|
|
|
|
#1
10-29-1999, 05:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's up with this? I seem to recall over the years hearing and reading various things which made me think that Canada is in some way beholden to Britain... I believe I've heard them refer to the Queen posessively...so what's up? Isn't Canada a completely free and independent nation? If so, what are these things I've heard over the years. Am I just on drugs?
------------------ ************* This is a non-smoking area. If we see you smoking, we will assume you are on fire and act accordingly. 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
10-29-1999, 05:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Canada is independent from Britain, having ratified its own Constitution some years ago, which replaced the British North America act. However, there is still a traditional connection, and the Queen is still considered "Head of State". This gives her virtually no power at all, and in the rare instances where she has a decision to make, she basically rubber-stamps what the current government wants.
This issue raised its head during the NAFTA negotiations. The then-government (the Conservatives) couldn't get its stance past the Senate (which had a slight majority of Liberals). For obscure reasons, the Conservatives needed "royal approval" to pack the Sentate with a few more of their people. Some people held out a vain hope that the Queen -- seeing that the majority of Canadians thought NAFTA was a raw deal -- might stand in the way. But of course she did not. As I said, it's just a rubber stamp.
|
|
#4
10-29-1999, 09:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The "some obscure reason" for royal approval for the Senate-packing was written into the 1867 constitution that we got full possession of in 1982. However, whenever the constitution or any other legal document talks about HM the Queen, it is essentially the PM of the day that actually holds that power; the Queen or Governor General only very rarely do anything they haven't been told to do by her Prime Minister.
|
|
#5
10-29-1999, 09:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I forget to mention, it wasn't NAFTA that restulted in the Senate-packing, but the GST debate of 1990.
|
|
#6
10-29-1999, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Long ago, bills passed by the Canadian parliament had to be approved by the UK's parliament before they took effect. Since the 1970s (someone can supply the correct date), bills passed in Ottowa no longer need to be approved in Westminster.
That was probably the end of the last meaningful way in which Canada was subordinate to Britain. ------------------ Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group. - Boris Badenov
|
|
#7
10-29-1999, 01:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia... but for how much longer? Check out:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/1999..._royals_1.html Australia is holding a referendum on whether or not they want to retain the British monarch as head of state. I wonder how many of you Canadians out there would feel about this if Canada was holding a similar referendum? (I would guess that Quebec would be more full of anti-monarchial sentiment than most.)
|
|
#9
10-29-1999, 02:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think you'd find that there are strong feelings for the Queen in Canada's older generations (say, people 60 years of age and up), but the boomers and later generations really don't care. If the Queen actually cost us anything or interfered with our government in any way, we'd probably vote to have her punted. But she really doesn't, so it costs us nothing to have a Queen, and we get to throw big parties when royalty comes to visit.
|
|
#10
10-30-1999, 12:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Close, Boris, but no cigar.
The British North America Act was a law passed by the U.K. Parliament that functioned as Canada's Constitution. Under it, Canada became an independent nation whose Queen was the Queen of Great Britain as well. Canadian laws no more had to be passed by the U.K. Parliament than South Dakota's laws have to be approved by the U.S. Congress before they become law. But any amendments to the BNAA did require approval by Westminster. It was, after all, a law they passed. Needless to say, this was not altogether thrilling to Our Lady of the Snows. (That's not a slam; points to the first person to identify it!) The 1970s-era law you refer to was an act that created a Canadian constitution to replace the BNAA which freed them entirely from legal dependence on the U.K. As for Elizabeth II, she is Queen of Canada. She is also Queen of Australia and of New Zealand. And she has this other job that keeps her in London a lot. Separate positions. When Edward VIII abdicated and George VI took his place, there was some complex side-stepping to assure that all the British dominions went along with it at the exact same time, to prevent having one king for half the British Empire/Commonwealth and another for the other half.
|
|
#11
10-30-1999, 01:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The British North America Act, 1867 has never been repealed. It still forms the basis for the Canadian Constitution, which is made up of about 30 statutes. In 1982 it was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867.
Justice Canada has the Constitution available at its web-site, in both French and English: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/index_en.html , for anyone who's interested. the senate-packing provision is section 26 of the Constitution Act, 1867: 26. If at any Time on the Recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that Four or Eight Members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by Summons to Four or Eight qualified Persons (as the Case may be), representing equally the Four Divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly. The Queen is the head of state of Canada, and a formal part of the federal Parliament, which is composed of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons (Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 9 and 17. She is also the head of the executive of all 10 provinces, and also a formal part of all 10 provincial legislatures. (Not explicitly set out in the CA67, but implied by operation of law - could get the cites if anyone is really interested.) Of course, as others commented, her role is almost entirely formal - she acts on the advice of her elected Prime Minister and Cabinet. Boris B is close in saying the British had a role in federal legislation, except it was the British Cabinet, not the Parliament. By s. 56 of the CA67, the Queen (acting on the advice of the British Cabinet) had up to 2 years to "disallow" (veto) a federal bill, even if the Governor General had previously given royal assent. Similarly, the Governor General could reserve a bill for the Queen's consideration. If she did not grant assent, the bill never came into force (CA67, s. 57) While these provisions are still on the books, the British Cabinet can no longer exercise these powers, as a result of the Balfour Convention of 1926, and the Statute of Westminster, 1931. Even though the Convention and the Statute recognized our independence, the British Parliament still had the sole power to amend parts of the Canadian Constitution. In 1982, by the Canada Act, it formally renounced those powers and enacted the amending formula we requested, set out in the Constitution Act, 1982. Since 1982, the British Parliament has no further legislative authority. But, the Queen continues as our head of state and a formal part of our Parliament and legislatures. Polycarp - the BNA Act didn't make us independent - it made us self-governing. We evolved towards independence, a process that began on July 1, 1867, got a big boost from WWI, and culminated with the proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982 on April 17, 1982. and finally - Kipling.
|
|
#12
10-30-1999, 07:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Canada's Relationship to Britain"
Conquered. Not that I'm bitter.  Or am I just going back too far? I always thought it would have been cool to live in Nouvelle-France rather than in a country called 'village'. Then again, 'Québec' means something like 'get off you canoe'. ------------------ Only humans commit inhuman acts.
|
|
#13
10-30-1999, 10:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
momotaro - i thought "Québec" was derived from Norman French for the "narrowing of the river" - i.e. - the location of Quebec City on the St. Lawrence, just before it widens into the estuary. ("Bec" is an old Norman word for a river or stream, I believe.) Any thoughts?
|
|
#14
10-31-1999, 03:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe. There're a lot of theories floating around. The theory I was refering too is that 'Québec' comes from the Algonquin 'Képac' shouted by these people when the French found what was really called Stadaconé or something.
I really don't know which theory is closer to the truth. The word 'bec' doesn't ring a bell in my Québecois ears. The funniest word-origin theory I've heard is that 'Canada' came from a Spanish map on which was written 'Acá Nada' meaning 'Nothing over there.' Those Spaniards really didn't like the cold it seems.  It's incredible that the Fathers of the Confederation et cie. would choose to use words to which no-one really knew the meaning. Ah! Bureaucracy! ------------------ Only humans commit inhuman acts.
|
|
#16
10-31-1999, 11:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hope it is unnecessary to clarify that the Queen is represented in Canada by the governor-general (currently the charming and graceful Adrienne Clarkson) and by the lieutenant-governors of the provinces. The G-G is the official head of state of Canada.
|
|
#17
10-31-1999, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No, the GG is the head of state for all practical purposes, but only represents the true head of state.
|
|
#18
11-01-1999, 07:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm afraid I agree with labradorian on this, matt. The Queen is the head of the executive, part of parliament, and the Commander-in-Chief. She's not actually referred to as the "head of state," but I think the total package qualifies her as head of state. See the Constitution Act, 1867:
9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. 15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. 17. There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons. By contrast, the G-G acts in Her Majesty's name: 10. The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated. The situation is the same for the provinces: the Lieutenant Governors act in the name of the Queen. This position is not explictly set out in the CA67, but has been inferred by the Courts.
|
|
#19
11-01-1999, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
momotaro - I found the reference I was thinking of. My Larousse defines "bec" as a "mot d'origine celtique," then gives the various meanings, like "beak," "nose," etc.
One meaning is: "pointe de terre au confluent de deux cours d'eaux." The derivation that I saw suggested that "bec" was used to mean the cliffs at the point where the St. Lawrence at Quebec City widened from a river into the estuary. Whether this is a sensible derivation of not, I couldn't judge.
|
|
#20
11-02-1999, 11:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think the "quel bec" theory is folk etymology; the -bec, -bic, -bek element appears in a lot of Aboriginal toponyms.
|
|
#21
11-02-1999, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think Stoidela might merely (or also) have been referring to Canada's "status" as a Commonwealth country. (?) That certainly would be the most commonly referred-to connection, I imagine...
Polycarp: Quote:
|
|
#22
11-02-1999, 09:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
theoretically, yes, but it would be dealt with by negotiations, I would assume.
The Preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931 reads, in part: "And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Susccession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall thereafter require the assent of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom..." That's why, as Polycarp pointed out earlier, each of the self-governing Dominions had to consent to the abdication of Edward VIII - each dominion had to pass an Abdication Act, along the same lines as the U.K. Abdication Act. Note that this has some significance today. Prince Charles has mooted the possiblity of doing away with the preference for male heirs, and going to a system of straight primogeniture, regardless of gender. The proposal would take effect with William's and Harry's heirs, so no vested rights in the line of succession would be affected. Implementation of this agreement would require the consent of all the Commonwealth countries that are monarchical in nature, rather than republican. It would also likley require the consent of all the Commonwealth countries who recognize the Crown as the head of the Commonwealth.
|
|
#23
11-08-1999, 10:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
an update - the Aussies defeated the republican plebescite on the weekend.
doesn't mean Liz can sleep soundly, though - sounds like it was defeated by a combination of pro-monarchists, and republicans who thought the proposal didn't go far enough. Under the proposal, the President would be elected by the Commonwealth (i.e. federal) Parliament, not by direct election. The recent Constitutional Convention chose that option as being the least likely to change the overall parliamentary system, as a directly elected president might have the political legitimacy to take on the Prime Minister on a regular basis, instead of as an emrgency measure. No-one seems to know what will happen next - another Convention, or let the matter drop for a few years.
|
|
#24
11-13-1999, 02:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Since this thread hasn't moved in a while, I'll highjack it.
Fellow Canadians, let's have a referendum. No, not a Québec référendum. "Do you want Canada to cut all ties with British royalty or keep the Queen or King of England has the Head of State?" I cast the first vote: Ditch the Queen! 1-0 ------------------ Only humans commit inhuman acts.
|
|
#26
11-13-1999, 04:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As a die-hard Thatcherite monarchist, i think Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc should 'ditch the monarchy'. Why? It makes no sense, she's our queen, not their's...in a way, it's embarassing. These other countries should move on. I love the queen, and believe in the principal which maintains her as head of state (god forbid we ever have an embarassment like 'cigar man Clinton' as our head of state)....it's almost indefensible, but i like it and it works
|
|
#27
11-13-1999, 04:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In case i may have given the impression that i don't like Canada/Oz/NZ....i love these countries. In a way their status is flattering...in another way it's awkward.
By the way, is there another word in the English language which has 'wkw' as a constituent?
|
|
#29
11-16-1999, 04:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In all honesty, as An Irishman, I could say a lot about the royals, but I wont.
some quick points 1)Its quite funny that the 'English' queen should be 1/2 german and married to a part greek, part german Racist. 2) Prince Charles isn't the embarassment, try Prince Phillip and his wonderful Race Relations history. 3)It does cost money to have a queen. Who do you think pays for her trips to your country? She sure dosen't.
|
|
#31
11-17-1999, 02:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why is it that when any Irish person mentions the Queen in a disrespectful manner someone always mentions Mountbatten... It's not like I killed him or anything......
I may be a Nationalist, but I'm a pacifist. Dont tar us all with the same brush. Australia nearly became a republic 2 weeks ago. Why would anyone want to be part of the Empire/Commonwealth?
|
|
#32
11-17-1999, 10:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think the commonwealth has to be seen as no longer just an ex-empire arrangement, but simply as an international 'club', which has it's uses. Just because you hate the British, it doesn't mean you'd refuse to be part of the EU (much as I wish WE weren't) does it?
|
|
#34
11-17-1999, 02:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's not really much to do with hating the British. Relations between Ireland & Britain are, for the most part, excellent - but equal. We don't want Mrs. Tibbs on our coins, or have a governor-general, or be subject to the fritterings about on the woolsack. Nothing to do with us; you go ahead and enjoy it.
And the Commonwealth is an ex-British-Empire club, with the sole exception of Mozambique. ben
|
|
#35
11-17-1999, 11:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Android: you neglected to mention that the major cause of the defeat of the republic initiative in Australia was not in the concept of casting off the monarchy but that the population was not enamoured of the manner of selecting a president for the republic.
Although they don't even have a president, they're already arguing the merits between direct and indirect selection.
|
|
#38
11-19-1999, 12:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chef, they might not be sleeping together anymore, but Quebec keeps slipping the English speakers some tongue. As for the Aussies vote, actually they voted FOR the republic. Since every thing is upsidedown there they mistook the word 'NO' for 'ON' as in "it's on". They are still reeling over the results, counterclockwise i think. Here is a link to Canadian place name origins http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/english/...et/origin.html But here is the real story
So you got the Algonquins shouting out to the French, "keep back!" which the French heard as Que bec, meaning 'that nozzle', or possibly a comment about a certain young Algonquin maiden, 'that Becky, ooh la la." Now we got the Canadian River ( named by some other frenchmen, exploring under Rene Baptiste[possibly because they ran out of wine in Chicago and kept saying " gimme a can a duh beer"{ since they had just left Louisianna it was Jax beer and not Moosehead,MooseJAW is in Saskatchewan which is Amerindian for "hard to spell'} They couldn't drink whiskey because Bourbon County, Kentucky hadn't been invented yet and and there was no Canadian Whiskey because the Baptists , or Baptistes ,in the texas panhandle had voted Canada dry, the reason Texans could control Canada will become apparent] long before the Arcadians [not the Greek ones,Prince Phillip not withstanding] became Cajuns, and has no connection with the dominion, ) the Canadian runs across the texas panhandle past the town of Canadian,Texas ( There's the French connection to Canada) to the Arkansas River ( pronounced "R kanzus", since Little Rock had not been found yet ) named after some non Algonquin Indians, the KansA. The Canadian is north of the Red River , no not that one, the Red River in Canada is the Red River of the North. The Colorado River (Spanish for RED River) runs across central texas and into the Gulf. Another Colorado is OVER THERE, (alla' in Spanish NOT acca'.) and runs thru the Grand Canyon to another gulf. The Grand RIVER is in Ontario. So what do all these texas rivers have to do with Canada? Not much but the Stanley cup, which holds a LOT of beer, is in Texas now. But what does this have to do with the Queen of England ( who likes to sing and dance,probably the Can Can) and Momo's plebicite? Which is bound to be racous, be sure and Mountbatten down the Hatchers. The only thing I can tell the Canadians about keeping the Windsor throne( which is much sturdier than a chair) is ,Yukon do what ever you want.How will the queen react? I dunno , next time I see her Alaska. Juneau she gonna be pissed though,from all that whiskey or whisky, whichever she likes.now since your thirstyhttp://www.moosehead.ca/ ------------------ "Pardon me while I have a strange interlude."-Marx
|
|
#39
01-18-2000, 01:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was following old threads and came back to this one. I found I'd never replied to this inquiry from Monty:
Quote:
it's not the latest, but it is still in force and effect. It's the basic outline of the federation, creating the federal Parliament and provincial Legislatures, and assigning them their legislative powers. as Monty suggests, it's not the latest Constitution Act. There have been several Acts passed over the years, the most recently the Constitution Act, 1982, which patriated the Constitution and enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All of the Constitution Acts, 1867-1982 together make up the Constitution of Canada. ------------------ and the stars o'erhead were dancing heel to toe
|
|
#40
01-18-2000, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
------------------ There are only two things that are infinite...the Universe and Man's stupidity...I'm not sure about the Universe though.
|
|
#41
01-18-2000, 03:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If anyone is up on current Canadian events, the Prime Minister recently declined a Royal Order (or title, or something the like) to a leading Canadian newspaper tycoon (arch-conservative egomaniac, to some). Seems that the Royal Hand doesn't carry so much weight around here anymore.
Kylen ps. I like the idea of a royal family under our system - kind of like a hood ornament on a Caddy...
|
|
#42
01-18-2000, 03:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes, Mozamique joined the Commonwealth. Which means they have the spot that should rightfully be held by the U.S.! After all, the U.S. is the only ex-British colony not in the Commonwealth.
Okay, I bet there are some other ex-British colonies not in the Commonwealth, but I can't remember them offhand, and it would interfere with my impression of an angry Yanq. http://search.excite.com/relocate/sr...6/mar96_2a.htm ------------------ Any similarity in the above text to an English word or phrase is purely coincidental.
|
|
#43
01-18-2000, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Burma (Myanmar) is a former British coloney that declined to join the Commonwealth on independence.
The Republic of Ireland is no longer a member. When it became independent, under the name the Irish Free State, it was a member, and is listed as one of the original Dominions in the Statute of Westminster, 1930. When it adopted its current constitution (sometime in the 30s, I believe), it ceased to be a member. ------------------ and the stars o'erhead were dancing heel to toe
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
