By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 26, 2025.

OTTAWA—Long live the King. Maybe.

When it comes to Canada, there are few more controversial issues than whether we should continue with the monarchy.

French-Canadians and the Irish, in particular, are not happy to have a head of state which reminds them of past travails.

In the case of Quebecers, the defeat by the English on the Plains of Abraham is seen as the beginning of the end of a sovereign French nation.

As for the Irish, those who come from the south have already split from the United Kingdom and see no reason to pledge fealty to the same monarchy that they rejected in their own country.

Battle-scarred opponents of the monarchy are more vocal than those who support the institution. When Queen Elizabeth II was nearing the end of her life, Canadian pundits were suggesting that she would be our last monarch.

King Charles III would never make it to the throne because most people respected his mother and did not have the same feeling toward him.

Then the King took over in 2022, and has spent the last several months showing people exactly why he is the right person for the times.

Divorced—an unheard-of marital state in the last century, but pretty common with commoners in this century. So he is a little bit like all of us.

He also has a sense of humour and is totally prepared to laugh at himself, something that was not in the character of the Queen.

The King is prepared to participate in the quirky and the bizarre.

Just last month, he was filmed playing a carrot—yes, a carrot—with the London Vegetable Orchestra. One cannot imagine the Queen putting her lips around the top of a taproot to make music.

But King Charles was always the quirky one. He was interested in organic food long before it became popular with the general public.

When he visited Canada in 1996, he got what was described as a “rock star welcome” in my hometown of Hamilton, Ont. We spent the visit together, and I was able to personally observe the depth and breadth of his interests. He visited an Indigenous school in Manitoba, and was given the honorific title of “Leading Star.”

Long before the public was engaged, the King soaked up knowledge about Indigenous challenges and spent much time reflecting on how to improve things.

During this week’s visit, a group of Indigenous leaders has asked to meet with him to discuss the issue of a separation threat by some citizens in Alberta.

Just as Prime Minister Mark Carney wants the King to stay out of American politics, so do the Indigenous leaders want the King to wade into Alberta politics.

Indigenous leaders have told Premier Danielle Smith that they oppose the province’s decision to simplify the rules for a separation referendum.

Smith is of the view that Indigenous leaders’ votes will be counted in any referendum, but the chiefs believe their territory’s integrity cannot be impacted by any provincial referendum.

As their treaties have been with the Crown, the King is obviously in a position to support their claims.

But he also has to be cautious when getting involved in domestic politics.

Reading the Speech from the Throne is an exception because the sovereign will only be repeating a message already approved by the prime minister and his office.

And taking a position in favour of one commonwealth country may cause problems in another.

Take King Charles’ second invitation to United States president Donald Trump to visit the United Kingdom.

Carney was very unhappy with the invitation and, in a surprising move, he made it known publicly. In an interview with British Sky News, about the invitation, Carney said Canadians were not impressed by that gesture “given the circumstance. It was a time when we were being quite clear, some of us were being quite clear, about the issues around sovereignty.”

The King’s invitation was delivered by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who was in the midst of negotiating a free trade agreement with the U.S.

In supporting British political objectives, the monarch was forced to bypass Canadian interests.

Such is the challenge of a king. In the same vein, the Canadian prime minister has to be cautious about King Charles’ trip to Canada. It could provide fodder for Quebec separatists who see the crown as a symbol of everything they do not want in a country.

Carney wants to send an international message of strength. But that message could be double-edged.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 8, 2023.

OTTAWA–King Charles III has been crowned. Long live the King.

Surveys say that his accession is opposed by the majority of Canadians, but has anyone done a deep dive into the reasons why?

A Pollara poll done for The Toronto Star found that the vast majority of young people opposed the status of Canada as a constitutional monarchy.

Apparently, the older one gets, the more one is attuned to tradition. Forty-seven per cent of those aged 55 years and older supported retaining the monarchy, while 35 per cent were opposed. The survey did not delve into the meaning of a constitutional monarchy, and I doubt if many of the poll respondents have a clear idea of the role of the head of state in Canada.

Some believe it wields a tremendous amount of power, even though recent history makes clear that real power lies with the head of government.

When Queen Elizabeth II signed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms back in 1982, she did not offer amendments. She approved the document based on a vote of the Canadian Parliament. Ditto for Barbados’ decision to sever ties with the monarchy.

When Barbados decided to end its relationship with the Crown in 2021, the Queen approved without rancour or reticence.

Then-Prince Charles attended the dissolution ceremonies, held 55 years to the day of Barbadian independence when the country terminated colonial status but kept constitutional ties with the Crown.

Several other Caribbean countries have vowed to follow suit, and some speculated that the death of the Queen would see Canada do the same.

One of the reasons cited for leave-taking is that King Charles is not his mother. That is self-evident. She became the Queen as a young woman and remained in that role until her death 70 years later.

Upon her passing, wonderful eulogies were penned globally about how she had carried out her responsibilities with dignity. But as her reputation gathered strength, that of her oldest son diminished in parallel.

Imagine being a 70-year-old man waiting for your mother’s permission to take over her job.

King Charles’ marital problems blunted his fealty role to cement the image of a rather weak vassal to Her Majesty. His foibles played poorly in the international media and certainly reinforced the impression that Queen Elizabeth would be the last legitimate reigning monarch.

Canadian pundits wrote that when the Queen passed on, it would be the perfect time to cut ties with the royals. But there has never been a solid answer as to why the country would terminate the monarchy without knowing what the replacement would be.

Toronto Star columnist Andrew Phillips had an interesting take on the issue last week. His column was headlined, “If monarchies are so bad, why are they the best places to live?”

He points out that while only 20 per cent of countries have monarchies, seven of the 10 countries cited for having the best quality of life have a monarch as head of state.

Phillips does not claim that having a monarchy makes a country more liveable. There are plenty of examples to blow that theory out of the water. But he does say that having a monarchy “does not hold a country back” and hypothesizes that in the instances “where monarchies managed to survive … [they] figured out how to … combine tradition with change … Rather than inflict the trauma of a radical break with the past … they chose to evolve toward constitutional monarchies.”

Some Canadians may want a radical break. The majority of Quebecers see a divorce from the Crown as a positive outcome to their warrior history with the English. But chances are, even if the monarchy ceased to exist, separatists would find another reason not to remain in Canada.

The global attention paid to the May 6 coronation will stifle the naysayers temporarily, but the heavy lifting will be left to the King.

On a personal note, as minister responsible for royal visits, I spent many hours with Prince Charles and his mother when they visited Canada. Queen Elizabeth was a true professional who managed any challenging situation with regal aplomb. Prince Charles was warm, funny, self-deprecating and quite the opposite of his public persona.

He reached out to people with an ease rarely seen in a monarch.

Whether it was a school gymnasium in Churchill, Man., or a state receiving line, he always had an extra smile for those who appeared stiffly nervous.

I predict King Charles’ warm personality will soon convince most Canadians of the historic and enduring value of a constitutional monarchy.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.