Plains of Abraham re-enactment cancelled

g_bambino · February 23, 2009

Canada unilaterally cannot make amendments to Canada's own inherited British constitution without obtaining permission from the British Parliament.

Source? (And no, loopy bloggers and the magic pixies in your pocket don't count.)

tango · February 23, 2009

Let me check.
No other country can pass laws applicable in Canada.

No other country can make a Canadian law unapplicable in Canada.

We share the same Head of State as 16 other countires, but that can be changed through a Constitutional amendment, and there is no legal mechanism under which any other country would be able to prevent that from happening.

Sounds like being pretty much sovereign to me.

The Corporation of Canada was created by the British Parliament:

the Canada Act 1982 was proclaimed in force by the Queen.

Constitution repatriation

However, 'Canada' is not a land mass, but a nation of people.

Treaties between Indigenous Nations and the Crown give us our rights to live on

Indigenous land "to a plough's depth". So-called 'Crown land' is in fact Indigenous land held in trust for them by the Crown.

There is nothing that gives Canada outright ownership of the land.

Without a land mass, Canada is not a sovereign country.

Our sovereignty is through the Crown and the treaties.

Edited February 23, 2009 by tango

g_bambino · February 23, 2009

There is nothing that gives Canada outright ownership of the land.
Without a land mass, Canada is not a sovereign country.

Our sovereignty is through the Crown and the treaties.

Er, did the Clarke Institute suddenly allow internet access to its patients?

CANADIEN · February 23, 2009

Canada unilaterally cannot make amendments to Canada's own inherited British constitution without obtaining permission from the British Parliament.
Doesn't sound very sovereign to me.

The Statute of Westminster and the Canada Act passed by the British Parliament in 1982 are not clear enough as to the FACT the British Parliament no longer exercises any legal or constitutional authority in Canada?

Them you'll probably be clueless (again), on what the Constitutional Act, 1982 says about amending the Constitution: Feel free to show me where in the amending formula it is said that consent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is needed to amend our Constitution.

The Constitution has been amended eight times, since 1982:

1) 1983 (Aborignal rights)

2) 1987 (extension of school rights in Newfoundland to Pentecostal Assemblies)

3) 1993 (equality of New Brunswick English and French-speaking communities)

4) 1994 (end of the mandated federal funding for a ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the Continent)

5) 1997 (replacing Quebec's denominational school system with a linguistic one)

6) 1997 (allowing Newfoundland to create a secular school system)

7) 1998 (allowing Newfoundland to abolish confessional school system)

8) 2001 (change of Newfoundland's name to Newfoundland and Labrador)

None of these amendments went through the British Parliament.

You are of course welcome to show any legal document that says otherwise.

Edited February 23, 2009 by CANADIEN

CANADIEN · February 23, 2009

The Corporation of Canada was created by the British Parliament:

Canada is not a corporation, thank you very much.

As for the crown sovereignty, it is indeed the crown of CANADA that exercises it.

CANADIEN · February 23, 2009

Er, did the Clarke Institute suddenly allow internet access to its patients?

This is an insult towards the patients at Clarke.

WestViking · February 23, 2009

Canada unilaterally cannot make amendments to Canada's own inherited British constitution without obtaining permission from the British Parliament. Doesn't sound very sovereign to me.

From 1867 to 1981 our constitution lacked an amending formula and changes required approval of the British parliament. Since 1982, Canada can make any change to her constitution that she wishes. The process for amendment is set out in Part V, Sections 38 to 49 inclusive of our constitution.

g_bambino · February 23, 2009

As for the crown sovereignty, it is indeed the crown of CANADA that exercises it.

Exactly; which is why Tango contradicts his own theories when he says "our sovereignty is through the Crown..." Maybe he just doesn't know which crown it is that he means.

Oleg Bach · February 23, 2009

You will still have to write London and ask mum. :lol:

CANADIEN · February 23, 2009

You will still have to write London and ask mum.

Nope. The Governor General's signature is sufficient.

g_bambino · February 23, 2009

The Governor General's signature is sufficient.

For most things, but not all.

jbg · February 24, 2009

Canada unilaterally cannot make amendments to Canada's own inherited British constitution without obtaining permission from the British Parliament.
Doesn't sound very sovereign to me.

The "British constitution" is as much judge-made as Parliament-made, perhaps more so. Courts in Canada, Australia, the U.S. modify British common law all the time.

That being said your position is quirky at best and ludicrous at worst.

jbg · February 24, 2009

Er, did the Clarke Institute suddenly allow internet access to its patients?

Obviously.

jbg · February 24, 2009

From 1867 to 1981 our constitution lacked an amending formula and changes required approval of the British parliament. Since 1982, Canada can make any change to her constitution that she wishes. The process for amendment is set out in Part V, Sections 38 to 49 inclusive of our constitution.

You happen to be right but some peoples' attachment to the real world is quite tenuous (link). Maybe they're under the influence of Travis the Chimp (link).

Edited February 24, 2009 by jbg

whowhere · February 24, 2009

Actually it was the British inability to remove a French fleet from Chesapeake Bay that gave the French local naval superiority long enough to force Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown but say for a moment you are right and the Americans did hand back Canada to France if they had taken it. What good would it do them if the Royal Navy could prevent them from having access to it? How long do you think it would have been until it withered and died or become part of the United States?

Canada/Quebec endured between 1604 to 1759 along side the American Colonies. That's 155 years. France held onto the colony that long in spite of Britains so called Navel Superiority. Quebec/Canada was a growing and evolving region it is unlikely they would have withered and died. Had the United States succeeded in Liberating Quebec from Britain I doubt an independent United States would have imposed itself on Quebec for fear of France retaliating against them. The newly established United States was to weak to be threatening anyone. The Americans had no interest in Quebec they had plenty of area to expand in the west. If what you are saying is True why didn't they American's take Lousianna instead waiting for Napoleon to sell it to them??

The Fact is Quebec/Canada was a populated and growing colony that fell under occupation. It was not some empty field. Since's 1759, Quebec's population has ever increased. For whatever reason you people have issue with that.

I am not quite sure who you people are but Canada was fought for and defended by the British against the Americans. Canada belongs to them and nothing has changed that fact.

whowhere · February 24, 2009

I looked at a map and see no country called "1867 Canada".

There is 1604 - 1759 Canada and 1867 - present Canada. The plains of Abraham is where 1604 Canada fell under British Occupation and in turn was renamed Quebec of 1867 Canada.

WestViking · February 24, 2009

Canada/Quebec endured between 1604 to 1759 along side the American Colonies. That's 155 years.

Really? You conveniently forget that from 1629 to 1632 the French colony was under British rule, that the French colony was under British attack from 1689 - 1697, 1710 - 1713, 1745 - 1748 and in 1753. The French lost part or all of their North American colony quite regularly.

Edited February 24, 2009 by WestViking

Wilber · February 24, 2009

Canada/Quebec endured between 1604 to 1759 along side the American Colonies. That's 155 years. France held onto the colony that long in spite of Britains so called Navel Superiority. Quebec/Canada was a growing and evolving region it is unlikely they would have withered and died. Had the United States succeeded in Liberating Quebec from Britain I doubt an independent United States would have imposed itself on Quebec for fear of France retaliating against them. The newly established United States was to weak to be threatening anyone. The Americans had no interest in Quebec they had plenty of area to expand in the west. If what you are saying is True why didn't they American's take Lousianna instead waiting for Napoleon to sell it to them??
The Fact is Quebec/Canada was a populated and growing colony that fell under occupation. It was not some empty field. Since's 1759, Quebec's population has ever increased. For whatever reason you people have issue with that.

I am not quite sure who you people are but Canada was fought for and defended by the British against the Americans. Canada belongs to them and nothing has changed that fact.

They held on to it for 155 years and then they lost it, the deciding event being the loss of Quebec and the inability to retake it. Why would the US fight for Louisiana when they could buy it? If France still wanted a North American colony, why did they sell it? Napoleon knew it was a lost cause and got what he could for it while he still had the option and I'm sure he would have rather seen it go to the Americans than the Brits. The US would have eventually taken it anyway, just as they did Texas and California from Mexico. Manifest Destiny and all that stuff. Napoleon was a great general but he had little understanding of naval warfare and it showed in his decisions regarding his navy. France had little chance of getting an army there to defend it anyway as long as Britain decided otherwise. That issue was finally decided for good at Trafalgar.

jbg · February 24, 2009

If France still wanted a North American colony, why did they sell it? Napoleon knew it was a lost cause and got what he could for it while he still had the option and I'm sure he would have rather seen it go to the Americans than the Brits. The US would have eventually taken it anyway, just as they did Texas and California from Mexico. Manifest Destiny and all that stuff. Napoleon was a great general but he had little understanding of naval warfare and it showed in his decisions regarding his navy. France had little chance of getting an army there to defend it anyway as long as Britain decided otherwise. That issue was finally decided for good at Trafalgar.

My impression was that Napolean sold it because he needed cash for his European wars, which more near and dear to his heart.

As I have constantly pointed out, much of the European history for the 1000 years prior to 1945 was predicated on the idea that Europe constituted the civilized world. Control Europe and thus control the world. Thus, American possessions were a sideshow and unimportant. The gathering peace of the New World (the War of 1812, the American Civil War and the Spanish-American War of 1898 being exceptions) plus the New World's overwhelming advantages in resources, open arable land and climate created the conditions for the New World to sprint ahead of Europe economically and ultimately militarily. This went unnoticed in Europe and, through transactions such as the surrender of the Louisiana territories in 1804 and Canada in 1867 Europe wound up assisting (though not creating) its slide towards second-world status and being the source of a "brain drain" to the U.S. and Canada.

Returning to the thread topic, though, the American colonies were, to him, little more than a source of easily salable assets to fund internecine wars that hurt himself, France and Europe.

Argus · February 24, 2009

Interesting editorial in the Post this morning on this subject. I wonder how many others are losing patience with Quebec's endless snivelling, whining and victimhood status.

Editorial: Tell Quebec where to get off

kimmy · February 24, 2009

Britains so called Navel Superiority

:lol: -k

M.Dancer · February 24, 2009

-k

It's a hot button for him??

Wilber · February 24, 2009

Interesting editorial in the Post this morning on this subject. I wonder how many others are losing patience with Quebec's endless snivelling, whining and victimhood status.
Editorial: Tell Quebec where to get off

Right on. Simple imaturity, no more, no less.

jbg · February 24, 2009

Interesting editorial in the Post this morning on this subject. I wonder how many others are losing patience with Quebec's endless snivelling, whining and victimhood status.
Editorial: Tell Quebec where to get off

That editorial is "spot on". The U.S. government doesn't shy away from official presence in states such as Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas or Texas, the seceded states of the old Confederacy. The U.S. government's writ runs there.

Try telling English-speakers in Montreal that Federal protection of their rights is worth the paper or cyber-bits they're written on.

Leafless · February 24, 2009

The Constitution has been amended eight times, since 1982:
1) 1983 (Aborignal rights)

2) 1987 (extension of school rights in Newfoundland to Pentecostal Assemblies)

3) 1993 (equality of New Brunswick English and French-speaking communities)

4) 1994 (end of the mandated federal funding for a ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the Continent)

5) 1997 (replacing Quebec's denominational school system with a linguistic one)

6) 1997 (allowing Newfoundland to create a secular school system)

7) 1998 (allowing Newfoundland to abolish confessional school system)

8) 2001 (change of Newfoundland's name to Newfoundland and Labrador)

None of these amendments went through the British Parliament.

You are of course welcome to show any legal document that says otherwise.

All of these amendments you listed are under the authority of the federal government and do not even require the use of the amending formula.

Any amendments that do require all provinces unanimously agreeing or approval of the British Parliament have to do with amendments relating to with those of the 'Office of the Queen'.

Even the Constitution Act 1982 had to be approved by British Parliament since all Canadian provinces did not agree to ratify it. Quebec was the only province who refused to ratify it.