? I have great respect for the Queen... but what the hell part should monarchy have in Quebec?" However, though the full details of sovereignty-association were never worked out, University of Toronto Professor Richard Toporoski held the theory that a sovereign, not independent, Quebec would still be under the sovereignty of the Queen; "...the real problem of the Quebec bill is not separation from Canada: Quebec has said that it wishes to preserve common elements - Canadian currency (issued officially by whom? - the Queen of Canada), for example, and the possibility of Quebec citizens being Canadian citizens (and who are Canadian citizens? - subjects of the Queen)."[17] In 1976, many Quebec nationalists and sovereigntists complained about Queen Elizabeth's role in officially opening the 1976 Montreal Olympics. Lévesque sent a letter to the Queen asking that she turn down the invitation to open the games. She did not oblige this request.[18]

Through the 1970s, references to the monarch and the monarchy were slowly removed from the public eye; for example, the Queen's portrait disappeared from public buildings and schools, and the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force were merged into the unified Canadian Forces. It was these moves that led to the founding of the Monarchist League of Canada as an organized way for citizens to voice their opposition to the downplaying of the monarchy.[19]

[edit] Constitutional examinations

Despite the presence and actions of Quebec separatists, support for the monarchy was demonstrated in the public reaction to the government's Constitutional Amendment Bill C-60, put forward in June, 1978. Amongst other changes, it potentially affected the sovereign's role as head of state by making propositions to vest executive authority in the Governor General, and rename the position as First Canadian.[14] Some academics, Edward McWhinney for example, supported these changes, however they were opposed by others. Senator Eugene Forsey said the government had managed to "[stir] up a hornet's nest with a short stick." From Regina, Saskatchewan, in 1978, the provincial premiers issued a disparaging statement against the federal government's attempt to unilaterally push changes 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 at the pleasure of the federal cabinet." This message was reiterated at the conclusion of the First Ministers conference in 1979.[20] Editorials in the Globe & Mail condemned the proposed changes to the constitution, describing such moves as "[a downgrading] of the symbol most central to Canada's identity," and "crypto-republicanism."[20]

Leading up to the end of 1998, it was leaked from Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's office that there had been a plan for "severing the final ties" with the monarchy by the turn of the new millennium, with Peter Donolo affirming that discussions about a non-monarchical system in Canada had occurred, but that no plans to move ahead were made.[21] As soon as this was revealed, many denounced the plan, including Chrétien, who, though he was apparently open to a public debate, said he was concerned about resulting division,[21] and on CTV News stated that the topic was neither a Liberal priority, nor one for average Canadians, admitting "There's no big debate in Canada." A survey of commentary by the ten provincial premiers at the time revealed one in favour of a republic (Newfoundland), one abstaining from comment(Quebec), and the remaining eight in support of Canada's monarchy. Also, after the initial story by Lawrence Martin for Southam Newspapers, in which he praised the move as "a burst of momentum and pride," many newspaper editorials were unsupportive of the initiative, with the Ottawa Citizen's headline reading: "Which millennium?"[22]

[edit] 21st century

Public opinion polls have shown Canadians' mixed feelings towards the monarchy. Some polls show a large number of Canadians support the removal of the Queen of Canada as head of state, while others show a majority favour retaining the current system. (See Polls.) Quebec is currently the only province where the population might be seen as strongly supporting a republic. Many Quebec politicians, especially separatists in parties such as the Bloc Québécois, often actively ignore the governmental role of the monarchy, on the grounds that it is an institution of the federal government, with no relevance to Quebec. For the Queen's Golden Jubilee, unlike other provinces, Quebec put on no official celebrations; then Premier Bernard Landry said this was due to the government's view that the monarchy is only a federal Canadian institution.[23] Still, for the same reason, Quebec governments have not generally advocated republican reforms be taken either, as they do not consider reforming Canadian institutions to be their responsibility. Landry has said that if Quebec separates, the new nation would become a republic.

Former Deputy Prime Minister and minister of the Crown John Manley.
Former Deputy Prime Minister and minister of the Crown John Manley.

Continuing from the 1960s and 70s, debate on the monarchy remained in the political sphere, though never as a major aspect of it; commentary, for the most part, stayed within parliament or Cabinet. However, in 1998, then-Deputy Prime Minister John Manley brought republican commentary into the public eye when he mused at the end of a television interview that Canada should end its personal union with the other Commonwealth realms, citing Australia's discussions on the matter, and that if Canada did not replace the monarchy soon, the UK would do so first.[24] Later, just before the Queen's arrival for a pan-country tour to celebrate her Golden Jubilee, Manley, then to be the minister in attendance at the monarch's arrival in Ottawa, again said in an interview that he was in favour of a Canadian citizen as head of state.

Manley's open statements attracted reaction in the press; negative from journalists including John Fraser and Christie Blachford in the National Post, Rosie DiManno in the Toronto Star, Hartley Steward in The Sunday Sun, Michael Valpy in The Globe and Mail,[25] and Rex Murphy on the CBC,[26] as well as positive from some others.[citation needed] Manley's then fellow Cabinet members David Anderson and Sheila Copps, as well as Stephen Harper and Joe Clark, also rebuked the Deputy Prime Minister's comments,[25] while Brian Tobin and Herb Dhaliwal, also then in the Cabinet, agreed with him.[citation needed] Manly also received support from Peter Donolo, who wrote in Macleans that "it's the institution of the monarchy that is incompatible with the values of a modern, democratic, pluralistic state."[27] and from the newly formed Citizens for a Canadian Republic, which was established specifically to bring about an end to the Canadian monarchy. The Monarchist League of Canada responded by stating that Manley "arrogates to himself the decision as to who is a 'Canadian' - excluding the Sovereign who has served and loved this land long before he was even born! He talks in trendy New Age terms of 'change' and the 'Millennium'... [he] is mired in the past - arguments reflecting the insecure, self-conscious nationalism of the 60's."[24]

At the time of the Queen's 80th birthday, the Globe published an editorial echoing its former calls for the Governor General to become head of state, under the guise of "patriating the monarchy," and arguing that Canada could cut its ties to the Crown without becoming a republic. However, in response to this, a column by John Ibbitson was published in the same paper, in which he denounced the editorial board's reasoning as flawed and contradictory. Jeffrey Simpson, another journalist with the Globe, wrote numerous pieces from the late 1990s onward, in which he expressed his opinion that the monarch and Royal Family are foreigners, and a preference for the Companions of the Order of Canada to choose the head of state in a Canadian republic.[28] This proposal was met with charges that such a situation would "politicise and destroy" the Canadian honours system by turning it into a form of electoral college.[24]

In 2007 Intergovernmental Affairs Minister for Quebec Benoît Pelletier stated it is "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."[29] Some weeks later, Pelletier found himself defending the Crown when the Quebec sovereignty collided with the monarchy again; it was revealed that, despite the invitation extended from the provincial government, the Queen was to be advised by her federal ministers not to attend the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City, due to fears on their part of the monarch being the target of separatist demonstrations. Mario Beaulieu, Vice-President of the Société Saint-Jean Baptiste confirmed that the Queen's presence would be a catalyst for action, saying: "You can be sure that people will demonstrate in protest... We are celebrating the foundation of New France, not its conquest. The monarchy remains a symbol of imperialism and colonialism. Her presence will not be welcomed," and Gérald Larose, president of the Quebec Sovereignty Council, stated that the monarchy was "the most despicable, appalling, anti-democratic, imperial, colonial symbol against which all social and individuals rights were obtained through the course of history."[30] In response, Pelletier supported the Queen and the invitation, saying "this controversy would be provoked by a minority of people, and we can't be at the mercy of [those] who still have their gaze turned towards 1760,"[31] and Mayor of Quebec City Régis Labeaume, himself a former separatist, asserted that he saw the Queen's presence as a bonus, and even postulated on inviting either Prince William or Prince Henry.[32]

Later the same year, Lawrence Martin penned a piece that called for Canada to become a republic in order to re-brand the nation and better its standings in the international market, though citing Sweden - a constitutional monarchy - as an example to be followed.[33] In recent years, there have been some attempts at removing references to the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Citizenship. In the latter case immigration issues drive the discussion for change.[citation needed] To date, only the oath taken by federal public servants has been altered, but they continue to sign contracts with the Queen in Right of Canada.[34] New citizens, members of the armed forces and police forces, and Members of Parliament continue to take oaths of 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.[citation needed]

[edit] Support and opposition

Main articles: Monarchism in Canada and Republicanism in Canada

[edit] Citizens' groups

The Monarchist League of Canada (MLC), a national group founded in 1970, and currently existing as a lobby group to advocate for, educate about and promote the Canadian monarchy, was formed to counter the anti-monarchy moves by the Trudeau government of the time. The organization continues to defend the Canadian monarchy on a national scale. The United Empire Loyalists also generally promote the monarchy in Canada as part of their mission to defend and promote values and institutions they view as fundamental to Canada's loyalist heritage.[35]

In 2002, Canada's first nationally-organized republican group, Citizens for a Canadian Republic (CCR), was established to bring the debate into the mainstream. CCR promotes the reform of the Office of Governor General from a vice-regal role into a presidential one, with eventual constitutional elimination of the monarchy all-together.[36]

[edit] Polls

At the time when Canada was beginning to consider constitutional changes in the late 1960s, the role of the Monarchy came somewhat into question. However, it was deemed to be "no great priority in the present round of constitutional changes." Reflecting this, four opinion polls conducted in 1970 showed the Monarchy was favoured by 2/3 of the Canadians questioned.

That year, 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% said Yes, 33% favoured a republic, and 17% declined to answer. Further, the answer was different by regions; in Quebec 46% favoured a republic as against 23% for monarchy, and 31% offered no opinion. In Ontario the Monarchy was favoured well above the national average, and the West was even higher. Older persons (over 50 years) were stronger advocates of the Monarchy than any other age group, although even those in their 20s gave preference to the Monarchy.

Another 1970 poll revealed that in Canada, exclusive of Quebec, the Crown was of no issue to 37%, and a further 41% were rated as loyalists, although many of those older ones "recognized that youth had different ideas which might have an effect in the future."[37]

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.

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.[38]
  • 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."[39]
  • 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".[40]
  • 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?"[41] 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.
  • Angus Reid conducted an online poll of 1,032 Canadians in September, 2007, asking the following 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?" Net supporters totalled 53%, 12% were unsure, and 35% were opposed. Support for ending the monarchy was 55%, with 13% unsure, and 31% opposed when asked if Prince Charles should succeed the Queen as Canada's head of state.[42] Monarchists perceived two flaws with the poll: the question referred to the Canadian monarchy as the "British monarchy," and the constitution makes no reference to any position of head of state. Republicans, who generally view the monarchy as only British, welcomed the results.

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. For instance, Michael Valpy pointed out in The Globe and Mail that the prevailing mood towards the monarchy suggested by most is that no great need is seen for changing the system. In and around 2002, polls showed that younger Canadians demonstrated majority support for the monarchy, and, in general, Canadians took the attitude that if the institution works, don't fix it.[23] On the other hand, Citizens for a Canadian Republic interpret the last four national poll results as showing the majority of Canadians supported ending the monarchy in three, while support was divided equally for both camps in one.[43]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Zines, The High Court and the Constitution, 4th ed. (1997) at 314: "The Queen as monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is in a position resembling that of the King of Scotland and of England between 1603 and 1707 when two independent countries had a common sovereign"; the relationship between England and Scotland during those years is described as a personal union.
  2. ^ P. E. Corbett (1940). "The Status of the British Commonwealth in International Law". The University of Toronto Law Journal 3. 
  3. ^ F. R. Scott (January 1944). "The End of Dominion Status". The American Journal of International Law 38: 34–49. doi:10.2307/2192530. 
  4. ^ R v Foreign Secretary; Ex parte Indian Association, QB 892 at 928; as referenced in High Court of Australia: Sue v Hill [1999 HCA 30; 23 June 1999; S179/1998 and B49/1998]
  5. ^ Ekos poll
  6. ^ Dr. Philips, Stephen; Canadian Monarchist News: The Emergence of A Canadian Monarchy: 1867-1953; Summer, 2003
  7. ^ Fierlbeck, Katherine; Canada: more liberal than Tory? A new book puts the country's bedrock beliefs under a microscope.(The Canadian Founding: John Locke and Parliament)(Book review); Literary Review of Canada; July 1, 2007
  8. ^ Library and Archives Canada: Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online: William Lyon Mackenzie
  9. ^ Library and Archives Canada: Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online: Louis Riel
  10. ^ Hubbard, R.H.; Rideau Hall; McGill-Queen’s University Press; Montreal and London; 1977
  11. ^ Will the Queen of England Come to Celebrate 100 Years of our Humiliation?
  12. ^ CBC Archives
  13. ^ Speech by Governor General Roland Michener, Nov. 19, 1970
  14. ^ a b Heinricks, Geoff; Canadian Monarchist News: Opinion: Trudeau and the Monarchy; reprinted courtesy of National Post
  15. ^ CBC Archives: René, The Queen and the FLQ
  16. ^ Speech by Governor General Roland Michener, Nov. 19, 1970
  17. ^ Toporoski, Richard; A Subject Speaks: Separation & The Crown; April, 1996
  18. ^ 6 CBC Archives: René, The Queen and the FLQ
  19. ^ The Monarchist League of Canada: Who we are and what we do
  20. ^ a b Phillips, Dr. Stephen; Republicanism in Canada in the reign of Elizabeth II: the dog that didn't bark; Summer 2004
  21. ^ a b CBC News: Liberals considering break from monarchy; December 18, 1998
  22. ^ Premiers Nix Monarchy Abolition: "Not a government priority at this point"
  23. ^ a b Valpy, Michael; The Globe and Mail: Affection for Queen remains strong in Canada; September 3, 2002
  24. ^ a b c Aimers, John; Canadian Monarchist News: John Manley: Republican; 1998
  25. ^ a b Monarchist League of Canada: Throngs Hail Canada's Golden Queen
  26. ^ Murphy, Rex; CBC News: The National: Manley and the monarchy; October 7, 2002
  27. ^ The Monarchist League of Canada: Views of the Royal Homecoming
  28. ^ Simpson, Jeffrey; Valpy, Michael; The Globe and Mail: Has the magic gone out of our monarchy?; April 13, 2002
  29. ^ Fox, Jim; St. Petersburg Times: Quebec dredges up monarchy issue once again; May 6, 2007
  30. ^ The Globe and Mail: A birthday visit by the Queen? Quebeckers are not amused; April 13, 2007
  31. ^ [CBC News: Queen won't be at Quebec City's big birthday bash; December 10, 2007]
  32. ^ Canadian Press; CTV News: Quebec City's 400th birthday stays under radar; December 26, 2007
  33. ^ Martin, Lawrence; The Globe and Mail: Wallflowers, it's time for a new stage of nationhood; July 29, 2007
  34. ^ Smith, David E.; The Invisible Crown; University of Toronto Press; 1995; p. 79
  35. ^ United Empire Loyalists: About
  36. ^ Citizens for a Canadian Republic - Goals
  37. ^ Speech by Governor General Roland Michener, Nov. 19, 1970
  38. ^ Ekos: Poll results—PDF document
  39. ^ Ipsos-Ried: Poll results—PDF document
  40. ^ Leger Marketing: Poll results—PDF document
  41. ^ Maclean's; March 21, 2005; p.15
  42. ^ Angus Reid Strategies 10-01-07
  43. ^ Republic / Monarchy Opinion Polls in Canada 1993 - 2007