The Path to Provincehood

[Bonam]

So will the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut ever become provinces? Yes or no?

Yes, but only if they get compound names.

Nunavut, Baffin, and Ellesmere Islands

The Northwest Province, Banks, and Victoria Islands

Yukon and the Saint Elias Mountains

I don't think it would be acceptable for them to become provinces with their present names, however.

[OttawaNow]

Alaska has lots of small islands. The whole thing is only called Alaska.

[Newfoundlander]

So will the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut ever become provinces? Yes or no?

Phone the Prime Minister and ask him! Are you 13 years old?

Edited March 8, 2013 by Newfoundlander

[g_bambino]

They are not with the federal government, however Indian Affairs manages treaty responsibilities of the federal government.

They are with the federal Crown. Executive government is constitutionally vested in the Crown.

[shortlived]

They are with the federal Crown. Executive government is constitutionally vested in the Crown.

Put up.\

I assert they have nothing to do with government.

That in fact they are bilateral treaties which are agreements with the head of state.

However treaties which for the most part are total trash and don't stand legal tests of lawfulness today in any honourable court.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/03/08/pol-metis-supreme-court-land-dispute.html

These types of cases are just coverup.

The government cannot mess with treaty it has nothing to do with them.

Federal Government is just an arm of the crown. The federal govt has to follow the crowns orders, not the treaty.

The crown directs how the treaty is to be carried out. Its not for the federal govt to do that other than through lawful orders.

Edited March 9, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Put up.\

What?

That in fact they are bilateral treaties which are agreements with the head of state.

Federal Government is just an arm of the crown.

A head of state in whom executive government is vested. A head of state who must follow the lawful advice of her ministers in Cabinet and the decisions of her parliament, with which the constitution places responsibility for "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians". The treaties are with the Crown, but the Crown is inseparable from government.

[shortlived]

What?

A head of state in whom executive government is vested. A head of state who must follow the lawful advice of her ministers in Cabinet and the decisions of her parliament, with which the constitution places responsibility for "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians". The treaties are with the Crown, but the Crown is inseparable from government.

Put up the place where the natives signed with the federal government in all those treaties?

No a head of state has reserve powers. Letters patents such as those granting foreign diplomacy powers, or even alloances for settlement West of Quebec and the conditions there were all crown prerogatives.

The Monarch is the "chief executive" they do not take orders from "the government" that is parliament. Parliament drafts laws, and those laws are effectively put into force.

Now ministers, ministers who are crown officers, serve the crown, not the other way around. (while there are duties owed by the monarch, they go to all loyal subjects not to the minister themselves, that is why reserve powers exist, to exercise the individual and collective interests of Canadian subjects.)

You simply have some convoluted republican concept in your head that doesn't reflect how things are suppose to be done.

The treaties are with the crown, who in turn can issue orders, which they take in deliberation with the privy counsel, which cabinet represents the "foremost" of privy counsels, but advice can be taken from any member of privy counsel.

You like to water it down so that power is more republican based but that is just a form of passive treason.

Federal government is not Canada and is not the state, it is an apparatus, any connotation of the federal government being the state is a false misonomer, drawn from a very closely interbred function of the crown, the governor general, privy counsel and the federal government as exercised through cabinet. Cabinet comes to the crown not the other way around, parliament comes to the crown through the senate not the other way around. The crown in turns is the body to which executive government functions.

The corruptions which you speak of end up causing problems because of incorrect function. So many mistakes have totally blurred function so that correct function becomes impossible.

Improper or negligent exercise of treaty with the nations of the first peoples of Canada is just one example of this.

Edited March 11, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Put up the place where the natives signed with the federal government in all those treaties?

Did you read anything I just wrote? Or do you just not understand it? When you call our constitution a "corruption", I suspect it's the latter.

[shortlived]

Did you read anything I just wrote? Or do you just not understand it? When you call our constitution a "corruption", I suspect it's the latter.

Sure I read what you wrote but I see no treaty you've provided where the natives signed with the federal government. Pretty blatantly obvious point.

The manitoba act was an act of parliament, any other parliamentary acts in there?

Edited March 12, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Sure I read what you wrote but I see no treaty you've provided where the natives signed with the federal government. Pretty blatantly obvious point.

Why should I prove your own claim? "The treaties are with the federal govt.", remember?

The point that's blatantly obvious and salient is that while the treaties are with the Crown, the Crown and the government and parliament are inseparable; constitutionally so. But, then, arguing against your own earlier words quoted above, the only response you can provide to that is the constitution is a "corruption". That's pretty damn weak.

The manitoba act was an act of parliament, any other parliamentary acts in there?

In where?

[ed.: c/e]

Edited March 12, 2013 by g_bambino

[shortlived]

Why should I prove your own claim? "The treaties are with the federal govt.", remember?

Inuit are NOT first nations. The situation with the Inuit and the territories is much different than that with the provinces for multiple reasons including the currency of the Inuit land deals. They didn't happen the same way.

The point that's blatantly obvious and salient is that while the treaties are with the Crown, the Crown and the government and parliament are inseparable; constitutionally so. But, then, arguing against your own earlier words quoted above, the only response you can provide to that is the constitution is a "corruption". That's pretty damn weak.

In where?

[ed.: c/e]

Canada is a constitutional monarchy not a federal state. There is a federal government not a federal state. Canada is not a republic.

Edited March 12, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Inuit are NOT first nations. The situation with the Inuit and the territories is much different than that with the provinces for multiple reasons including the currency of the Inuit land deals.

All treaties with aboriginal peoples--whether First Nations within or across provincial borders or Inuit in the north of Quebec or the territories--are with the federal Crown; that is, the Canadian Crown in its federal parliament and council (Cabinet). This is based on the facts that many of the treaties in existence today were signed before Confederation with the British Crown, of which the Canadian Crown is its successor, or after Confederation but still when the lands on which the aboriginal peoples with whom the treaties were signed lived were territories under federal jurisdiction that only later became provinces, as well as on written and conventional parts of the constitution. The Crown in right of any province (the Crown in any provincial cabinet or parliament) can be party to negotiations in treaty making, but can neiter create nor amend any treaty.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy not a federal state.

It is both.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited March 12, 2013 by g_bambino

[shortlived]

All treaties with aboriginal peoples--whether First Nations within or across provincial borders or Inuit in the north of Quebec or the territories--are with the federal Crown; that is, the Canadian Crown in its federal parliament and council (Cabinet). This is based on the facts that many of the treaties in existence today were signed before Confederation with the British Crown, of which the Canadian Crown is its successor, or after Confederation but still when the lands on which the aboriginal peoples with whom the treaties were signed lived were territories under federal jurisdiction that only later became provinces, as well as on written and conventional parts of the constitution. The Crown in right of any province (the Crown in any provincial cabinet or parliament) can be party to negotiations in treaty making, but can neiter create nor amend any treaty.

It is both.

[ed.: c/e]

Inuit don't have treaties they have agreements or agreements in principle there is a difference.

You are blurring different parts of Canada, they arn't the same, much like the Queen of England is not the Queen of Canada.

The treaties are by the head of state and the head of state has the duty to uphold the treaties, which is the totality of executive government, not in just the federal arm, but also the provinces. Most treaties were signed over resource access, which is provincial in scope, conducted as spurred by provincial inclination. All treaties before 1867 were provincial (eventually or held by the British Crown), and treaties after likewise. The manitoba act with the metis is the exception, likewise agreements with inuits also. Even the most recent deals have been provincially mandated such as in BC.

example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Treaty_Process

The Government of the Colony of British Columbia,

however, failed to negotiate many treaties and as a result, most of the

province's land is not covered by treaties. The few exceptions are the

14 Douglas Treaties on Vancouver Island, Treaty 8 (1899) in the Northeast of B.C., and the 2000 Nisga'a Final Agreement.

Edited March 13, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

All treaties with aboriginal peoples--whether First Nations within or across provincial borders or Inuit in the north of Quebec or the territories--are with the federal Crown; that is, the Canadian Crown in its federal parliament and council (Cabinet). This is based on the facts that many of the treaties in existence today were signed before Confederation with the British Crown, of which the Canadian Crown is its successor, or after Confederation but still when the lands on which the aboriginal peoples with whom the treaties were signed lived were territories under federal jurisdiction that only later became provinces, as well as on written and conventional parts of the constitution. The Crown in right of any province (the Crown in any provincial cabinet or parliament) can be party to negotiations in treaty making, but can neiter create nor amend any treaty.

It is both.

[ed.: c/e]

No it isn't.

It is a constitutional monarchy and has a federal government. The state is not federal the monarchy is the state.

The Federal government is not soveriegn.

"supreme independent authority over a geographic area." is held by the monarch, and exercised by the federal government according to monarchs instructions.

"is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state"

Edited March 13, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

No it isn't.

It is a constitutional monarchy and has a federal government. The state is not federal the monarchy is the state.

Yes, it is. You seem to have never heard of the concept of federal monarchy.

There is one Canadian Crown--one monarch, obviously--but it is "divided", operating separately within each of the eleven jurisdictions of the federation, meaning there is a federal Crown and ten provincial crowns.

The repercussions of these two cases meant that the ‘crown’ in Canada was actually ‘divided’ into ten; a federal crown represented in Ottawa by the Governor General and nine provincial crowns represented by the Lieutenant Governors (the eleventh to be added when Newfoundland joined confederation in 1949).

The Governor General and Lieutenant Governors: Canada’s Misunderstood Viceroys

[F]ederalism in Canada is very much about the Crown. Elsewhere, I have described the Canadian federation as one of compound monarchies... [T]he Crown came to underwrite the autonomy of the provinces and thus lay the foundation for the federative principle in Canada.

The Crown and the Constitution: Sustaining Democracy?

Treaties are between aboriginal peoples and the federal Crown, i.e. the Crown in Right of Canada, i.e. the Canadian Crown in its federal Cabinet and parliament, not in any of its provinical cabinets and parliaments. You are ignoring the fact of jurisdiction in this country.

The Federal government is not soveriegn.

The federal Crown is the federal government; see the Constitution Act 1867. If you believe the Crown to be sovereign, then so must be the government that the Crown is. If the government is not sovereign, then nor is the Crown that is the government. Choose one; you can't have both.

[ed.: quote]

Edited March 13, 2013 by g_bambino

[shortlived]

Yes, it is. You seem to have never heard of the concept of federal monarchy.

No it isn't. Regardless of concepts, the form of the state of canada is a "Constitutional Monarchy" not a federal monarchy. It is the powers of the constitutional monarch is the head of Canada not the federation which is a body of the state of Canada.

There is one Canadian Crown--one monarch, obviously--but it is "divided", operating separately within each of the eleven jurisdictions of the federation, meaning there is a federal Crown and ten provincial crowns.

Treaties are between aboriginal peoples and the federal Crown, i.e. the Crown in Right of Canada, i.e. the Canadian Crown in its federal Cabinet and parliament, not in any of its provinical cabinets and parliaments. You are ignoring the fact of jurisdiction in this country.

The federal Crown is the federal government; see the Constitution Act 1867. If you believe the Crown to be sovereign, then so must be the government that the Crown is. If the government is not sovereign, then nor is the Crown that is the government. Choose one; you can't have both.

[ed.: quote]

Canada is not a "federal state".

Don't lie to people. Wikiepdia saying it is a federal state is bad enough. Canada's powers are shared between the federation and the provinces.

Absolute power does not rest with the federal government. The government "functions" for the benefit of the crown, the legislatures both federal and provincial (and otherwise) sit at the leisure of the crown, however, respectfully members which compose those bodies serve as officers of the crown at leisure of the monarch, and those people give advice in how the monarch should carry out the affairs of state, both provincial and federal. IT IS NOT A FEDERAL STATE.

This in mind that the constitutional monarch has a reciprocal trust with their subjects. The STATE IS NOT FEDERAL.

It is a constitutional monarchy.

This is the dominion

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-1.html

This is the country..

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const//page-15.html#docCont

The constitution act only merges government, not state... An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof --- 1867 was creation of a polity but it was not sovereign, so there is no reason to think that the state came to be as a result of the constitution 1867, it didn't. Canada wasn't a full state until 1982, (in 1919 Canada became a Nation and had some autonomy but not full autonomy in the 1920's - until the Balfour Declaration which was ambiguous in Canada - giving techinical sovereignty but not full soverignty, legislative independence with reservations came about in 1931 in the statute of westminister - note that the federation does not hold all legislative rights, and that with the creation of citizenship to replace british subject status and the constitution in 1982... there have been progressive moves to limit the monarchy as a point of power, however it is by the wording of the constitution act 1982... still very much a constitutional monarchy as it appended the 1867 constitution to it)

the state arrives from British parliament/(including the British monarch) ---

The federation does not today hold all powers, so it is not the state as it is not sovereign. The state of Canada exists beyond the federation.

It is very clearly stated in 1867 s.9

9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Edited March 15, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

canada is a "Constitutional Monarchy" not a federal monarchy.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Constitutional monarchy doesn't exist without a parliament and a cabinet of ministers (government) responsible to it to advise and direct the monarch on how to exercise his or her royal prerogative. Since there are eleven governments and eleven legislatures directing the Crown (as represented in each domain by the respective governors, either general or lieutenant), the Canadian monarchy is both a constitutional and a federal one.

It is with the federal Crown (the Queen (represented by the governor general) in her Council in Ottawa) that aboriginal peoples have their treaties.

I've shown you how that is. Can you prove otherwise?

Absolute power does not rest with the federal government.

Noone claimed it did. The parliaments are supreme in their respective jurisdiction of the federation, actually.

the state arrives from British parliament/(including the British monarch)

Uh, no. Canada is a fully sovereign kingdom in its own right.

[ed.: sp, +]

Edited March 15, 2013 by g_bambino

[shortlived]

g_bambino -The federal government is only responsible for "federal tier of government" not the state, get it through your head.

Now the privy council is closer to the state level though, but not parliament, parliament is federal, it does not pass provincial law. It has limitations and shares "legislative" authority with the provincial legislatures. Note that parliament is only a legislature, and the State of Canada has many legislatures all with supreme legislative authority in specific areas as outlined by the constitution 1867, and all require the head of state to agree to any laws they pass to become effective. They are however only legislative. The Queen composes the executive and is responsible for it, and individuals who exercise it swear an oath of duty to the Queen to exercise in her best interest loyally. The prime minister who the Monarch or their representative sign off on, select the prime minister, which in general is usually the leader of the party in federal parliament, but it need not be. It can be anyone from anywhere in the world, their task is to run the executive goverment, not rule or make law. The task is administrative, not executive.

The supreme court also nearly resides at the state level but only in representation of the queen (something both the provincial supreme court and the federal supreme court are suppose to do, they don't rule on their own behalf, and are still subject to specific measures of the sovereign which resides at the head of state.

You are fancying Canada to be a republic, it isn't. The PM is not equivolent to the president of the united states, parliament is not the same as congress.

Edited March 15, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

The federal government is only responsible for "federal tier of government" not the state, get it through your head.

There are eleven states in Canada; ten federated states (the provinces) and the federal state itself. That is what federalism is. There is one Crown over this federation, and it operates separately in each of the aforementioned states, or jurisdictions, through the cabinet (council), parliament, and courts of each.

The federal government (the Crown in it's council in Ottawa) is responsible only for the federal jurisdiction. It is also, along with the federal parliament, constitutionally charged with governing aboriginals, meaning the treaties can only be handled by that central, federal Crown, not any provincial division of the Crown.

You are fancying Canada to be a republic.

Don't be stupid.

[shortlived]

There are eleven states in Canada; ten federated states (the provinces) and the federal state itself.

No there arn't. There is one state of Canada which is a constitutional monarchy. There is one federal government, and ten provincial governments.

That is what federalism is.

No, it isn't. Federalism a layer of government which manages specific functions, but not all functions. The federal mandate as it was envisioned was not as centralized in 1867 as it is today, and it does not remain all encompasing. You are wrong. Read the Constitution again and realize your position is wrong.

There is one Crown over this federation, and it operates separately in each of the aforementioned states, or jurisdictions, through the cabinet (council), parliament, and courts of each.

Dude, there is only one head of state of Canada, and there are mulitple heads of government, get a clue. The big crown thing you are caught up on is crown of government, not monarch, which there is only one head of state. governments do not have heads of state, they have heads of government.

The federal government (the Crown in it's council in Ottawa) is responsible only for the federal jurisdiction. It is also, along with the federal parliament, constitutionally charged with governing aboriginals, meaning the treaties can only be handled by that central, federal Crown, not any provincial division of the Crown.

Keep grasping. No the federal govenrment is not charged with governing aboriginals, where does it say that in the constitution? The head of state is responsible to uphold treaties with the first nations, not rule aboriginals, You are being absurd and engineering something that is in no way the way things actually legally work.

Your federal parliament on advice of the house and senate can make laws on the " Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada" it is not a state. Parliament establishes how the Government of Canada is to function, it does not run the Government of any particular province, and it does not run the state, the constitution does, with the reserve of the monarch, hence constitutional monarchy.

These are the areas that parliament legislates on to create peace order and good Government

"

• 1A.

  The Public Debt and Property. (45)
• 2.

  The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
• 2A.

  Unemployment insurance. (46)
• 3.

  The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
• 4.

  The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit.
• 5.

  Postal Service.
• 6.

  The Census and Statistics.
• 7.

  Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
• 8.

  The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada.
• 9.

  Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.
• 10.

  Navigation and Shipping.
• 11.

  Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.
• 12.

  Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
• 13.

  Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.
• 14.

  Currency and Coinage.
• 15.

  Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money.
• 16.

  Savings Banks.
• 17.

  Weights and Measures.
• 18.

  Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
• 19.

  Interest.
• 20.

  Legal Tender.
• 21.

  Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
• 22.

  Patents of Invention and Discovery.
• 23.

  Copyrights.
• 24.

  Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.
• 25.

  Naturalization and Aliens.
• 26.

  Marriage and Divorce.
• 27.

  The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.
• 28.

  The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries.
• 29.

  Such Classes of Subjects as are expressly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces."

NOTHING ELSE

As you can see Rule Indian is no where in there.

It said make saws for the Peace, Order and Good Government, not RULE.

Edited March 15, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Dude, there is only one head of state of Canada, and there are mulitple heads of government, get a clue.

Get a clue... You tell me what I've said to you at least twice already and you tell me to get a clue? Wow.

There are multiple heads of government because there are multiple jurisdictions in which the one head of state operates separately. Each jurisdiction has its own government, is a state. Only with the sovereign in her central, federal jurisdiction do aboriginals have their treaties. Provinces do not make treaites.

As you can see Rule Indian is no where in there.

Except of course:

24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.

Whoops!

[shortlived]

Get a clue... You tell me what I've said to you at least twice already and you tell me to get a clue? Wow.

There are multiple heads of government because there are multiple jurisdictions in which the one head of state operates separately. Each jurisdiction has its own government, is a state. Only with the sovereign in her central, federal jurisdiction do aboriginals have their treaties. Provinces do not make treaites.

Except of course:

Whoops!

You are creating a false impression

NO GOVERNMENT DOES NOT MEAN STATE you confusing the two is where you are errored in your reasoning.

Also NO establish peace order and good government does not mean RULE. it is utterly ignorant for you to propose that peace order and good government is equivolent to rule.

They can establish laws relating to indians and reserve lands, they do not rule indians or reserve lands. much like the federal government does not rule me, it is a free society, they have to ", insure peace with indians, insure order in dealings with indians and insure good government in relation to indians, which means indians should be constituents and stakeholders in government.

no where is rule stated, courts rule and the federal government does not have power over the justice system the monarchy does (it is the monarchy) the courts manage breaches of peace, as well as establish warrants for the executive interaction with members of canadian society which is free, including freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Parliament does none of those things. (although there is one slight exception in regard to the parliamentary bar... which is just overly too complex to include here (and it hasnt' be used in soooo long.) Understand parliament composes legislation, it does not rule, that is the job of the executive to undertake on behalf of the fount of justice --- which the courts represent.

You have a false connotation of what parliament is g_bambino.

You have twisted the constitution to be a force of centralized evil dictatorship as opposed to being representative of a balance of powers in a free and democratic society.

Just acknowledge the fact that the state is a constitutional monarchy and the federal government is not the state.

Edited March 15, 2013 by shortlived

[guyser]

Always fun to watch rookies try to school our resident expert on Constitutional matters.

...shortlived is a wll thought out and apt name.

The bambino abides ! Just dont piss on his rug

[g_bambino]

GOVERNMENT DOES NOT MEAN STATE.

I didn't say government is the state. I said there are eleven separate states within Canada--ten federative states (the provinces) and one federal--each deriving their sovereign authority from the one Crown over all as it operates distinctly within each's cabinet, parliament, and courts via the respective governor. Hence, there is the Queen in Right of Canada, the Queen in Right of Saskatchewan, the Queen in Right of Quebec, etc., and one can take the other to court (one state in the federation may challenge another state), though they are physically the same person.

The Queen, in short, was not only... Queen of Canada, and certain other Commonwealth countries, she was also Queen of each of the Canadian provinces. 'She is the same Queen over all, but she acts in different rights; she acts in executive matters on the advice of responsible ministers and in legislative matters on the advice of responsible Parliaments.' The courts themselves recognized this whenever they had to decide disputes between Ottawa and one or more provinces. In such cases, they habitually distinguished 'the Queen in right of Canada' from the Queen in right of the various provinces. This division... formed the basis of the provinces' sovereignty as it did of the Dominion's.

Getting it wrong: how Canadians forgot their past and imperilled Confederation; p.274

The adaptation of the Crown to a federal system was a unique and daring experiment. But it works. The sovereignty of the same Crown is exercised by different representatives in different jurisdictions. Thus, diversity has been reconciled to unity

The Canadian Crown

In Canada, “sovereignty is vested in one individual, the reigning monarch, acting in Parliament for some purposes and in the provincial Legislatures for others” (Ken Tyler, cited in Jackson, 2001, 49). Thus, the Lieutenant Governor is at the constitutional apex of the province, holding royal prerogative powers in the name of the Queen. It is a crucial role. The Lieutenant Governor is, so to speak, the legal incarnation of provincial autonomy in Confederation. And he or she acts as a constitutional umpire and guarantor - the role emphasized by recent commentators on the Office of Governor General.

The Crown in the Provinces: Canada's Compound Monarchy

They can establish laws relating to indians and reserve lands, they do not rule indians or reserve lands.

It's the same thing.

[ed.: +]

Edited March 15, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The bambino abides ! Just dont piss on his rug

Don't jinx me!