Debate: Should Canada keep the monarchy?

*Please note the opinions presented in Substack pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of the Canadian Future Party Youth Wing or the Canadian Future Party.

*Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans les articles Substack ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues de l’Aile jeunesse du Parti Avenir Canadien ni celles du Parti Avenir Canadien.

This debate is part of CFP Youth’s summer series of debates.

Claim: Canada should keep the monarchy.

Speaking in favour: Nathan

Speaking in opposition: Will

Will: Hello. Thank you. If the monarchy is so essential to Canadian democracy, why do other parliamentary democracies like Germany and Ireland function fine without one?

Nathan: They aren't perfect by any means. Germany is an example I know well. My dad's German and his family's heavily involved in politics and the German president is a complicated position and I would argue it's inferior to that of a monarchy or in our case governor general. The main thing is that it's a partisan position which causes some controversy. While they're supposed to be nonpartisan in their roles, many German presidents will wage into partisan politics. Richard von Weizsäcker did it a few times and much to Germany's detriment, I would argue. And while they function similarly in that they have the president as the constitutional head of state. The monarchy just offers continuous stability like Queen Elizabeth was the head of state for 70 years, offering continuous stability going from one prime minister to the next prime minister. Also making sure that our prime ministers aren't seen as a celebrity figure as they're usually the mild-mannered boring leader who is governing at the behest of the monarch. Whereas in Germany or other republics with a president head of state, they aren't that because they're a partisan politician.

Will: I see. That was a very interesting response. So, thank you for that. Who does the monarchy provide stability to? When the governor general refused to call to recall parliament during the Trudeau resignation crisis, was that stability or was that a constitutional power vacuum?

Nathan: I would say that's completely stability and the governor general was completely justified. Arguably dissolving parliament at that point would have caused way more instability in the face of the Trump administration coming into power and the potential landslide defeat of the liberals in a pretty shocking manner. Trudeau was well in his right to ask the governor general to probe parliament and the governor general was in her rights to accept. While there was no government at the time, it offered stability and it allowed an election to be held which was afterwards when the liberals had elected a new leader.

Moderator: We will now carry on to the next stage which is the negative construction.

Will: Hello all. I'm Will, co-lead of the CFP Youth in the GTA. There's a lot on the agenda today, so I'm going to get straight to the point. The British monarchy, in my view, is a relic, a symbolic appendage we keep around out of some vague historical sentimentality. It's like that dusty old Union Jack in Grandma's Attic. But in 2025, Canada is long overdue for serious constitutional upgrades. It's time to stop pretending we are a semi- detached British colony and fully embrace who we are: an independent, pluralistic and secular nation, a product of the modern world and a nation that deserves a head of state who actually lives here. Canadians say we want reconciliation, diversity, and transparency. Yet, we cling to an unelected institution that embodies colonialism, secrecy, and hereditary privilege. A system where leadership is decided not by merit or ideals, but because daddy said, "It's my turn to play with the boat." We don't need to burn our system down to change it. We need to evolve it. The parliamentary system works, so we should keep it. We should keep the checks and balances, but swap out the symbolic royal baggage for an elected head of state within Canada. The message we would send to ourselves and the world is that Canada is not a junior partner to anyone. I believe it's time for this nation to grow up, cut the cord, and finally act like the sovereign nation we already are.

Moderator: We'll carry on to the cross- examination of the negative by the affirmative.

Nathan: All right, I appreciate your argument, Will. I understand where you're coming from, but I'll start by saying that Canada has been an independent country since, pretty much, 1936 with the Statue of Westminster. While we still have a British crown, it functionally is a Canadian crown. And we are no longer a vassal of Britain. We have been an independent nation doing our own will and our own bidding for over a generation. And monarchy isn't a relic of the past. Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, all some of the most democratic, free, and modern societies in the world. And yet they still use the monarchy. Furthermore, fundamentally the monarchy is a cornerstone of Canadian tradition. If we start eliminating our past, we just become another arm of America. The monarchy acts as a bull work against the homogenizing American influence over Canada.

Will: I agree with you that tradition matters. But which traditions do we draw the line at? Canada got rid of the red ensign. We stopped using God Save the Queen. We've moved past the residential school system. I do not believe that the royal family of all things is the hill to die on. It's possible to remember our history without letting outdated institutions govern us.

Nathan: Again, I would go back to it's not an outdated system. Yes, it's hereditary, but look at all the hereditary systems in Canada. Our prime minister was the son of a previous prime minister. In Ontario, the president of the Treasury Board is the daughter of a prime minister. Hereditary systems will happen in Canada and in the world no matter what. The monarchy allows us a loyalty system, almost, that keeps Canadians, the Canadian elite loyal to Canada rather than swaying further and further to the US. And I don't think that solely because it's a hereditary system, that warrants dismissing it.

Will: I do not believe Canadians would accept a hereditary head of state in the style of the royal family if it was anything other than tradition. If we proposed a hereditary ceremonial position in say the United States, France or any other country, nobody in Canada would support that. No one in Canada would accept the idea of a hereditary head of state if it was anyone other than a British royal.

Moderator: We will do both the affirmative rebuttal and the affirmative rejoinder at the same time.

Will: I do not believe that Canada's Constitution is made of metaphorical sugar glass. It's a living document. And yes, addressing such an issue of replacing the royal family with an elected head of state, it would be a challenge. I fully agree with you on that. But we've amended it before. We have evolved our institutions before. We switched flags once upon a time. We signed the Charter of Rights and Freedom in 1982. We gave indigenous peoples new legal recognition. And throughout all of this, our system did not collapse. It adapted because we are a mature democracy that develops. And that's what mature democracies do. I do not believe touching the old lamp is going to make the entire house fall down. And as is true with removing the monarchy; it doesn't mean rewriting everything from scratch. We would still have Parliament, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provinces and premiers. All of those things will remain intact. What changes is the symbolic head of state who in my eyes already has no real influence over our day-to-day democracy except costing us millions of dollars to uphold colonial baggage. I do not believe our constitution would be in a bonfire if we became a republic. In reality, we'd be changing one part of it that no longer reflects who we are or what we stand for. We already have the legal tools to do that. It would be hard. It would be a battle. But so is anything worth doing.

Moderator: Thank you very much both debaters and at this time we will move on to the audience question period. There's 12 minutes set aside for this but it may go longer or may go shorter depending on the number of questions we have. I'll first go to the audience and then if the audience doesn't have any questions I'll jump in or if either of the candidates has additional questions for their opponent, then they may do so at that time.

Question 1: So I have a question for both of you. Will, you reference that the alternative you're proposing to the monarchy would be an elected head of state? Do you see any problems with that? Because if a head of state was elected, could you imagine a situation in which the head of state didn't belong to the same party, or if the elected head of state was purely an independent position, just didn't align with the current prime minister and decided to prorogue parliament to stop something from happening or decided not to let the prime minister call an election or do similar anti-democratic measures? And Nathan, is there any feasible alternative to the monarchy in Canada?

Will: Sure, you have a point there. Everything has problems if you look hard enough. Ultimately speaking, that's just kind of how it works. However, I believe that the pros to an elected head of state far outweighs the cons in my eyes. Right now, the king of Canada is our head of state. King Charles III is a foreign monarch born into the job with zero connection to Canada's culture, politics, or people. His representative is a governor general appointed behind closed doors. In a constitutional republic, we would get a Canadian head of state chosen by Canadians, whether by parliament or by public vote, someone accountable, someone local, and someone who actually lives here and reflects our values, not the values of Britain's aristocratic leftovers. In a republic, even a ceremonial president gains legitimacy through process. That's how you strengthen a democracy, by ensuring no one holds power over the public without consent. And in terms of checks and balances, I believe in abolishing the Senate and replacing it with a direct democracy system in the same way that Switzerland has, which means in the off chance that said elected head of state goes rogue and starts doing things we do not like, it would mean the citizens would be able to hold a referendum and remove said head of state. Currently, we are wasting millions of dollars on royal tours, governor general salaries and ceremonial red tape. These are heritage gimmicks that serve no practical function. And becoming a republic lets us redesign our roles with transparency, frugality, and actual civic value.

Moderator: Okay, thank you. Nathan, would you like to respond as well?

Nathan: Thank you. So to answer your question, I don't think there's any better system to replace the monarchy. Will talks a lot about how it would save us so much money to switch from a monarchy to a republic. I disagree. Changing the Constitution alone will cost millions. And after that, we'll still have to pay a salary for the head of state. We'll have to pay for elections. We'll still have to pay for their staff. We'll have to pay for their residence. All the same things as a governor general gets and more. The monarchy is not based on logic and it's not perfect, but it's the accumulated experience of the entirety of Canadian history. While some argue they are a part of our colonial past, and yes, that's true, but it doesn't mean they're still colonial. The French Republic was perhaps one of the worst colonial empires in the world, and they're a democracy and a republic and more. Belgium while a monarchy was horrible. It can go either way for colonial paths, but in Canada's case, the monarchy guarantees our human freedoms, security, and happiness as they do not claim to know the unknowable, and they offer checks and balances and complete and utter neutrality that no elected head of state will ever have.

Moderator: Will, you've repeatedly gone and toured the world with inspiration on what you would like to use to replace our current system. And you've referenced the Americans and the French multiple times. Given our history and justifiable cultural perpetual weariness of the American influence over Canadian culture, government, society at every level, how would you respond to people who question removal of the of the monarchy based on the fact that this is an Americanizing influence and it gives the Americans more potential control directly over our nation and our sovereignty?

Will: That is a great question and ultimately speaking, I think that joining the ranks of modern republics actually has the exact opposite effect. It would make Canada look like what it already is, a grown-up nation. I do not believe Canada should be the sidekick of America. Absolutely not. I do not want that. I want Canada to be Canadian. However, I do not think we should play sidekick with the United Kingdom either. Other democracies look at Canada and scratch their head. We are a G7 country and we have a king. You know, Barbados figured it out. Ireland got out of the British crown and didn't look back. Scotland increasingly wants to leave the United Kingdom due to the UK, as a whole, sitting there and telling Scotland that they can't make laws that represent the people of their country. And yes, Canada is not a part of the UK. Ultimately speaking, the head of state position at the current moment is ceremonial. But it wasn't always like that. At one point, the head of state controlled our laws. At one point, the royals were allowed to control the laws we make. You know, if we're spending tens of millions a year on the governor general, royal tours, security ceremonies, and the maintenance of this whole aristocratic machine, then what are we exactly getting in return? Because when you look at the big moments, the moral crises, the times where real leadership or intervention was needed, the monarchy was absent. And in fact, it was complacent. Where was the crown when children were being taken from their homes and forced into residential schools? Where was the supposed moral authority that is also nonpartisan when indigenous languages were criminalized, when entire communities were displaced, when the horrors of those institutions were well documented and ignored? If this institution is supposed to be a check on government abuse or a guardian of Canadian values, it's a check that's never cashed. Not then, not now. It was silent during those abuses and it's silent today while files sit untouched during political deadlock. And again, we pay for that. We pay for a symbol that doesn't speak up. We pay for a crown that doesn't protect the vulnerable. We're still paying for a figurehead that stands in for a foreign monarch who barely acknowledges us unless there's a PR event or a vacation. And heck, in some PR events, they don't even acknowledge us. Like, they don't acknowledge us in the battles of World War II. I do not believe the monarchy is worth the cost. I do not believe there isn't a return on investment. And I believe if we are going to spend millions on our system of government, we should spend it on a system that works, that answers to Canadians, and one that shows up when it counts. It should be a system that represents Canadian values and Canadian culture and Canadians only.

Moderator: Just for the factual record, Canada is definitely not the only G7 member that has a king. The UK also has a king and Japan has an emperor. So that's at least three out of seven.

Nathan: Okay, so this is for Will. For the record, I just have to just go and say there are a few incorrect statements. No offense. I don't mean this in any bad way, but since 1867 to now, the monarchy has had no official influence over Canada in terms of lawmaking. Not in any way whatsoever. And they also have spoken up in times of crisis. In the past few months during Trump's annexation threats, King Charles has been extremely vocal in that he supports us. During the British fleet review, he showed up in Canadian medals and Canadian uniform. During his tour to Italy, he asked to be announced as the king of Canada. So he clearly supports us. Historically, Queen Elizabeth was extremely vocal for helping Canadians and protecting us in times of need. She saw it as her home as much as Britain. During the Second World War, George V 6 spoke at length on many, many occasions about the quality and the contributions of Canada during the war.

Moderator: Nathan, I have a question for you. If we were to keep the monarchy, do you like it as it currently is? What are things that you would like to see changed about the way we do our monarchy? And the same question for Will. If we kept the monarchy, what's something you find good in the way we currently do it?

Nathan: So, I actually I don't think the monarchy is perfect by any stretch and I think there are a lot of ways that we can improve it to make Canada better. Institutions have to evolve while keeping some foot in tradition. The monarchy, the one key way to do it is, this is a bit crackpot on my part, but to create a cadet monarchy in Canada. Princess Anne lives in Canada nearly full-time. Her children or grandchildren are Canadians. So I would propose we just replace the position of Governor General and the Crown of Canada with Queen Anne and separating it from Britain and making it truly Canadian. Likewise, I'd just like to see it be more active in Canada, even if it wouldn't split off. I'd like to see Charles, other members of the royal family be more present and active in Canada. Historically from like the 50s to the mid 80s they were extremely present in Canada. The Duke of Edinburgh would be here several times a year and Queen Elizabeth came several times and they really saw it as their home as much as Britain. So, I’d just like to see now the monarchy try and be present and relevant in Canada again like it was historically.

Moderator: Okay, thank you. And Will?

Will: Okay, objectively speaking, the monarchy does have traditional merit. It's a part of our history, and I do get why some people find meaning in that. I'm not here to deny that it holds symbolic value for many in Canada. For me personally, that's not enough. I believe our democracy needs to change from the ground up, and that means moving beyond systems we didn't choose, like the king of Canada. Even if monarchies worked perfectly, I still would not support them because I think Canada deserves something better. But yeah, if there's anything that the monarchy does well, it would be the sentimentality.

Moderator: Okay. That's the end of the Q&A section. We'll carry on to the closing statements. We'll start with the affirmative and end with the negative.

Nathan: All right. The monarchy has been a traditional Canadian institution from the time it began. Canadians have always been largely supportive of it. Recent polls have shown support surge back into the 60% in everywhere except Quebec and Alberta, but it represents all Canadians. It is a nonpartisan institution that guarantees our freedoms and it keeps us a foot in tradition while also looking to the future. It is highly modern with many other countries being democracies and it differentiates us from the states. The more and more we erase traditional Canadian institutions, we delve further and further into the American culture taking us over. Something that's been predicted as far back as the 50s with philosophers like George Grant noting that the more control America has over our culture, the less and less Canadian democracy and independence will work. So I believe the monarchy is key to preventing that and they guarantee our freedom and democracy.

Moderator: Thank you, Nathan.

Will: The fact remains: up until very recently, Republicanism was growing in Canada. Back in 2017, the NDP elected a leader who was fully on board with Republicanism. And the NDP itself has been on board with Republicanism for quite some time. And to make something clear about something I said before, I do not want the monarchy to have more influence. My issue, my argument isn't that Charles doesn't intervene enough or that the crown should have flexed more muscle. It's that they shouldn't have any role in our system. I think Canada deserves to make its own choices. When King Charles speaks out on global issues like climate change or against Trumpism, I understand why some people celebrate it, but I think that's the problem. We're supposed to be an independent country. We're not a satellite or orbiting a planet. And yes, Charles did make headlines criticizing Trump. But I view that as political theater. It's the same empty grand standing as Reagan yelling at Gorbachev to tear down the wall. It made for a great sound bite, but ultimately speaking, it didn't change anything. The Soviet Union was going downhill anyways, and it would have been torn down anyways. Canada doesn't need a monarch giving us permission to be decent. And we certainly do not need symbolic lectures from someone who isn't accountable to our public. If Charles says something that lines up with Canadian values, great. But why do we need a crown to validate that? Why should our head of state be weighing in on global affairs when they're not even a real part of our political system? I'll leave you with this. What I'm arguing for is no royal involvement. I want a Canada that answers to Canadians. I want a Canada that doesn't require British approval, symbolic or otherwise, to take moral or political action. I believe that instead of trying to make an outdated system better, we should finally spread our wings and outgrow said system.

Moderator: Okay in that case, thank you to all the participants and to the audience for joining us. For anyone who might be listening to this recording afterwards, that's the end of our monarchy debate for the youth of the Canadian Future Party. Have a wonderful day everyone. Thank you for everything that you've done and hopefully this made you think a little bit about the topic that we had at hand.

Share