Petition to restore "Royal" designation to the Maritime and

[g_bambino]

Like most heads of state in parliamentary democracies she does act predominantly as a figure head, but in reality is vested with all executive authority in and over Canada; hence sovereignty is vested in her, she is one of the three parts of Parliament, all laws are passed in her name with her (or her representative's) signature, and she holds command-in-chief over the Armed Forces. These powers she "exercises" on the advice of her Ministers - the Cabinet. Though, to maintain the stability of government, she remains out of the political fray and almost always follows her ministers' advice in the use of her powers of government (meaning that, in effect, the ministers are the ones governing), because she ultimately occupies the position of supreme authority politicians cannot, and if any prime minister or government attempts to act extra-legally, or any other problem arises that threatens governmental stability, it is the Queen's constitutional duty to dismiss them. The analogy is that she acts like a fire-extinguisher - it's always there, it's very visible, but isn't actually used until an emergency, and the less it's used obviously the better things are working. Of course, her vice-regal representatives are authorised to act in the Queen's place, though unforeseen circumstances may necessitate her direct intervention.

Beyond the legal technicalities, the Queen also acts as an impartial focus for patriotism - because the Crown is the apolitical embodiment of the nation Canadians can have a human locus of national pride without having to love the members of the incumbent partisan government.

And then, of course, there's the whole history thing.

See the "Monarchist arguments" section of this article for more detail.

Didn't the Constitution Act (1982) actually remove those powers from the queen?

No, to the contrary, the Constitution Act entrenched the Monarchy in Canada. It will now take the unanimous consent of the Federal Parliament as well as all ten provinces before any alteration can be made to the Crown.

[nbguyca]

No, to the contrary, the Constitution Act entrenched the Monarchy in Canada. It will now take the unanimous consent of the Federal Parliament as well as all ten provinces before any alteration can be made to the Crown.

That's true but the monarchy has no real power in the country. Our system has evoved to the point that the monarch, through the governor-general, does not interfere in the running of the country. The governing party is the body that truly holds the power in the country.

[g_bambino]

No, to the contrary, the Constitution Act entrenched the Monarchy in Canada. It will now take the unanimous consent of the Federal Parliament as well as all ten provinces before any alteration can be made to the Crown.

That's true but the monarchy has no real power in the country. Our system has evoved to the point that the monarch, through the governor-general, does not interfere in the running of the country. The governing party is the body that truly holds the power in the country.

Yes, on a day-to-day basis, that's true. But the power that the governing party uses belongs not to them, but to the Crown. That's the most important part.

Let's look at the possible scenario of a Quebec government unilaterally declaring succession from Canada. To make the relevant legislation into law requires the granting of Royal Assent by the Lieutenant Governor. However, because such an act would be unconstitutional, the LG would be bound to refuse this and deny the government their wishes. To attempt to bypass this process would deleigtimise the "independent" Quebec government.

It's happened numerous times before: the King-Byng Affair in 1927; when the Alberta LG refused Royal Assent to three bills passed by the Social Credit government in 1937, and when the Saskatchewan LG refused Royal Assent to a bill in 1961. It doesn't happen often (which is a good thing), but it can.