Category: Republicans

NDP Leadership Candidates and the Monarchy: Yves Engler

7/31/2025

Source: Yves Engler's Campaign Page

The NDP leadership race is going to be a long one with it not set to
conclude until 2026. Even so there
are two candidates already
declared. As with previous
leadership races a questionnaire
will be sent to each candidate. I
received Yves Engler's response a
few days ago. Mr. Engler has the
support of the NDP Socialist
Caucus so perhaps I shouldn't have
held out hope he would have a
well-thought out and nuanced position. Still his response to
the questionnaire was disappointing, if straight-forward:

"I'm opposed to monarchy"

On his personal blog he has called for the monarchy to be
abandoned (which also ran in several socialist publications).

Perhaps with the NDP's crushing result in the last election the
republicans feel they finally have an opportunity. It is up to
the supporters of the Crown within the NDP to prove them
wrong.

EDIT: Yves has made abolishing the monarchy a part of his campaign platform.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

2025 Federal Election Leaves NDP with a Mixed Bag of Survivors

4/29/2025

To say the recently concluded federal election was bad for the
New Democratic Party is like saying the Hindenburg had a
minor accident. The NDP has suffered their single worst
result ever. The ups and downs of partisan politics isn't really
relevant to this blog but any potential effects on the monarchy
certainly are. So to that effect I will give a brief overview of
where the NDP's seven survivors stand.

Also note that, as I predicted in my last article, Jagmeet
Singh did not win re-election. Although unexpectedly Nicki
Ashton joined Singh and Angus in retirement. All three were
openly republican and their passing from the political scene
will not be missed.

So, with that out of the way, here are the survivors:

Gord Johns - We'll start on a high note. Mr. Johns wrote a
lovely tribute to the Queen after her passing. It does not
appear he was present to vote on the Bloc's motion to abolish
the monarchy for whatever reason.

Lori Idlout - Voted in favour of the Bloc's abolition motion.
In terms of public statements she has said the coronation of
King Charles III was a good opportunity to reset the
relationship with Canada's First Nations.

Heather McPherson - It has been hard to find anything
regarding Ms. McPherson's stance on the monarchy. She does
not appear to have been present for the Bloc's motion.

Jenny Kwan - Another party member who voted in favour of
the Bloc's motion. She did however post a tribute to the late
Queen when she passed.

Don Davies - Voted in favour of the Bloc motion but has
made no other substantial statements on the topic.

Leah Gazan - Voted in favour of the Bloc motion and has
made negative statements regarding the monarchy.

Alexandre Boulerice - Voted in favour of the Bloc motion
and has made numerous calls to end the monarchy. Probably
the most vocal republican left in the NDP caucus.

Its unclear who will end up as the next NDP leader (or even if
it will be someone from caucus). Alexandre Boulerice is by far
the most concerning choice they could make but overall the
monarchist contingent within the NDP caucus has been
decimated along with the party. It is unclear whether this will
lead to republican voices becoming predominate but members
should be vigilant.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Republicans Leaving Canadian Federal Politics (by choice or otherwise)

3/26/2025

There is a federal election underway and I wanted to take a
second to look at what this means for the monarchy. While
the monarchy is not directly effected by who wins any given
election (that is one of the advantages of our system) the fact
remains that having fewer opponents of the monarchy near
the levers of power is a good thing. So in this post I will look
at which republicans are unlikely to trouble the monarchy
further.

Chandra Arya made waves by entering the
Liberal Leadership race, calling for the
abolishment of the monarchy (along with a
bunch of other third rails of Canadian
politics), and being kicked out of the race.
He was still, however, an MP. That is until
the Liberal Party barred him from running
under their banner in the election, which
effectively ends his career.

Charlie Angus has been opposed to the
monarchy for many years. Unlike Mr. Arya
who has the political skills of a rock, Mr.
Angus was a force within the NDP and has
often been mentioned as a potential leader.
The announcement of his retirement from
federal politics comes as a relief. However,
there is reason to hold off celebrating just
yet...

Jagmeet Singh (and a majority of the
NDP caucus) have seen their polling
absolutely collapse in recent weeks with the
potential for them to be reduced to single-
digit seat counts. So even if Mr. Singh
survives, his days are numbered.
Unfortunately, of the names bandied about
as potential survivors only Peter Julian
voted against the 2022 Bloc motion to end
the monarchy.

Yves-François Blanchet - As the man
who proposed the 2022 motion on ending
the Canadian Monarchy I would like to say
Mr. Blanchet is for sure not going to be
returning to Parliament. However, I can't.
While Bloc polling numbers are down and
they seem set to lose seats to the Liberals,
Mr. Blanchet took the party from having
only 10 seats to the low 30s. Anything other
than a disastrously bad result probably
sees him remain around. However, since every Bloc member
voted in favour of his motion I would still count their caucus
shrinking to be a win.

The Monarchist League of Canada seems convinced that Mark
Carney is a monarchist which is a positive as it was always a
bit touch and go with Trudeau (a fact I have talked about in
previous posts). Pierre Poilievre has never really said much on
the issue which doesn't inspire confidence. Likely we will see
at least two leadership contests following this election (likely,
the Conservatives and NDP). The Conservatives might be
inclined to pick a more traditional conservative voice but the
NDP could present problems, especially if Charlie Angus
decides to un-retire to try and chip away at the Liberal's left
wing. Still, Peter Julian has run for the leadership before and
if the NDP caucus is significantly reduced he might make
another go at it. Still, the general direction of this election
seems positive for the monarchy.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Demographic Breakdown of Support and Opposition to the Monarchy Earlier This Month in Parliament

11/30/2022

Late last month there was a motion introduced by MP Yves-
François Blanchet of the Bloc Quebecois advocating for the
abolition of the monarchy. I have been somewhat busy this
month due to municipal elections in New Brunswick and was
not able to get to it right away. As it turns out the Parliament
of Canada keeps a breakdown of how each vote goes on its
website which is a wonderful resource to have. Lets see if
anything interesting can be found from looking at the raw
numbers.

Summary

Motion: the House express its desire to sever ties between
the Canadian State and the British monarchy, and call on the
government to take the actions necessary to do so.
Yea: 44
Nay: 266
Abstention/Absent: 28
Result: Motion Defeated

Party Breakdown

Bloc Quebecois
Yea: 31
Nay: 0
Abstention/Absent: 1
-Perhaps not surprisingly the party whose leader introduced
the motion supported it fully.

New Democratic Party
Yea: 10
Nay: 7
Abstention/Absent: 8
-Of all the results I find this one the most interesting. The
NDP has a republican leader (although he didn't vote on this
motion) but also a large contingent of members who support
the monarchy. During the last survey of NDP leadership
candidates I received several comments from members who
don't vote for the party because they don't trust the party on
this issue. It should also be noted that if the Bloc wanted a
wedge issue to cause trouble for the NDP they couldn't find
a better one. The Bloc traditionally hasn't weighed in on the
monarchy as their stated goal is independence regardless so
the timing seemed odd. They do have to watch out for rivals
though and the NDP has in recent memory absolutely curb
stomped the Bloc. The NDP has also been a fairly effective partner in the current minority government. Does the Bloc
sincerely dislike the monarchy? Yes, but keeping their rivals
from posing a threat is also a concern.

Green Party
Yea: 1
Nay: 1
Abstention/Absent: 0
-Elizabeth May continues to be a strong supporter of the
monarchy. This is the first time we have gotten to see what
Mike Morrice's views are. While disappointing, at least we
know them now. Mike has been suggested as a potential
leader for the party down the road so it is something to watch.

Liberal Party
Yea: 1
Nay: 145
Abstention/Absent: 12
-I'll get into the geographic breakdown next but the one yea
vote was from a Quebec MP. I have been somewhat critical
of the Liberal's handling of the monarchy file over the years
but they can be counted on to not rock the boat at least.

Conservative Party
Yea: 0
Nay: 112
Abstention/Absent: 7
-The Conservative Party continues to be a bastion of loyalty. I
had been worried when Pierre Poilievre was elected leader of
the party due to the complete lack of any statements made
regarding the monarchy and his overall populist leanings. He
is either a closet monarchist or realizes the split this would
cause in his support is even greater than in the NDP's case.

Independent MPs
Yea: 1
Nay: 1
Abstention/Absent: 0
-One Quebec yea vote and one Ontario nay vote. Just goes to
show the more things change the more they stay the same.

Regional Breakdown

Atlantic Canada
Yea: 0
Nay: 30
Abstention/Absent: 2
-Of passing interest is the absence of a vote by MP Jenica
Atwin, former Green Party MP.

Quebec
Yea: 34
Nay: 41
Abstention/Absent: 3
-Despite the Bloc Quebecois voting entirely in favour of the
motion they still didn't manage a majority in their own
province.

Ontario
Yea: 3
Nay: 107
Abstention/Absent: 11
-Interestingly of the five NDP MPs in Ontario three didn't cast
a vote and the remaining two voted in favour.

Prairies
Yea: 3
Nay: 52
Abstention/Absent: 7
-Given the large Conservative contingent on the prairies this
lopsided result was expected. The NDP here heavily
supported the motion.

British Columbia
Yea: 3
Nay: 35
Abstention/Absent: 4
-The NDP split on this question was most pronounced in BC
with three supporting it, seven opposing it, and three not
voting.

Territories
Yea: 1
Nay: 1
Abstention/Absent: 1

The Debate

Openparliament.ca has the full debate on the motion. There
are a great deal of tired arguments. Some of which I've dealt
with before. The debate will be a useful reference in the
future. Whether they like it or not many MPs have had to take
a stand.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

State of Monarchy in the Caribbean

9/21/2022

Caribbean Realm Flags

Not too long ago there was some
controversy during the Cambridge's tour
of the Caribbean, although this was really
about some politicians and activists trying
to shake things up. Royal tours
everywhere spark debates all the time.

In reality this tour was very successful.
The Queen was evidently not seen as a
colonial ruler in the West Indies and
continued to be appreciated by many. As I’m writing this, I’m
thinking about my Jamaican-British classmate at music
school who told me that "everybody dances about the
Queen" when she visited.

Crowds greet the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in Trench Town

Attitudes to the monarchy appear to differ between the
politicians and the general public. A lot of these countries in
the West Indies have threatened to “cut colonial ties” for
decades now but in most places little progress was made with
this.

UK overseas territory Bermuda rejected independence in 1995
despite this being what their politicians campaigned for.
Bermuda would have remained a commonwealth realm even
if they had hypothetically voted yes. Bermudian politicians
continue to be nationalistic. Premier David Burt released a
statement following the Queen’s death, like most
commonwealth leaders, but what was rather concerning was that it read “I express sincere condolences to the Royal
Family and the people of the United Kingdom”, implying that
he is not acknowledging the queen's role in Bermuda.
Despite this kind of attitude from the Premier, the Queen did
make her fair share of visits to Bermuda which were greeted
with enthusiasm by the Bermudian people.

The decision of the Barbados government last year was rather
appalling; going ahead with removed the monarchy with an
act of parliament rather than a public referendum. The
justification for this was that the party in power won every
seat in Parliament and were explicitly republican in ideology.
Although, if you look at the broader picture; both major
parties have republican sentiment so who else were the people
supposed to vote for? The new head of state of Barbados was a
president chosen by their one party parliament who had
previously served as the Governor General. None of this
sounds very republican of them.

Prime Minister Mia Mottley announced her intention to do
this with a rather patriotic tone, saying that Barbados will “cut
colonial ties with Great Britain” on independence day.
Polling data suggests that Barbadians would have either preferred a monarchy, or would have been indifferent about
change, but a majority wished to be consulted about the
change. It’s sad to hear that Barbados was allegedly
encouraged to do this out of debt diplomacy with the PRC but
this really says more about their government than it does
about royalty.

The backlash during Prince William's royal tour obviously
caused him to feel quite remorseful. He acknowledged the
history of slavery in Jamaica and even conceding in the future
to ‘let the people decide’. Overall, the process to ‘ditch the crown’ is an empty threat and has been much slower for Jamaica than in Barbados precisely because the people must
be consulted.

Republicans in every realm have to a large extent waited for
Prince Charles to ascend before beginning to push for a
constitutional referendum. This has finally happened, though
if they want to make this a serious campaign, surely they
wouldn’t want to start too soon. Approval ratings of King
Charles III have gone up greatly since his ascension.

Queen Elizabeth II was obviously known to take her role
seriously in the West Indies, and there is no reason why King
Charles III can’t prove himself willing to do the same now.

Loyally Yours,
Lord Ludichris

Meme Monday #10

11/1/2021

Prince William from two perspectives

People say that a picture is worth a thousand words. What
they don't mention is that none of those words are necessarily
the truth.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Statement by Chairman Finch of the Monarchist League of Canada

7/6/2021

REPUBLICANISM WILL NOT HELP WITH RECONCILIATION

In the aftermath of the horrific discoveries of the bodies of Indigenous children at
former residential schools across the country, Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Canadians have rightly been asking themselves what more can be done to help
achieve reconciliation.

Recently, a school in Creston, BC removed its royal connection and renamed the
Prince Charles Secondary School. Statues of Queen Victoria have been toppled and
vandalized with barely a whimper of disapproval. On Twitter, so-called allies of
Indigenous peoples without a shred of sober second thought equate anyone who
supports the Crown with condoning and enabling genocide. All, of course, in the
name of reconciliation.

Unfortunately, there is a belief among some that erasing symbols of the monarchy
and the Royal Family will somehow help bridge the divide between us. Some want
to go as far as abolishing the monarchy altogether, replacing the Queen and the
Crown with a President and republican system of government. They argue that
republicanism is the way forward towards reconciliation. However, they could not
be more wrong in that assertion.

Just as in the broader population, Indigenous opinion on the monarchy is far from
being universal. Some support it, some do not, and some don’t care. However,
reconciliation does not mean republicanism. Nowhere in the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission is there a call for ending the monarchy in Canada. In
fact, a general theme found throughout its ninety-four calls to action is how the
Indigenous-Crown relationship can be fostered and strengthened. The final call to
action called upon the government to amend the Oath of Citizenship to include a
reference to treaties all while keeping references to The Queen and her successors.
Hardly a republican manifesto.

It is surely worth asking what exactly a republic would even achieve in the first
place for Canada’s First Nations, Inuit, and Metis. Would the lives of Indigenous
peoples be improved? Would they be better off? Well, have the Indigenous
populations prospered in our republican neighbours to the south, the United States
and Mexico? Surely not.

Today, there exists great public support for Indigenous people, concern for their
causes, and regret for past wrongs. But tearing down other institutions that are
important to many – including Indigenous people - is not the way to go tactically
or strategically to achieve reconciliation. Ditto for any widespread charges of
colonialism and the like applied to today’s Royal Family who, quite frankly, have
done more to champion Indigenous issues than many of our politicians,
bureaucrats, academics, pundits, and so-called activists.

Blaming The Queen or other members of the Royal Family for the misdeeds and
mistakes of the past is undeserved and ultimately unhelpful to the reconciliation
cause and the country. We have an exciting opportunity to come together and
rebuild the nation-to-nation relationship between the Crown and Indigenous
peoples. Perhaps the Queen herself has a special role to play in this rebuilding. Let’s
seize the moment. Let’s not squander it with ill-conceived actions that will only
further divide us.

Release July 3rd.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

All three policy proposals concerning the monarchy that were submitted to the NDP policy convention

4/10/2021

The NDP is having a policy convention this weekend (so are
the Liberals in what must have been a scheduling snafu). The
NDP membership has once again put forward policies
concerning the Canadian Monarchy to be debated. The
following is a summary of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Good

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

I actually like this and would support it. The return of the
vetting committee created during the premiership of Stephen
Harper would be a welcome reform.

The Bad

Essentially this proposal would end, or greatly limit, the
ceremonial role of the executive branch (unless the slack was
taken up by the prime minister which is another concern) and give the constitutional parts of the job to the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court. The obvious problem with this is that the chief justice is appointed by the governor general. Without a
governor general the chief justice would be in charge of
appointing their own replacement... and those of their fellow
justices. Even if everything is above board it looks sketchy as
all hell.

The Ugly

Did they stutter with their 'Wheras-es'?

Putting aside the call to abolish the monarchy for a second I
just want to note that the actions of former Governor General
Julie Payette only confirm the dysfunctional nature of Julie
Payette.

How Likely Are These To Pass?

The last time this issue came up it wasn't even debated by
the entire membership. This time the party has a lot of
popular motions to debate (you will note each of these is only
supported by one riding association). Jagmeet Singh has also
been trying to walk back some of the more extreme proposals
so it may be possible they will avoid committing to large
constitutional reforms which would take the third proposal off
the table. The second proposal above raises so many legal
questions that it probably won't make it to a full membership
vote. I can see the first one being debated and passed. This
creates an interesting situation. Due to the limit placed on
how many proposals will be debated (70) does the party allow
a single issue to take up three slots? If you limit which ones go
through does this favour the policy most likely to pass and be
implemented? These policies, if they are to be debated, will
come up on Sunday so we will find out then. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: As predicted the motions did not even come up for
debate.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Meme Monday #9

3/22/2021

There are some poll results that get funnier the longer you
look at them and consider the scenarios that could play out. A
recent YouGov poll carried out in the UK is one such example.
The idea of republicans actually getting rid of the monarchy
only for the people to then elect Prince William is funny to
me. And then there is the fourth place finish of 'Me' as the
person those surveyed would like chosen. Finally, Nigel
Farage and Jeremy Corbyn make a match made in hell at 2%
of support each.

But seriously, there is some interesting information to be had.
For starters there is no unifying choice among respondents.
Even the Queen, who enjoys widespread support has uneven
support when voting is brought into the picture. There is also
an obvious disconnect between who people want and who
would actually get to vote for. David Attenborough has had
plenty of opportunity to run for public office, takes public
positions on issues, and is obviously popular but has never
stood for election. Which leaves Boris Johnson as the most
credible candidate on this list to be president of a British
republic.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Democracy Watch combines Good Intent with an oddly poor understanding of the Canadian Constitution to Ill Effect

12/7/2020

Democracy Watch Logo

Recently I learned that an organization
called Democracy Watch was going to
sue the New Brunswick government over
its decision to call an early election back in
September. Now, suing anyone is risky but
more so when that organization has
limitless funds to mount a defence. So if
nothing else I commend their bravery.
Sadly, the bravery has a truckload of foolishness mixed in.

So what is the issue at hand? It comes down to reading New
Brunswick's fixed-date election law (which sets the date the
next election will fall on), and the constitution, the way you
want it to read rather than how it is actually written. James
Bowden over at Parliamentum has already made several
excellent posts about the structural problems of Canada's
fixed-date election laws so I will not get into them in depth
here.

The Democracy Watch press release announcing this legal
action is an interesting read mostly because it aims to have
the courts rule on two things they don't rule on: conventions
and politics. They argue that because the last three elections
have occurred on the fixed-date that a convention has been
established. I won't even dispute this point; a convention of
having elections on a set date may well have been established
but this still doesn't make conventions something
courts can rule on. The second aspect of their argument is
that calling an early election was self-interested and contrary
to previous political positions. Now, courts don't rule on
conventions and they definitely don't rule on political
positions. There is an amusing irony in that if Democracy
Watch gets its way the unelected courts will become referees
of government policy. Why is this an irony? Because they also
want the current referees of government policy (the monarch
and their representatives) to be elected.

Although, either because of the many constitutional hurdles
involved or a secret preference for oligarchy, they don't
actually call for elected governor generals:

"Democracy Watch recommends that the GG be chosen by creating a new federal
Cabinet appointments agency made up of 5 people chosen with the approval of all
federal political party leaders that have members in the House of Commons; then
having that agency do a public, advertised, merit-based search to come up with a
shortlist of 3 qualified candidates for GG (this agency will also do searches for
candidates for all other federal Cabinet appointments); and then having a
convention attended by the leaders of every party that has members in any federal,
provincial or territorial legislature, and with the GG approved by two-thirds of the
leaders. This will result in a representative, non-partisan, qualified GG being
chosen every time."

I'm sure Democracy Watch would like to think this is a more democratic process but it is instead a very oligarchic one. At
every step the smallest elite has authority. Search committee?
Selected by the party leaders. Convention to select the new
governor general? Party leaders from across Canada. I also
have doubts about their conclusion that the resulting pick
would be non-partisan. Election is not a system that tends to
select for non-partisanship. Those leaders doing the voting
have every interest to have someone sympathetic to their
interests get the nod. Finally, it diffuses responsibility for the
appointment. At present, the prime minister has a vested
interest in making sure their pick isn't an embarrassment.
By spreading the blame for any poor choices of governor
general around a wider group the prime minister loses any
sense of personal responsibility in making sure the office of
the governor general is functioning properly.

The idea of having a select group choose candidates to
recommend is not a bad idea in and of itself. I have
mentioned the Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal
Appointments before and I feel it was an improvement.

So Democracy Watch does have some good ideas, such as
increasing the power of auditors general, but the good ideas
are buried under layers of poorly-thought-out initiatives, of
which messing with the Crown is only one. It can do better.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

<<Previous