Summary

Party Breakdown

Regional Breakdown

The Debate

The Good

And no, I don't know what 'Priority 0' means.

The Bad

The Ugly

Did they stutter with their 'Wheras-es'?

How Likely Are These To Pass?

Leadership Races

Elizabeth May

The New Democrats

Polls

Royal Homecomings

Monarchy in New Brunswick

Monarchist League in New Brunswick

Photo Credit: Yvonne Bambrick

  Thank you for taking the time to write. We appreciate your views on
the monarchy. 
  During a recent CTV interview, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh addressed
the concern over the excessive expenses of a former Governor General.
  When the discussion led to the role of the monarchy in Canada,
Jagmeet Singh spoke about its relevancy in the 21st century, adding,
that while it may not be a pressing issue for most Canadians, he’s open
to hearing the views of others. But, he clearly said that getting involved
with this issue is not a priority for him or our Party.
  Specifically, he said, “We’ve got a democracy and we’re proud of our
democracy, and I think that’s what most Canadians think is important
and I think we should focus on that.”
  Jagmeet and his NDP team are staying focused on what’s important to
the lives of everyday Canadians—like paying for groceries and heating
costs, their health issues and those of a family member, and having
enough money to retire. Jagmeet is hearing those concerns as he meets
with Canadians in communities across Canada, listening to what they
need to make life better for their families.
  And, he’s inviting all progressives to come together, to help make a
real difference—for more people today, and for future generations.
  Thanks again for writing. In the weeks and months ahead, we hope we
can find common ground on other concerns facing our country.
All the best,
Office of Jagmeet Singh
Leader, Canada’s New Democrats

​The Emailed Question & Responses

Crown & Cap Scoreboard

Peter Julian

Mr. Julian has stated he has no strong views on the monarchy but feels a referendum on the issue might be appropriate. Score:

Charlie Angus

Mr. Angus is firmly opposed to the monarchy but like many republicans does not see replacing it as a priority. Score:

Pat Stogran

Mr. Stogran's score suffered due to a bit of vagueness. He seems to know the monarchy is important but doesn't ​say it is important to him. Score:

Brian Graff (No Photo)

Mr. Graff's reply was highly detailed and greatly opposed to the monarchy. This is unfortunate as he made clear ​he once supported it. Score:

Ibrahim Bruno El-Khoury

Mr. El-Khoury's reply noted the historical importance of the monarchy while dwelling on Canada's ability to change if it chooses to. In the end the reply advocates nothing resulting in ​a low score on both sides. Score:

Jagmeet Singh

In light of Mr. Singh's unfortunate remarks during the Montreal debate his score has ​been adjusted. Score:

NDP Supporters and Monarchists Quotes

​"Jagmeet respects that Canada is a constitutional monarchy and the roles and
responsibilities that go hand in hand with that."
~Brian

Greetings Brian,

During the debate in Montreal Mr. Singh received a question on the Canadian
Monarchy and gave an answer much different than the one you sent me:

As spoken: Je ne suis d’accord pas de tout avec la monarchie, donc je veux que le
Canada reste une démocratie sans avoir un lien avec la monarchie.

Translation: I don’t support the Monarchy at all. So I want Canada to remain a
democracy without having a link to the Monarchy.

This is greatly disappointing and displays a lack of understanding about the
benefits of the monarchy to the well-functioning of Canadian democracy.

This is unfortunate as monarchy has been shown to have advantages over
republics in a number of areas including the quality of democratic norms. In a
2008 study titled "Presidents with Prime Ministers: Do Direct Elections Matter?"
by Margit Tavits she found that directly-elected presidencies did nothing to lower
voter apathy and were in fact associated with increased voter fatigue and a 7%
drop in voter turnout for legislative elections. Likewise, she found that indirectly-
elected presidents were not as non-partisan as we tend to believe them to be (since
they are still an electoral asset). The recent Austrian election shows how a
essentially powerless presidency can become divisive with the far-right challenger
being barely defeated late last year. Further, a 2009 study titled "Constitutional
Power and Competing Risks: Monarchs, Presidents, Prime Ministers, and the
Termination of East and West European Cabinets" by Petra Schleiter and Edward
Morgan-Jones found that constitutional monarchies had a marked preference for
using elections when governments lost confidence of the legislature. Both legislative
and (especially) executive presidencies had a marked preference for shuffling the
people in cabinet and continuing to the end of term. If you feel the people should be
consulted when a government falls this is not a good thing.

A Canadian democracy without the monarchy would be a degraded democracy.

Regards,
[Name Redacted]

"Monarchy is part of our history and Canadian heritage which we like to preserve
in a way or another for a number of reasons. While Canadians have aspirations for
evolving as a nation, should the Monarchy becomes a major obstacle for such
aspirations, then someone should explore best ways of overcoming these obstacles,
while preserving heritage. For the sake of learning, we see that Denmark and
Norway are among the most advanced democracies while still being Kingdoms.
Having said so, Canada is a constitution monarchy and should Canadians decide to
upgrade democracy, they will be in position to do so. All what's required is a
collective willingness."

"I used to believe that the monarchy was a good symbol of our heritage and how
we achieved independence peacefully, unlike the US. IT clearly set us apart from
the US. But, a Head of state should be a unifying figure, and the Monarchy is very
unpopular in Quebec – this is unlikely to change, even with immigration –
Quebecois see the monarchy as a symbol of defeat and past oppression, and despite
the Queen’s long and loyal service, I doubt this will change under her reign, and I
don’t see Charles being any more popular. It’s the institution, not the person, that is
the issue.
Even though my mother was born in the UK, I am now of the belief that we should
stay in the Commonwealth but should have a Canadian head of state. However,
that means opening up the Constitution, which is something that is unlikely to
happen soon.
So regardless of my views, we are stuck with it for many years."

​"One thing is, in doing such a thing, we should start from the top down, and perhaps
the first thing for me is that it is time we should finally have a made-in-Canada
head of state. For many French Canadians, the British-based monarchy is not an
endearing institution. As well, it is not a symbol of great relevance to the increasing
number of Canadians of non-British heritage, including the aboriginal peoples. The
Queen has no real power as such, most of it having been transferred to the
Governor General. This was made abundantly clear with the GST bill, in which she
had no choice but to sign it into law despite the controversy over the way in which it
was passed.
In the past, I tended to support the monarchy, as I believed it to be a symbol which
helped to distinguish ourselves from the US as a nation which gained independence
peacefully. But now I feel that other things are more important, namely that we
must create national institutions and symbols that are equally valid and relevant to
all Canadians, regardless of their ethnic origin or their religion. You should
remember that the Queen is of course a religious symbol as the head of the Anglican
church.
Twenty-five years ago we did this sort of thing with the flag. We got a brand-new
flag. No one individual group, British, French or anybody, could claim that it had a
special relationship to it, that it was its symbol more than it was anybody else's,
with the possible exception of course that the maple leaf does not grow in all parts
of the country.
Anyway, I hope that by such reforms as creating a new head of state that
everybody equally can identify with, it will have an effect of unifying the country.
Recent events have shown us that while the American system has too many checks
and balances and power is too decentralized within each level of government, such
as the budget process in the United States where they could not agree on anything,
our Canadian system is the exact opposite. There are not enough checks and
balances in our parliamentary system as it has evolved to the current time. Power
within each level of government is centralized in the head of government,
particularly when that is a majority government. I believe the greater power
should be given to bodies which are independent of interference from the
government so as to prevent abuse of power by the government and otherwise
make government more responsive to public needs. This is a role of the Senate, the
head of state and so on.
Unfortunately, the current institution of Governor General is not adequate to this
task, as it is currently an appointed head of state, or it would be an appointed head
of state if you made that the head of state, and it is quite likely that whoever was
appointed Governor General the government would of course be completely
sympathetic with government policy. I also believe you cannot give an appointed
person or body any real authority in a democracy. So I think that, importantly, it is
becoming increasingly clear that there is a need to provide more checks and
balances on the exercise of power by the Prime Minister, because increasingly
power is centralized in his office.
I believe we should replace both monarchy and governors general with an elected
president, but I would not want anything like the American President, which so
totally dominates things. I would, though, require that any aspirants to the position
of president previously have held elected office so that they be familiar with
parliamentary procedures and also that they be competent in both official
languages, again so that they can communicate with all Canadians."

"Monarchy, a nice tradition of historical and cultural significance in our
institutions."

"Under the Westminster style of government, the power to formally declare war
evolved from the prerogative of the Crown to do so on the recommendation of the
duly elected Cabinet. The Royal Prerogative was vested to the Government of
Canada in the Statute of Westminster in 1931, which effectively made Canada and
other countries in the Dominion sovereign, independent nations. Canada
subsequently exercised its authority to declare war as we entered the Second World
War, although it was arguably more of a symbolic gesture that masked our
tradition of subservience to the monarchy. If we set aside the lingering redundancy
of the monarchy as it pertains to Canada for the moment, to “declare war” in our
bastardized-Westminster-come-ad-hoc-presidentialized system of government, the
prime minister needs only to decree it so. In other words, the only legal requirement
for Canada to be “at war” in Iraq or anywhere else is for Cabinet to cut an Order-in-
Council to that effect and post it in TheGazette."