Queen Elizabeth II was well-liked by generations of Canadians, but her death and the ascension of her son Charles have revived a long-running debate in the country, where support for the monarchy has been in steady decline. But unlike other states that have severed ties with the British crown – or are considering doing so – Canada is likely to remain tied to the monarchy for no better reason than the complex rules governing its constitution. During Canada’s 155 years as a nation, a king or queen has served as head of state. Under Elizabeth, it was her favorite destination for a royal visit – of which there were 22 during her 70-year reign. “Thank you again for your welcome,” she told a cheering crowd in Halifax in 2010 on her last tour of the country. “It’s so good to be home.” The institution it represented, however, fell increasingly out of favor with Canadians, the majority of whom would prefer it abolished. For some, it’s stuffy and outdated. For others, it carries the burden of history and responsibility for centuries of suffering and deprivation for indigenous peoples. Today, immigration is driving Canada’s population growth, and with many young Canadians arriving from countries that also suffered from colonialism, skepticism about the monarchy is likely to grow, said Jonathan Malloy, a political science professor at Carleton University who specializes in in the study of parliamentary institutions. But even so, the monarchy is likely to remain. “I’ve never seen a serious debate in Canada about exactly what steps should be taken to eliminate the crown and get to a new kind of government structure,” Malloy said, noting that unlike other Commonwealth nations, the Canada has never had a strong or “serious” democratic movement. The Queen is greeted by a small girl upon her arrival at Torbay Air Force Base, near St John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, on June 21, 1959, during her visit to Canada. Photo: Intercontinental/AFP/Getty Images “What people don’t often realize is that the crown is under everything: our legal and constitutional system, our parliamentary system. It’s everything,” Malloy said. “And getting rid of it is not as simple as cutting ties or swapping ‘crown’ for ‘state’ in key documents.” Under the Constitution Act of 1982, to sever ties with the monarchy, Canada would need approval from the House of Commons and the Senate, as well as the unanimous consent of all 10 provinces. But that would be nearly impossible, as the provinces would fear that changes to the constitution could mean handing over powers to the federal government. Canadians also have vivid memories of a tumultuous period in the 1980s and 1990s that included two failed attempts to amend the constitution and a brush with secession that left leaders wary of dramatic change. Any political leader who wants to abolish the monarchy will have to endure considerable upheaval and confusion, as well as a wave of competing visions for a reformed constitution. “Any ‘solution’ could cause more problems than it solves,” Malloy said. “Somehow, people are recognizing that the system – although strange – has its strengths and it works.” Elizabeth’s death came amid a broader appreciation of Canada’s past, its relationship with the crown and a legacy of colonial violence. After unmarked graves were discovered on the site of the former residential schools more than a year ago, a harsh spotlight has been cast on Great Britain’s role in the country’s history. The grim discovery sparked a furious backlash – in which statues of Elizabeth and Queen Victoria were torn down by protesters – but also an ongoing debate about the long shadow of the country’s colonial past. Niigaan Sinclair, a professor of Indigenous studies at the University of Manitoba, said Indigenous views of Elizabeth were varied and diverse. Many saw her as a matriarch, a strong woman who cared for and led her family and community – and thus lived by values that are loved and respected by indigenous people. But at the same time, the Queen presided over “the most genocidal policies in history”, Sinclair said. Indigenous leaders often implored her during official visits to Canada to advocate on their behalf to the federal government. The Queen promised to act, but nothing came of it, Sinclair said. She pointed to her visit to Manitoba in 1970, when David Courchen, head of the Indian Brotherhood of Manitoba, asked the Queen why Canadians were so rich while his people were so poor. Courchene asked if this difference was a fulfillment of the treaties her ancestors had signed. Particular frustration has focused on the Queen’s perceived failure to intervene to prevent neglect and abuse in residential schools, Sinclair said. A toppled statue of Queen Elizabeth II lies face down in the Manitoba legislature on July 2, 2021 in Winnipeg. The statue was torn down by Indigenous protesters following a march to honor survivors and victims of Canada’s residential school system. Photo: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images “She was extremely happy to use us for her public image. He had the opportunity to advocate in life and death situations and he did nothing, so it’s hard to have a legacy to be proud of someone like that,” Sinclair said. The relationship between aboriginal peoples and the British royal family predates the founding of Canada as a country and is largely embodied in treaties signed in the 1700s. That long history means Indigenous views on the role of the sovereign in Canada are ambiguous and varied, said George Lafond, a former treaty commissioner for the province of Saskatchewan. And the relationship was further complicated when the Canadian government implemented the Indian Act in 1876, a far-reaching piece of legislation that drastically curtailed indigenous autonomy. That move “sets everything aside,” Lafond said, leaving First Nations to question the Crown’s sincerity in its negotiations. “Why did the crown let this happen?” he said. However, the Union Jack is still flying in the outfield. “[My father] he served king and country, along with many other Indigenous people who fought for Britain’s symbols, language and culture,” Lafond said. “I have an obligation to his generation to respect what he did in his time.” Sara Mainville, a Toronto-based lawyer specializing in treaty implementation and governance, says the treaties her ancestors signed with the crown represented a statement of confidence that both nations could live peacefully side by side – and undoing these could be “traumatic” for many nations. “These conditions are a spiritual agreement, something confirmed in a ceremony. We smoked the pipe afterwards. It is not something that can be renegotiated. It is a living thing. We must honor its existence, feed it and nurture it,” he said Decades of neglect by the federal government represents the state’s failure to live up to its obligations — not the treaties themselves, he said. For Mainville, the 1764 Treaty of Niagara set the stage for how Indigenous nations saw their relationship with the Crown – one of mutual aid and benefit. “I see the conditions as an opportunity for both nations to be successful. The native perspective on treaty making is that it is win-win. So why do we suffer?’ said Mainville, who also served as chief of the Couchiching First Nation. “Because honor and trust are broken.” Mainville said if the relationship with the crown ended, there was little confidence among aboriginal nations that Canada’s federal or provincial governments, which have repeatedly failed in their duties, would negotiate new treaties that would keep aboriginal nations as equals. “The reality is that’s not going to happen.”
