Supreme Court to Decide Metis Claim

[g_bambino]

The Queen is a mere figurehead though. It's not like her approval is needed for anything. The actual head of state is the Governor General. Political decisions reside with Parliament.

The Queen's approval is needed for everything. All laws are passed in her name, not the Governor General's. The Governor General is merely the authorised representative of the Head of State.

[jdobbin]

The Queen's approval is needed for everything. All laws are passed in her name, not the Governor General's. The Governor General is merely the authorised representative of the Head of State.

And de facto head of state.

My point in the discussion is that the Queen does not have negotiating authority on Native issues and that if she tried to assert Royal Prerogative, it wouldn't apply to any aspect of Canadian government.

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

[g_bambino]

She:kon!

Merriam Websters On-line:

Main Entry: sov·er·eign·ty

Variant(s): also sov·ran·ty /-tE/

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -ties

Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Anglo-French sovereinté, from soverein

1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it

2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence

3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

Canada's controlling influence is the Crown. The Queen is the only one capable of amending or signing Canada's Constitution AND the Governor General - the Crown's representative IS the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Justice system operates on her behalf and the government must seek his or her approval in order to form or dissolve a government and is a signatory on all international documents.

Canada is NOT sovereign.

I suggest you read up on Canadian constitutional history, as it seems you believe Canada to still be under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

It must be made clear to you that for at least the past 24 years the Canadian Crown and British Crown have been two completely separate entities. The fact that they are held by the same person does not negate this.

It is true that only the Queen or Governor General is capable of authorising any law, including amendments to any part of the Constitution. However, only the Queen of Canada may do so, or the Governor General of Canada as the representative of the Queen of Canada. No law of the UK has effect in Canada, the Queen cannot act under the advice of any ministers other than her Canadian ones, and the Great Seal of Canada must be affixed along with the Queen's, or GG's, signature to make a law valid in Canada.

All of this demonstrates that Canada is sovereign.

[g_bambino]

The Queen's approval is needed for everything. All laws are passed in her name, not the Governor General's. The Governor General is merely the authorised representative of the Head of State.

And de facto head of state.

My point in the discussion is that the Queen does not have negotiating authority on Native issues and that if she tried to assert Royal Prerogative, it wouldn't apply to any aspect of Canadian government.

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

The GG can be seen as a "de facto" head of state, yes. But ultimately the GG's authority comes from the Sovereign. The GG is not self-empowering.

Beyond that, the Queen does have the authority to negotiate on First Nations issues - the treaties are with the Crown, and the Queen is the Crown. Of course, by the traditions of constitutional monarchy she will almost always follow the advice of her ministers. But this does not preclude her from using the Royal Prerogative unilaterally should it be necessary - in any circumstance. And it most certainly would apply to Canadian governance if she was exercising the Prerogative in her capacity as Queen of Canada.

Many First Nations recognize that their agreements are with the Crown, and not the government. This is why they have, in the past, addressed their grievances directly to the Queen, even when the PM was standing right beside her.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

I would suggest that you take your own advice.

The patriation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not an autonomous act. The Queen signed it authorizing it under the Constitution Act. The Charter of Rights was an amendment to the Constitution Act and by the Queen's signature reinforced that Canada was still legally under Crown (HRM) rule.

Now here is where it gets tricky. You see for about 20 years or so, the Queen has been under British Parliamentary control. Her budget and her acts must be approved by Britian. That would also include any act she signs for Canada. Essentially Canada is still a colony of Britian, only there are all kinds of myths around to make you believe you are not.

O:nen

[jdobbin]

The GG can be seen as a "de facto" head of state, yes. But ultimately the GG's authority comes from the Sovereign. The GG is not self-empowering.

Beyond that, the Queen does have the authority to negotiate on First Nations issues - the treaties are with the Crown, and the Queen is the Crown. Of course, by the traditions of constitutional monarchy she will almost always follow the advice of her ministers. But this does not preclude her from using the Royal Prerogative unilaterally should it be necessary - in any circumstance. And it most certainly would apply to Canadian governance if she was exercising the Prerogative in her capacity as Queen of Canada.

Many First Nations recognize that their agreements are with the Crown, and not the government. This is why they have, in the past, addressed their grievances directly to the Queen, even when the PM was standing right beside her.

But as you said, she doesn't act except on the advice of her ministers. I can't think of an example in recent years where she has personally used Prerogative on something.

[jdobbin]

Now here is where it gets tricky. You see for about 20 years or so, the Queen has been under British Parliamentary control. Her budget and her acts must be approved by Britian. That would also include any act she signs for Canada. Essentially Canada is still a colony of Britian, only there are all kinds of myths around to make you believe you are not.

So you are appealing to Britain in your case?

[Riverwind]

Now here is where it gets tricky. You see for about 20 years or so, the Queen has been under British Parliamentary control. Her budget and her acts must be approved by Britian. That would also include any act she signs for Canada. Essentially Canada is still a colony of Britian, only there are all kinds of myths around to make you believe you are not.

Canada alone can change its constitution. Canada could, at anytime, remove the Queen as head of state with seeking her permission first. That reality makes Canada sovereign. The theoretical powers of the Queen in our current constitution are irrelevant for that reason.

[g_bambino]

She:kon!

I would suggest that you take your own advice.

The patriation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not an autonomous act. The Queen signed it authorizing it under the Constitution Act. The Charter of Rights was an amendment to the Constitution Act and by the Queen's signature reinforced that Canada was still legally under Crown (HRM) rule.

Now here is where it gets tricky. You see for about 20 years or so, the Queen has been under British Parliamentary control. Her budget and her acts must be approved by Britian. That would also include any act she signs for Canada. Essentially Canada is still a colony of Britian, only there are all kinds of myths around to make you believe you are not.

O:nen

No, you're disturbingly wrong.

First off: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not patriated from anywhere. The BNA Act, the Statute of Westminster, the Act of Settlement, and a slew of other British legislation was patriated and became Canadian Law through the Canada Act. The Charter was a separate Canadian document tacked onto the schedule of the Constitution at that time. Yes, it required the Queen's signature to become law, but that is standard practice - no law in Canada is recognised as law until it has received Royal Assent - meaning it must bear the signature of the Queen, or her appointed representative.

Secondly: Of course Canada is still under Crown rule - the country is a constitutional monarchy; a kingdom. What you're failing to understand is that the patriation of the constitution ended any ability for the UK to legislate for Canada - a process that began in 1931. What happened in 1982 was that Canada was given full sovereignty - meaning self control in all matters of its affairs. With all constitutional laws in Canadian hands, including those that create and control the Crown, the distinct entity of the Canadian Crown, born in 1867, came fully into existence. The British Crown is now only found only in the UK.

The Queen's budget under the control of the British Parliament only pertains to her expenses as Queen of the UK. When she's acting in her capacity as Queen of Canada (performing duties on behalf of Canada - ie. on the advice of her Canadian ministers - whether in Canada or not) it is the Parliament of Canada that approves the funds. Canada does not pay when she's acting for Britain, and Britain does not pay when she's acting for Canada.

Canada and the UK (along with fourteen other countries around the world) are in an equal and symmetrical relationship where each is independent and sovereign but have agreed to share the same person as their head of state. This agreement does not impinge on their sovereignty in any way.

[g_bambino]

But as you said, she doesn't act except on the advice of her ministers. I can't think of an example in recent years where she has personally used Prerogative on something.

Of course she hasn't ever used the Royal Prerogative personally, as Queen of Canada, anyway. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that she couldn't use it if it were necessary to do so.

[g_bambino]

Canada could, at anytime, remove the Queen as head of state with seeking her permission first. That reality makes Canada sovereign. The theoretical powers of the Queen in our current constitution are irrelevant for that reason.

No, that's not true. The Queen's signature, or the Governor General's, would be needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution which removed the Crown (after the consent of every provincial legislature, the HoC, and the Senate had been sought). The Queen's powers are actually very relevant, especially in constitutional matters.

[jdobbin]

Of course she hasn't ever used the Royal Prerogative personally, as Queen of Canada, anyway. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that she couldn't use it if it were necessary to do so.

But not without causing a constitutional crisis.

My point all along here is to assert that the prime minister and the cabinet (with the confidence of Parliament) are who natives should be negotiating with.

[jdobbin]

No, that's not true. The Queen's signature, or the Governor General's, would be needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution which removed the Crown (after the consent of every provincial legislature, the HoC, and the Senate had been sought). The Queen's powers are actually very relevant, especially in constitutional matters.

I think that River meant was that there was an amending formula in place to do such a thing if it was decided in Canada's interests.

[g_bambino]

Of course she hasn't ever used the Royal Prerogative personally, as Queen of Canada, anyway. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that she couldn't use it if it were necessary to do so.

But not without causing a constitutional crisis.

My point all along here is to assert that the prime minister and the cabinet (with the confidence of Parliament) are who natives should be negotiating with.

Ultimately, yes, that's true. But the First Nations still often appeal to her first, or will go directly to her when the government ministers don't seem to be listening. It may be only a symbolic formality, but it affirms that they reliase the treaties really are between them and the Queen. And it works in their favour too - when they publicly present the Queen with a list of their grievances, and she, in front of thousands of people, and hundreds of cameras, passes it to her Prime Minister, the PM can't duck out of it and pretend he'd never heard the Nlaka'pamuxs had a problem!

[Riverwind]

No, that's not true. The Queen's signature, or the Governor General's, would be needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution which removed the Crown (after the consent of every provincial legislature, the HoC, and the Senate had been sought).

That is a formality. In the unlikely event that the Queen blocked passage of a constutional change that was ratified by all provinces and the federal gov't we would likely have a short period of anti-British uproar followed by a SCC ruling that confirmed that the admendment could be passed without the signature of the Queen.

[jdobbin]

Ultimately, yes, that's true. But the First Nations still often appeal to her first, or will go directly to her when the government ministers don't seem to be listening. It may be only a symbolic formality, but it affirms that they reliase the treaties really are between them and the Queen. And it works in their favour too - when they publicly present the Queen with a list of their grievances, and she, in front of thousands of people, and hundreds of cameras, passes it to her Prime Minister, the PM can't duck out of it and pretend he'd never heard the Nlaka'pamuxs had a problem!

I see your point.

I was arguing that Canada was a sovereign nation. You've done a much better job in that regard.

I think the Six Nations have been negotiating with Ottawa since 1995. It is a lot of documents that they have to sift through but I think that the Canadian government have argued that they have no claim to the land.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nr/prs/j-a2006/snjsbk_e.html

[g_bambino]

That is a formality. In the unlikely event that the Queen blocked passage of a constutional change that was ratified by all provinces and the federal gov't we would likely have a short period of anti-British uproar followed by a SCC ruling that confirmed that the admendment could be passed without the signature of the Queen.

It's not a formality, it's a legal requirement, with nothing at all to do with British sentiment. Hence, I find it highly unlikely that the SCC would call an illegal amendment to the constitution legal.

The only way Canada could rid itself of the Crown without the proper signature of the Queen or Governor General would be to have some kind of bloody coup or revolt - the method that a good number of African nations adopted when becoming "democratic" republics.

[Riverwind]

It's not a formality, it's a legal requirement, with nothing at all to do with British sentiment. Hence, I find it highly unlikely that the SCC would call an illegal amendment to the constitution legal.

It is a hypothetical situation that would never happen - I don't believe the Queen would ever block an amendment that had unanimous approval of the feds and provinces.

[jbg]

The GG can be seen as a "de facto" head of state, yes. But ultimately the GG's authority comes from the Sovereign. The GG is not self-empowering.

Beyond that, the Queen does have the authority to negotiate on First Nations issues - the treaties are with the Crown, and the Queen is the Crown. Of course, by the traditions of constitutional monarchy she will almost always follow the advice of her ministers. But this does not preclude her from using the Royal Prerogative unilaterally should it be necessary - in any circumstance. And it most certainly would apply to Canadian governance if she was exercising the Prerogative in her capacity as Queen of Canada.

Many First Nations recognize that their agreements are with the Crown, and not the government. This is why they have, in the past, addressed their grievances directly to the Queen, even when the PM was standing right beside her.

But as you said, she doesn't act except on the advice of her ministers. I can't think of an example in recent years where she has personally used Prerogative on something.

www.whitlamdismissal.com is one example where Buckingham Palace may have been involved behind the scenes.

[granny]

The GG can be seen as a "de facto" head of state, yes. But ultimately the GG's authority comes from the Sovereign. The GG is not self-empowering.

Beyond that, the Queen does have the authority to negotiate on First Nations issues - the treaties are with the Crown, and the Queen is the Crown. Of course, by the traditions of constitutional monarchy she will almost always follow the advice of her ministers. But this does not preclude her from using the Royal Prerogative unilaterally should it be necessary - in any circumstance. And it most certainly would apply to Canadian governance if she was exercising the Prerogative in her capacity as Queen of Canada.

Many First Nations recognize that their agreements are with the Crown, and not the government. This is why they have, in the past, addressed their grievances directly to the Queen, even when the PM was standing right beside her.

But as you said, she doesn't act except on the advice of her ministers. I can't think of an example in recent years where she has personally used Prerogative on something.

www.whitlamdismissal.com is one example where Buckingham Palace may have been involved behind the scenes.

I read ... somewhere ... can not find it now ... that there was a case ... might have been Oneida ... not sure ... where the Queen was informed that a treaty was being broken so she intervened and made a new and more specific proclamation to enforce her wishes. I think her intervention at this time is unlikely, so long as the government negotiates in good faith.