A recent survey by the Angus Reid polling firm found that while most Canadians want the current Queen to remain head of state, when she dies or steps down, that opinion reverses.
By a majority of two to one (52 per cent to 25 per cent) our attachment to the monarchy drops off once Queen Elizabeth’s reign ends. Perhaps understandably, an even higher proportion of Quebecers (72 per cent) hold this view.
While the survey found that many Canadians would be sad to hear that the Queen had died, their emotional attachment is to Elizabeth herself, not to her office.
This represents a significant decline in support for the monarchy. Five years ago more than 40 per cent of us wished Canada to remain a constitutional monarchy indefinitely.
It may be that the prospect of Prince Charles becoming King plays a role. He has formed little of the attachment to Canada that his mother established over her 70 years on the throne.
As well, recent years have seen the Royal Family suffer a series of emotional blows. The death of Princess Diana still reverberates.
A series of tense interactions with other members of the family led Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, to leave Britain.
They also surrendered the title “His and Her Royal Highness,” though they cannily kept their feet in the door, remaining the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Harry is sixth in line to the throne.
And this year the Duke of Edinburgh, long one of the most-liked members of the family, died.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to renouncing our attachment to the monarchy may lie in finding an alternative. In some countries, the United States among them, the head of government is also head of state.
Would Canadians wish to see the prime minister, whoever he or she might be, take on this role? It seems doubtful. That would place too much power and prestige in one pair of hands.
There is also the reality that any prime minister, inevitably, heads a government that from time to time becomes embroiled in controversies. Yet the head of state is supposed to be above that sort of thing.
The most likely option would be to retain the office of Governor General, but with the power to appoint vested in Parliament. As things stand at present, while the incoming Governor General is nominated by the prime minister, formally he or she is appointed by the monarch.
There is also the question of how all this might be accomplished. Under our constitution, Britain’s sovereign is Canada’s head of state. To change that would require a constitutional amendment, no easy matter.
There are several different formulas for amending the constitution, depending on the nature of the change involved.
In this case, renouncing the monarchy would require majority votes in the federal Senate and House of Commons, along with the approval of all 10 provincial legislatures.
Could this be achieved? It nearly was, some years ago. Between 1987 and 1990, then-prime minister Brian Mulroney attempted to formalize the so-called Meech Lake Accord, which initially met with the approval of all 10 premiers.
The accord would have recognized Quebec as a “distinct society,” and granted the provinces a stronger role in negotiating federal/provincial agreements.
The deal fell apart at the final hurdle, when a sole member of the Manitoba Assembly withheld his support after it had been decided by that legislature that unanimous consent was required.
So is it conceivable that our constitution could be amended to renounce Canada’s attachment to the British throne? If the requirement of unanimity is maintained, the answer is almost certainly no.
But might a yes vote be carried through Parliament and the provincial legislatures if all that is required is majority approval?
It would depend, of course, on the state of public sentiment at the time. Nevertheless, once our relationship with the present Queen comes to an end, it appears at least thinkable that we would take such a step.
