Canadian Sovereignty and the Queen

[Riverwind]

On another long running thread some people have claimed that Canada is not a truly sovereign country because the Queen of England is the head of state. I knew this was a false statement but I needed to do some research - the answer actually surprised me so I thought I would post a new topic.

The head of state in the Canadian constitution is the Queen of Canada - Elizabeth II. The fact that the same person is also the Queen of England, Australia and other commonwealth countries is completely coincidental as far as our constitution is concerned. She remains Queen of Canada as long as Canadians want to keep her as the Queen. She would remain Queen of Canada even if the British decided to ditch the monarchy (assuming Canada did not amend its own constitution).

IOW - Canada has absolutely no legal or constitutional ties to the country of England anymore. A subtle but extremely important point to remember when discussing the role of the monarch in the Canadian government.

[jdobbin]

On another long running thread some people have claimed that Canada is not a truly sovereign country because the Queen of England is the head of state. I knew this was a false statement but I needed to do some research - the answer actually surprised me so I thought I would post a new topic.

The head of state in the Canadian constitution is the Queen of Canada - Elizabeth II. The fact that the same person is also the Queen of England, Australia and other commonwealth countries is completely coincidental as far as our constitution is concerned. She remains Queen of Canada as long as Canadians want to keep her as the Queen. She would remain Queen of Canada even if the British decided to ditch the monarchy (assuming Canada did not amend its own constitution).

IOW - Canada has absolutely no legal or constitutional ties to the country of England anymore. A subtle but extremely important point to remember when discussing the role of the monarch in the Canadian government.

We'll probably be keeping her as head of state for some time considering that opening the constitution is never an eay task.

Have you gotten tired of battling the native activists yet? They'll just keep repeating the same stuff as if they'll convince you or others of their case. I don't know why they bother. If Canada doesn't matter, what bring it up in a Canadain poltical forum?

[Who's Doing What?]

On another long running thread some people have claimed that Canada is not a truly sovereign country because the Queen of England is the head of state. I knew this was a false statement but I needed to do some research - the answer actually surprised me so I thought I would post a new topic.

The head of state in the Canadian constitution is the Queen of Canada - Elizabeth II. The fact that the same person is also the Queen of England, Australia and other commonwealth countries is completely coincidental as far as our constitution is concerned. She remains Queen of Canada as long as Canadians want to keep her as the Queen. She would remain Queen of Canada even if the British decided to ditch the monarchy (assuming Canada did not amend its own constitution).

IOW - Canada has absolutely no legal or constitutional ties to the country of England anymore. A subtle but extremely important point to remember when discussing the role of the monarch in the Canadian government.

Key words in your post: "as long as Canadians want to keep her."

She is Barely a figurehead.

The minute she tried to impose her will on this country she would be given swift directions to 123 Idontfriggin'thinkso St.

Here's a happy thought.

Go tell her that she owes the Natives the compensation for the land. The deal is with her anyway. And her family vault was filled by Canadian beaver. Hahahaha This is getting more rediculous with every piece of information.

[geoffrey]

We don't give the Queen any money do we? That's just the British that pay her right?

[Riverwind]

We don't give the Queen any money do we? That's just the British that pay her right?

Canada pays most of the travel and security expenses when she comes to Canada. When in Britain she lives off her considerable personal wealth (she even pays income tax). However, the upkeep for some of her houses (i.e palaces) is paid by the British taxpayer because they are considered national monuments.

[geoffrey]

We don't give the Queen any money do we? That's just the British that pay her right?

Canada pays most of the travel and security expenses when she comes to Canada. When in Britain she lives off her considerable personal wealth (she even pays income tax). However, the upkeep for some of her houses (i.e palaces) is paid by the British taxpayer because they are considered national monuments.

Makes sense, that's reasonable. We also pay the Pope's expenses, and I'm sure many other dignitaries. It's reasonable.

I don't like being in a constitutional monarchy though, seems unneccessary and wasteful to have a GG or the Queen around.

[Riverwind]

I don't like being in a constitutional monarchy though, seems unnecessary and wasteful to have a GG or the Queen around.

I don't think the cost argument is legitimate - we would have to pay for a head of state no matter what.

[Charles Anthony]

In a practical sense, who has more power in Canada: the Queen or the Governor General?

I would suspect that it is the Governor General. Therefore, by getting rid of the monarchy, we might save money by re-assigning our head of state to the prime minister or even a statue.

[jdobbin]

I don't like being in a constitutional monarchy though, seems unnecessary and wasteful to have a GG or the Queen around.

I don't think the cost argument is legitimate - we would have to pay for a head of state no matter what.

We already had a link that compared head of state costs a couple of weeks ago. Canada's costs are lower than other countries who have removed a royal in favour of a republic.

[cybercoma]

I think it'd be fantastic if one day she started forcing decisions on Canada.

[Riverwind]

I think it'd be fantastic if one day she started forcing decisions on Canada.

Why? Because you know it will lead to the immediate elimination of the monarchy?

[Canuck E Stan]

We already had a link that compared head of state costs a couple of weeks ago. Canada's costs are lower than other countries who have removed a royal in favour of a republic.

The cost of having her face on our money is enormous in Quebec.

[geoffrey]

I don't like being in a constitutional monarchy though, seems unnecessary and wasteful to have a GG or the Queen around.

I don't think the cost argument is legitimate - we would have to pay for a head of state no matter what.

It's not a cost argument, it's a why bother argument. She has nothing to do with our country anymore, why do we still have her as our leader? Holding onto the past for the sake of holding onto the past is rather silly no?

[jdobbin]

It's not a cost argument, it's a why bother argument. She has nothing to do with our country anymore, why do we still have her as our leader? Holding onto the past for the sake of holding onto the past is rather silly no?

I agree that if we want to become a republic, cost is not the deciding factor. What makes everyone in every party leary is the fact that you have to open the constitution again. And as soon as you do that, everybody throws in the kitchen sink.

[cybercoma]

We already had a link that compared head of state costs a couple of weeks ago. Canada's costs are lower than other countries who have removed a royal in favour of a republic.

The cost of having her face on our money is enormous in Quebec.

It's not her fault they lost the war.

[Riverwind]

It's not a cost argument, it's a why bother argument. She has nothing to do with our country anymore, why do we still have her as our leader? Holding onto the past for the sake of holding onto the past is rather silly no?

I am inclined to agree, however, there many important issues that have a real affect of the lives of Canadians. I don't see the benefit of starting a divisive constitutional battle over this issue.

[Canuck E Stan]

It's not her fault they lost the war.

Avril Lavigne does more for Canada....put her on the coin.

......or how about Pam Anderson.

...na,... not enough room.

[cybercoma]

Avril Lavigne does more for Canada....put her on the coin.

......or how about Pam Anderson.

...na,... not enough room.

I've got an idea, why don't we put Don Cherry on the coin?

The sad thing is....I'm certain most Canadians would approve of it, if it was voted on.

Perhaps with Pam Anderson, we could put each "half" of her on 50 cent pieces...this way you can put them together for a buck.

[Leafless]

I don't like being in a constitutional monarchy though, seems unnecessary and wasteful to have a GG or the Queen around.

I don't think the cost argument is legitimate - we would have to pay for a head of state no matter what.

It's not a cost argument, it's a why bother argument. She has nothing to do with our country anymore, why do we still have her as our leader? Holding onto the past for the sake of holding onto the past is rather silly no?

The Queen has every right to be part of Canada and Canadian history and has played the pivotal role in maintaining the independence of Canada in North America. Canada emerged as that part of North America (English and French) which wished to remain a monarchical society.

The monarchy has since provided Canada with a distinct identity grom the United States and is the philosphical basis ( the state as the family) for the social differences that have evovled between what were essential the same people two and a quarter centuries ago ( i.e. Crown corporations, public broadcasting, social welfare and health schemes, appointed judicary, peace, order and good government, multiculturalism etc.).

Canada to-day is an Independent Constitutional Monarchy and I would like to see all you republican supporters find a way in this devisive country to select a president and how would power be protected so it would not be abused.

The 'Plains of Abraham' have a direct and important place in Canadian history and not to be forgotten.

[FTA Lawyer]

In a practical sense, who has more power in Canada: the Queen or the Governor General?

I would suspect that it is the Governor General. Therefore, by getting rid of the monarchy, we might save money by re-assigning our head of state to the prime minister or even a statue.

The Governor General IS the Queen when the Queen is not here...basic principles of agency. Every stroke of the pen by the GG is ROYAL assent not just Jean's o.k. It's a simple necessity if you want to rule an empire...you need to have representatives act for you because divine ruler or not, you still can't physically be in two places at once.

As such, the fact that QEII is actually the head of state means almost nothing in terms of the day to day expense of running our country.

FTA

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

"As such, the fact that QEII is actually the head of state means almost nothing in terms of the day to day expense of running our country."

Granted. However, the point to be made is that Canada cannot change its Constitution, legal or parliamentary system without the Queen's consent. Canada cannot be sovereign with some other agency (other than the citizens - as in the States) in charge of its supreme laws.

On the issue of Native sovereignty and the treaties and proclamations made by the Crown, Canada does not have legal authority to ignore or unilaterally amend these laws because they are equal to that of Canada's supreme law, and may only be opened with the approval of the Queen.

O:nen

[Riverwind]

Granted. However, the point to be made is that Canada cannot change its Constitution, legal or parliamentary system without the Queen's consent. Canada cannot be sovereign with some other agency (other than the citizens - as in the States) in charge of its supreme laws.

The Queen would be obligated by centuries of royal tradition to sign any law that removed her as the head of state. Tradition is equal to the law when it comes to these things. In the unlikely event that she refused then Canada would simply declare a new constitution for itself like the US did in 1776. The Queen has no army she could use to stop Canada from doing that.

IOW - all laws and treaties in this country exist only because the Canadian people want them. If Canadians decide that they do not want those laws anymore then they will repeal them or pass new laws.

[FTA Lawyer]

Granted. However, the point to be made is that Canada cannot change its Constitution, legal or parliamentary system without the Queen's consent. Canada cannot be sovereign with some other agency (other than the citizens - as in the States) in charge of its supreme laws.

The Queen would be obligated by centuries of royal tradition to sign any law that removed her as the head of state. Tradition is equal to the law when it comes to these things. In the unlikely event that she refused then Canada would simply declare a new constitution for itself like the US did in 1776. The Queen has no army she could use to stop Canada from doing that.

IOW - all laws and treaties in this country exist only because the Canadian people want them. If Canadians decide that they do not want those laws anymore then they will repeal them or pass new laws.

Actually, it's even better than that...

While TNE is correct that Canada cannot change its Constitution wihtout a "proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada" (i.e. Queen's assent), the Queen has already legally given up her right to refuse such assent in section 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982:

48. The Queen's Privy Council for Canada

shall

advise the Governor General to issue a proclamation under this Part

forthwith

on the adoption of the resolutions required for an amendment made by proclamation under this Part.

That is, once Canadians have followed the amendment procedures set out in our Constitution, the Queen's assent is dictated by law to be mandatory...and since the Queen had to sign off on this provision in the first place, there's no validity to the argument that the Queen is more than a figurehead and that Canadians are not sovereign to amend their Constitution.

As to Native sovereignty / treaties / proclamations, Canada specifically has legal authority to amend or otherwise deal with these issues as set out in section 35 and 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982...we need only include such an amendment as an agenda item in a Constitutional Conference and invite aboriginal peoples representatives to participate in the discussion on that item.

Again, the Queen has already signed off on this so perhaps TNE you should do even the slightest bit of homework if you hope to be an advocate for Native peoples and their place in relation to the rest of Canada.

FTA

[jdobbin]

Again, the Queen has already signed off on this so perhaps TNE you should do even the slightest bit of homework if you hope to be an advocate for Native peoples and their place in relation to the rest of Canada.

Thanks for the explanation, FTA. It is unlikley to satisfy the activists though.

[g_bambino]

It's not a cost argument, it's a why bother argument. She has nothing to do with our country anymore, why do we still have her as our leader? Holding onto the past for the sake of holding onto the past is rather silly no?

I am inclined to agree, however, there many important issues that have a real affect of the lives of Canadians. I don't see the benefit of starting a divisive constitutional battle over this issue.

If she has nothing to do with our country anymore, then it would presumably be easy to replace her. But we all know it's not. The Crown is the kingpin of our constitution, legal system, military, police and parliament - that's why it takes the unanimous agreement of all ten provincial legislatures, the HoC, and the Senate to alter or remove anything pertaining to the institution. Even if that could theoretically be achieved, what could we all possibly agree to replace it with?

Yes, one important reason we hold onto the Monarchy is for its symbolic representation of Canada's history and stability, but, perhaps more importantly, it's still a relevant, functioning part of every day life in Canada. Take a look around and you'll see crowns everywhere - police crests, military badges, coats of arms in court rooms, on licence plates, parliamentary stationary, our money, etc., etc. It's still, thankfully, the locus of authority in this country.