Canadian Sovereignty and the Queen

[Leafless]

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?

So your saying Canada mooched the country off of Britain and that's all there is to it or the natives already being here with France who simply stumbled across and found it.

In your opinion, when DID the Queen have anything to do with our country??

[geoffrey]

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?

So your saying Canada mooched the country off of Britain and that's all there is to it or the natives already being here with France who simply stumbled across and found it.

In your opinion, when DID the Queen have anything to do with our country??

Never really, hence why we should toss her. No point.

We don't even have to go republican, just axe the GG, give the ceremonial role to like the speaker of the senate or something like that, they are appoint the same way anyhow.

[Leafless]

geoffrey

In saying that you throw out the window our Constitution, our history and the main reason for pride in the country regarding Canadian nationalism.

In fact it can also be said without Britain and the Queen it is highly improbable that Canada would even exist in it's present form or name and for that matter neither would the U.S.A.

This means of course you wouldn't be here either saying what your saying.

[geoffrey]

geoffrey

In saying that you throw out the window our Constitution, our history and the main reason for pride in the country regarding Canadian nationalism.

In fact it can also be said without Britain and the Queen it is highly improbable that Canada would even exist in it's present form or name and for that matter neither would the U.S.A.

This means of course you wouldn't be here either saying what your saying.

We can keep our consitituion, just write the Queen out of it.

Let the history books tell of our history, not our establishments. I don't see many people in England crying for feudalism back, since it's part of their history. It's only a small segement of Americans that want to keep slaves, as part of their history.

Come on now, why have history as our current way of life. It's time we scrap our outdated institutions and enter the 21st century.

[SickandTired]

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

I have been patiently waiting for Tsi's rebuttal - guess he gave up...

[Leafless]

We can keep our consitituion, just write the Queen out of it.

Come on now, why have history as our current way of life. It's time we scrap our outdated institutions and enter the 21st century.

If you can't stand up for the Queen and Britain as the 'initial source' that gave us this country then you have no basis for forming any other opinion as facts speak for themselves.

It should be remembered it wasn't Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals that gave us Canada.

In fact if Mr. Trudeau had any fortitude and integrity he would have held a referendum to let Canadians decide if they wish to retain the monarchy.

But he wouldn't do that since a prime minister has significantly more power and control than a president.

It was to Mr. Trudeau's advantage to retain the monarchy.

If you have a problem with the Queen of Canada blame Trudeau.

[Charles Anthony]

If you can't stand up for the Queen and Britain as the 'initial source' that gave us this country then you have no basis for forming any other opinion as facts speak for themselves.

Yes, he does.

In this case, his "basis" is called the Ancient History Is Irrelevent / Human Freedom Is More Important principle.

[jdobbin]

If you can't stand up for the Queen and Britain as the 'initial source' that gave us this country then you have no basis for forming any other opinion as facts speak for themselves.

It should be remembered it wasn't Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals that gave us Canada.

In fact if Mr. Trudeau had any fortitude and integrity he would have held a referendum to let Canadians decide if they wish to retain the monarchy.

But he wouldn't do that since a prime minister has significantly more power and control than a president.

It was to Mr. Trudeau's advantage to retain the monarchy.

If you have a problem with the Queen of Canada blame Trudeau.

At the time of the Constitution, support for the monarchy was at an all time high because of marriage of Charles and Diana in 1981. You can check if you like. Trudeau often said he wanted a republic but couldn't get support for it from any party except the Parti Quebecois.

[Leafless]

If you can't stand up for the Queen and Britain as the 'initial source' that gave us this country then you have no basis for forming any other opinion as facts speak for themselves.

Yes, he does.

In this case, his "basis" is called the Ancient History Is Irrelevent / Human Freedom Is More Important principle.

Interesting!

Maybe you can explain "Human Freedom is Important".

Who's freedom or what freedom are you talking about?

[g_bambino]

We can keep our consitituion, just write the Queen out of it.

Let the history books tell of our history, not our establishments. I don't see many people in England crying for feudalism back, since it's part of their history. It's only a small segement of Americans that want to keep slaves, as part of their history.

Come on now, why have history as our current way of life. It's time we scrap our outdated institutions and enter the 21st century.

Clearly you know little of our Constitution, or constitutions in general. Write the Queen out of the Constitution and nobody holds executive power, there would be no locus of authority, and the government would have no legitimacy. In essence, remove the Crown and the whole system falls apart. Also, the Canadian Constitution consists of numerous important unwritten aspects - convention, Royal Prerogative, etc.

This is why if you want to remove the Crown the Constitution must be re-written so as to provide a replacement - and if it's not to be a monarchy, then it must be a republic. There's no other alternative.

It's also telling that you consider monarchy an "outdated" notion, not representative of the 21st century. How then do you explain the number of countries in the world which are still monarchies, attest for the fact that six of the top ten of modern nations in which to live are monarchies, that countries like Spain and Cambodia re-established their monarchies after years of dictatorial "republican" rule, or come to terms with the point that the concept of republicanism has been around for more than 2000 years?

[g_bambino]

At the time of the Constitution, support for the monarchy was at an all time high because of marriage of Charles and Diana in 1981. You can check if you like. Trudeau often said he wanted a republic but couldn't get support for it from any party except the Parti Quebecois.

I won't dismiss the part about his not being able to find anti-monarchy support from anywhere but the Parti, but if he himself was republican then why did he say in 1973:

Canadians should realise when they are well off under the Monarchy. For the vast majority of Canadians, being a Monarchy is probably the only form of government acceptable to them. I have always been for parliamentary democracy and I think the institution of Monarchy with the Queen heading it all has served Canada well.