Probably not a popular opinion, but I have to agree with Quebec's Intergovernmental Affairs Minister when he questions the role of the monarchy in Canada. Can anyone question why Quebecers don't embrace what essentially amounts to a symbolic reminder of unpleasant history?
I've never been a fan of ceremony, empty office and largely irrelevant symbolism. I've never been particularly impressed with a political system, wherein elected officials need clearance for an election by what amounts to a imperialist mascot. That said, my bias openly admitted, I see a practical need to erase any overt monarchist ties.
People will argue that figures like the Governor General serve a practical purpose. That may be true in certain instances, although you could easily counter that another civil servant could fill any obligation, without the symbolism of British rule. The question for Canada, if we are truly inclusive, then where is the harm in removing the historical example of conquerer? If you want to engage Quebec, in a way that really isn't earth shattering to the federation, then it would send a powerful message if Canada evolved into a more unique entity.
I don't blame Quebecers for questioning the role of the monarchy, for obvious reasons. Why keep an institution that has no positive connotation for a segment of Canada's population? Why not remove the irritant, and in so doing demonstrate a sensitivity? I understand the constitutional implications which might make this opinion impractical, but from a "greater good" position, with minimal relevant fallout, I say we can easily afford to lose the monarchy.