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.
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.
Re: Canada’s Relationship to Britain
About 2700 miles to the west.
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.
I forget to mention, it wasn’t NAFTA that restulted in the Senate-packing, but the GST debate of 1990.
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.
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.
Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia… but for how much longer? Check out:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/19991025/wl/australia_republic_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.)
Re: Canada’s relationship to Britain.
They’re just friends now. They haven’t slept together since the office Christmas party two years ago.
Live a Lush Life
Da Chef
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.
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:
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.
“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.
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?
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.
Pantellerite:
I think they should downsize the royal family to the king/queen plus kids. The rest can sell their jewelry and go on welfare.
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.
No, the GG is the head of state for all practical purposes, but only represents the true head of state.
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.
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.
I think the “quel bec” theory is folk etymology; the -bec, -bic, -bek element appears in a lot of Aboriginal toponyms.