This paper argues that Canada should abandon its constitutional monarchy and become a republic, contending that such a transition is both politically feasible and culturally necessary. Drawing on Canadian political history, the paper examines how Canada has incrementally distanced itself from British rule since before Confederation, tracing key milestones such as the 1946 Citizenship Act and the 1982 patriation of the constitution. The paper considers how republicanism could ease Quebec separatist tensions, better reflect Canada's diverse population, and clarify the nation's identity independent of Britain. It also surveys several possible republican governance models and addresses the misconception that becoming a republic would require Canada to leave the Commonwealth.
The paper demonstrates effective use of comparative evidence: it references Ireland, South Africa, Germany, and Australia as case studies to support the feasibility of Canada's republican transition. Rather than treating the Canadian question in isolation, the author situates it within a broader post-colonial context, lending weight to the argument that republicanism is a natural and well-precedented evolution.
The paper opens with a framing of the central debate, then provides historical background on Canadian independence. It moves into normative arguments against the monarchy before addressing practical governance questions — specifically how the Governor-General's role could evolve. It then links republicanism to Quebec separatism, surveys concrete republican models, and closes with a call to action framed around national identity and decolonization.
Canada is a nation comprised of ten provinces and three territories. Those provinces and territories span five regions: the Atlantic (Maritime region), Central Canada, the Prairies, the West Coast, and the North (DeRocco 2009, 61). Every province in Canada works with the federal government to ensure the country progresses effectively; however, each province has its own government as well. One question plagues Canadian society and politics: Should Canada become a republic, or should it retain its constitutional monarchy?
While there are many arguments for keeping the status quo, there are just as many that can debunk pro-monarchy assertions. For example, most developed nations have moved past the archaic concepts of nobles and inherited rights in government and society (CCCR 2010). Moreover, alongside Canada's economic and cultural development, how Canada defines itself — and how its people define themselves — is a significant part of national life. Creating a republic is necessary for Canada: it will change the way other nations view the country, sever ancient and passé symbolic ties, and help calm the crisis between English and French solitudes.
The first element to consider is that republicanism is not new to Canada. Historically, Canada led the former British colonies in legislating independence and democratic reform, incrementally keeping itself on the road to a republic since before Confederation. Therefore, many believe that Canada should do away with the final vestiges of British colonialism, eliminate the monarchy, and become a republic. Others think Canada should remain part of the British Commonwealth, and groups such as the Monarchist League of Canada exist to support that loyalty to England.
However, keeping Canada as a Commonwealth country is passé, and making Canada a republic could resolve the problem of Quebec separatism. Trudeau (1958, 300) asserts that "democracy will be thwarted in Canada so long as one-third of the people hardly believe in it — and that because to no small extent the remaining two-thirds provide them with ample grounds for distrusting it." The British monarchy is simply outdated in the Canadian context, and it makes little sense for the nation, since Canada is already a republic in everything but name. There is a head of state, and supreme power lies in the body of its citizens. Canada's constitution allows Canadians to remove the monarchy through its own legislation — though that would be a challenge — and to significantly limit the power of the Crown (CCCR 2010).
Perhaps the persistence of monarchy is due to a sense of loyalty "deeply rooted in Canadian soil" (Appadurai 2009, 2). When the thirteen American colonies rebelled against the British Empire, a groundbreaking event occurred. For many years, Canadians — as well as New Zealanders and Australians — saw little need to define themselves through a separate citizenship; they identified as British subjects. In 1935, the Irish Free State became the first Dominion to declare and define its own citizenship when it passed the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, which classified all non-Irish subjects, including British citizens, as aliens (Bridge & Fedorawich 2003, 8). The real revolution, however, began in 1946 when Canada introduced its own Citizenship Act, under which Canadians were still to be considered British subjects, but only by virtue of being Canadian citizens first. "The 'indivisibility of subjecthood,' which had long helped to underpin the British world, was now irrevocably severed. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa followed suit in 1948–49" (2003, 8).
If republicanism happened tomorrow, what would change? Many Canadians are split on this issue, and some are simply confused: how would life change if Canada became a republic — if it changed at all? What are the benefits of keeping the Queen as head of state? First of all, the concept of monarchy is a tedious one, as it makes little sense in the modern era. The notion of someone being born royal with the potential to govern a country — and its Commonwealths — is difficult to justify. When royalty and heads of state are so arbitrarily determined by birth, it makes the broader exercise of governance seem inherently unfair and primordial in conception.
It is true that the monarchy in Canada does not hold any real power as such, but it does carry the ability to influence, since many Canadians remain loyal to the British Crown. Yet if the monarchy does not truly hold power, what is the purpose of retaining it, beyond purely symbolic function? Nations need engaged, hands-on leaders, and Canada manages quite well with its Governor-General. The Queen visiting Canada every few years does not produce any positive political consequences for the country (CCCR 2010).
Canada needs to become a republic in name and release itself from Britain. The then-current Governor-General, Michaëlle Jean — a Haitian refugee who came to Canada in 1968 — made the Queen's position as head of state feel not only antiquated but visibly so. Canada needs a more representative leader to reflect the fact that the country is now more varied in race, ethnicity, culture, language, and religion than ever before. The Queen of England does not stand for what Canada wishes to symbolize.
Regarding the Governor-General, Cannadine (2008, 206) notes that the Governor-Generalship of Canada was the most prestigious pro-consular position available in the entire British Empire, excluding the Indian Viceroyalty. Since 1867, Canada has been a self-governing "Dominion" within the British Empire (CCCR 2010), though full legislative independence was established only in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster. It was not until the patriation of its constitution in 1982 that amendments could be made without the permission of the British Parliament (CCCR 2010).
The bottom line, when it comes to Canada and whether or not it should break free from Great Britain, is about identity. Canada has no reason to identify itself with England any longer. Mackey (2003, 17) notes that Canada has long been viewed as having an identity crisis. Similarly, Hage (1996, 22) and Lattas (1990, 55) observe that Australia — another former colony of Great Britain — shares much with Canada in terms of cultural identity uncertainty. Mackey (17) suggests that, unlike Australia or South Africa, Canada does possess an identity, albeit one that may be in crisis, and that identity is not "homogeneous in its whiteness but rather replete with images of Aboriginal people and people of color. The state-sanctioned proliferation of cultural difference…seems to be the defining characteristic of Canada" (17).
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.