Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Quebec ruling
Many of the arguments and assumptions made in this article about the Canadian monarchy being separate and distinct need to be revisited in light of the ruling in Taillon and Motard today. See, for instance, Lagasse's argument that such a ruling means there is no distinct Queen of Canada (see [1]) Alexander's Hood (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have no read the judgment, but much of this article reflects views no longer accepted in legal circles. But I do not see how the ruling could affect current opinion. There has always been a separate and distinct king or queen of Canada, but their succession depends on UK law. TFD (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think Lagasse's article, which I link to above, is instructive.Alexander's Hood (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is one of those occasions where I'm proven right about something, but wish I had been proven wrong. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Here's the Google translation of the Quebecor article quoting the judge as saying Canada is "under the Crown of the United Kingdom". That's quite a different concept than what's being promoted in this article. Alexander's Hood (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Canada is a constitutional monarchy, it is therefore under the Crown of the United Kingdom". Does anybody have any smelling salts for Miesianiacal? GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Here's the Google translation of the Quebecor article quoting the judge as saying Canada is "under the Crown of the United Kingdom". That's quite a different concept than what's being promoted in this article. Alexander's Hood (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- You need more than a soundbite from an article to understand what the judge said. TFD (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- TFD is right. The decision hasn't even been released yet, nor have the experts discussed their interpretations of the decision. trackratte (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's is correct. The translated article doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.
- The matter of the term "Crown of the United Kingdom" was discussed here at length a few years ago. Because the judge used it to refer to the shared crown does not mean the judge ruled Canada is a colony of the UK, which is what one would be saying if claiming the British Crown still had sovereignty over Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- The decision has been released, but the English translation hasn't been as of yet. In any case, I don't think anyone is saying the judge ruled Canada is still a colony; however it does seem that his decision undercuts some of the philosophical (and dare I say ideological) assumptions about the degree to which the "Canadian crown" is separate and distinct from the British crown. I'm sure there will be some scholarly articles on this in the coming year (particularly from Professor Lagassé) so we may need to consider rewriting or qualifying some of the assertions made in various articles about the Canadian monarchy. Alexander's Hood (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the judgment en francais. TFD (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I suspect, over the next few days or weeks, there's going to be a little spat over whether the Canadian monarchy exists on its own or exists only because the British monarchy exists. Ya know - One has to be a British monarch to be a Canadian monarch, but not vise-versa argument. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- There has been a claim for a number of years that the Canadian monarchy is separate and distinct from the British monarchy. While it may be said that there's a distinct Canadian Crown, the idea that there is a distinct Canadian monarchy isn't supported in law. Alexander's Hood (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I suspect, over the next few days or weeks, there's going to be a little spat over whether the Canadian monarchy exists on its own or exists only because the British monarchy exists. Ya know - One has to be a British monarch to be a Canadian monarch, but not vise-versa argument. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the judgment en francais. TFD (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- The decision has been released, but the English translation hasn't been as of yet. In any case, I don't think anyone is saying the judge ruled Canada is still a colony; however it does seem that his decision undercuts some of the philosophical (and dare I say ideological) assumptions about the degree to which the "Canadian crown" is separate and distinct from the British crown. I'm sure there will be some scholarly articles on this in the coming year (particularly from Professor Lagassé) so we may need to consider rewriting or qualifying some of the assertions made in various articles about the Canadian monarchy. Alexander's Hood (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The Queen of Canada is legally distinct, but happens to be whoever is Queen of the United Kingdom. The reference to "under the Crown of the United Kingdom" is merely quoting the 1867 Constitution Act, not a new doctrine. TFD (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This has already been dealt with at length by constitutional experts and academics, particularly in terms of the sovereign as corporation sole. No one has ever said that Elizabeth II and her heirs are not British, nor that the process of selection of the person is a uniquely Canadian one. If Canadian courts determine that, as a matter of Canadian constitutional law, the current Canadian succession methods of the person of the Canadian sovereign are to be inline with those of the British sovereign unless changed by Parliament, this does not change the current nature of the office itself. If it had fundamentally changed the office of Queen of Canada, it would have triggered a need for constitutional amendment. Which is all very well and good for a talk page, but as others have said, amateur opinion from journalists and wiki editors alike is insufficient. trackratte (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Also, thanks TFD for posting the link. And as you say, it's important to mention that Canada in 1867 was not independent, but remained under the government of the UK, which is mentioned in the ruling in paras 34-35. trackratte (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- An interesting study. Does the Canadian monarchy exist only because the British monarchy exists? If the UK became a republic, would Canada and the other 14 commonwealth realms, remain monarchies? Hmmm. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yesterday's court ruling states, at para 67, that 'It is subsequently as of 1931 that the existence of a Canadian Crown separate from that of the British Crown appears, which is to say a distinct head of state despite that the two States designate the same person' (my own translation, read it for yourselves if you'd like). It also goes on to cite jurisprudence that the rules of succession are part of the constitution inasmuch as they are not challengeable under the Charter, as one part of the constitution cannot override another. Second, the Act of 1867 in a variety of areas (such as succession or parliamentary privilege) is not the source of law, but through its preamble recognised constitutional laws already in incorporated and in operation (para 153). The crux of the issue is that, due to the Constitution Act 1982, British laws are inapplicable to Canada, but the Succession Act does not give force to the British Act, only acknowledges that Canada agrees to its principle, and the ruling acknowledges that if Canada had not expressed consent, the Act would have passed anyways. As much of the Canadian constitution is unwritten, the matter of constitutional law determined by the Court was that the Canadian law is that the person of sovereign of the UK is automatically that of Canada, and thus the actual Canadian law itself has never been altered. According to the news article, it is expected that this decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Regardless, the current ruling is very clear that the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the United Kingdom are completely separate and independent of each other, and that the rules governing the office itself, are separate from the rules governing who can fill that office. Ie. Canada has the power to change its own succession laws, but the fact that Canada uses identical succession rules with the UK has absolutely no bearing on the office of Queen of Canada. trackratte (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Let us not get carried away, in French or English. If the court ruling is to be appealed, it will be imprudent to treat it as having settled any contested points of law. Even if it is upheld and affirmed in its entirety on appeal, the reasoning in such matters, whether or not universally accepted by persons with the necessary skill and knowledge (aka, "experts"), is not always readily understood even by otherwise well-informed laypersons, though some may take this or that from it, by inference or direct quote. However clearly the judge has expressed his reasoning, it is doubtful whether it can, at this stage, be taken as a definitive ruling that the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the United Kingdom are completely separate and independent of each other, etc... But one thing is certain: the judge has rejected the application submitted by Motard and Taillon for a declaration that the act of 2013 was unconstitutional for the reasons stated in paragraph [2]. Qexigator (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The court isn't ruling that the Queen of Canada and of the UK are separate, it only takes it as a point of fact in the judge's overview of the period of constitutional evolution under the section, "Période de 1931 à 1982". The Government of Canada and the Government of UK, UK courts, and academic experts in the field all state that this to be true, so my comments are only to say that this court decision does not put that into dispute but actually acknowledges it as a point of fact, so it is more a response to an editor continuously putting "dubious" tags into the article based on a non-existent reference. trackratte (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- In other words, (since March 26, 2015) the Canadian succession is absolute primogeniture & a Canadian monarch can be married to a Catholic, until & if the Supreme Court declares the 2013 Act unconstitutional. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Can you quote where the ruling says that? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Can you show where the 2013 Act was declared unconstitutional? Anyways, I'm quite happy to allow you all to argue this out. Darn, I wish Princess Anne had been the Queen's eldest child & the Perth Agreement would've retroactively covered the Queen's children. In that scenerio, it would've made for an interesting situation, upon the Queen's passing. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, you can't. Thank you for your honest (if convoluted) answer. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm content to allow the others to decide on how this matter should be presented in the article. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing really to argue over here I don't think. Mostly just interesting chatter and speculation at this point. The reasoning is an odd construction, as succession rules form part of Canadian constitutional law, but the one and only rule within this constitutional law is 'whomever the British have selected'. So the basic argument in the decision seems to be that the British legislation itself is completely irrelevant to Canadian law as it doesn't, and cannot, change that one Canadian succession rule. Canada itself, by passing the 2013 Act, hasn't made any changes oncesoever to Canadian succession law at all. Kindof like the National Defence Act stating that command will be "according to regulation" and that's all it says, so if the regulations governing command were to change, the law itself would remain unaffected, ie 'the rules have changed by the law has not'. Bit of a pretzel. trackratte (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- If the rest of you want to put into this article that the Canadian succession is still male-preference primogeniture & the ban on a Canadian monarch being married to a Catholic, is still in effect? or if you all want to put into this article that the Canadian succession is in limbo (which would mean that nobody is currently in the Canadian line of succession), then so be it. If enough editors push that 'blue' is 'red'? then an article will end up showing that 'blue' is 'red'. So go for it. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I don't like the use of "male-preference primogeniture" as no one knows what that means unless they're really into that sort of thing I suppose. As an editorial preference, why not just use common and clear language? Second, now it seems that from current legal thinking that's not strictly true, as Canada doesn't actually have "male-preference primogeniture" laws but only a constitutional principle that our succession lines will be the same as the UK automatically, so we don't actually have any rules for deciding succession besides that single one. trackratte (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) 15 "Pretzel" is putting it lightly.
- I also can't see where the judge dealt with the issue of inherited law (Act of Settlement, etc.) and the Succession to the Throne Act 1937. Did they just vanish? Do that law alter automatically upon the British altering their law, even though the British amendments themselves didn't effect any change in Canadian law? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- The judge seem to say that the Act of Settlement has never been part of the Canadian constitution, but some of its written principles form part of the unwritten Canadian constitution... As for the 1937 Act, it was done inline with s4 of the Statute of Westminster, so the same logic is applied to the 1937 Act as the 2013 Act. However, the fact that the s.4 provision explicitly states that the assent of Canada is to declare that the British law "be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion" which seemingly undermines the entire core argument that via this means the British law is not extended to Canada, because that would be against the Constitution Act 1982. Bit of a nightmare. The determination that the details of succession do not form part of the roles, responsibilities, and constitutional powers of the office itself seems relatively straightforward, so it makes sense that the change doesn't require constitutional amendment in that regard. But the argument that Canada can extend British laws "as part of the law of" Canada, but at the same time such a change doesn't change Canadian law at all is ... well a bit of an exercise. trackratte (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what the judge said (my French translation skills don't extend strongly into legalese), but, S.4 of the Canadian Statute of Westminster was repealed in 1982. Plus, S.2 of the Canada Act 1982 bars any British law from having effect in Canada. So, if parts of the Act of Settlement are part of the Canadian constitution (in written form or by convention) (this is supported by the earlier Ontario Superior Court ruling), yet, no law of the UK can extend to Canada, how were those parts of the Act of Settlement within the Canadian constitution amended? Again, are they assumed to be amended because the UK amended the Act of Settlement within its jurisdiction? What Canadian law says that's supposed to happen? And isn't that still a British law (either the Act of Settlement or the British parliament's amendment of it within its jurisdiction) having effect in Canada?
- I'm asking these questions rhetorically, of course. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- The judgment quotes Peter W. Hogg, "the rules of succession had to be the same as the United Kingdom." That could mean that the succession act is an exception to the 1982 Act or that it is a rule that is not legislative in Canada. Wills for example written in England have legal effect in Canada, even though they are not acts of Canadian legislatures. And while the relevant section of the 1931 act was repealed, it remains a convention. (It was never binding anyway.) TFD (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- The judge seem to say that the Act of Settlement has never been part of the Canadian constitution, but some of its written principles form part of the unwritten Canadian constitution... As for the 1937 Act, it was done inline with s4 of the Statute of Westminster, so the same logic is applied to the 1937 Act as the 2013 Act. However, the fact that the s.4 provision explicitly states that the assent of Canada is to declare that the British law "be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion" which seemingly undermines the entire core argument that via this means the British law is not extended to Canada, because that would be against the Constitution Act 1982. Bit of a nightmare. The determination that the details of succession do not form part of the roles, responsibilities, and constitutional powers of the office itself seems relatively straightforward, so it makes sense that the change doesn't require constitutional amendment in that regard. But the argument that Canada can extend British laws "as part of the law of" Canada, but at the same time such a change doesn't change Canadian law at all is ... well a bit of an exercise. trackratte (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- If the rest of you want to put into this article that the Canadian succession is still male-preference primogeniture & the ban on a Canadian monarch being married to a Catholic, is still in effect? or if you all want to put into this article that the Canadian succession is in limbo (which would mean that nobody is currently in the Canadian line of succession), then so be it. If enough editors push that 'blue' is 'red'? then an article will end up showing that 'blue' is 'red'. So go for it. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing really to argue over here I don't think. Mostly just interesting chatter and speculation at this point. The reasoning is an odd construction, as succession rules form part of Canadian constitutional law, but the one and only rule within this constitutional law is 'whomever the British have selected'. So the basic argument in the decision seems to be that the British legislation itself is completely irrelevant to Canadian law as it doesn't, and cannot, change that one Canadian succession rule. Canada itself, by passing the 2013 Act, hasn't made any changes oncesoever to Canadian succession law at all. Kindof like the National Defence Act stating that command will be "according to regulation" and that's all it says, so if the regulations governing command were to change, the law itself would remain unaffected, ie 'the rules have changed by the law has not'. Bit of a pretzel. trackratte (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm content to allow the others to decide on how this matter should be presented in the article. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, you can't. Thank you for your honest (if convoluted) answer. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Can you show where the 2013 Act was declared unconstitutional? Anyways, I'm quite happy to allow you all to argue this out. Darn, I wish Princess Anne had been the Queen's eldest child & the Perth Agreement would've retroactively covered the Queen's children. In that scenerio, it would've made for an interesting situation, upon the Queen's passing. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Can you quote where the ruling says that? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
What academics and scholars say is speculative until there are court rulings. Prof. Lagasse, who has been applying corporation sole to the monarchy for years points out that the court ruling does not endorse this position and he is now saying that the concept of a Queen of Canada is dead. Tweets are not sources but I expect he'll be publishing his views more formally in due time.76.75.130.245 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
If it's the choice of the editors here, to present the Canadian succession as having not been changed by the 2013 Succession Act? Then I would recommend that corresponding edits be made to related articles. If the Perth Agreement is binding? succession to all the Commonwealth realm thrones wasn't changed on March 26, 2015 & thus all 16 realms are still under eldest son/marriage to catholic barred rules. Remember, according to the Perth Agreement, all Commonwealth realms must change their successions rules for the changes to take effect. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
BTW: I've requested input from WP:CANADA & WP:LAW. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think there's anyone saying the succession wasn't changed. The UK government declared in March 2015 that the changes had gone into effect and in the absence of any court ruling to the contrary that's where the matter stands. Alexander's Hood (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is what Professor Lagasse said a few months ago about the government's position in the court case (ie the position which the court ruling affirms):
- "Given that the Crown and the Queen are legally synonymous, the federal government’s position holds that St-Laurent was right all along: the Queen of Canada is not a separate office from the Queen of the United Kingdom. If the courts accept this reasoning, it will reverse the decades-long progression toward a legally distinct Canadian sovereign. The Queen of Canada will revert to being the British queen acting for Canada, rather than a formally separate and distinct office. Under this understanding of the monarchy, it would no longer be incorrect to say that the Queen of the United Kingdom is Canada’s head of state." ("The first and last 'Queen of Canada'?: Judicial decisions threaten to overturn the independence of the Canadian monarchy" Policy Options, September 9, 2015)
- Alexander's Hood (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- See also De-Canadianizing the Crown post on the Quebec Superior Court decision including Prof. Lagasse's analysis. Alexander's Hood (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Except that the court decision acknowledges the fact that, since 1931, the British and Canadian Crowns have been separate, with two distinct heads of state. This position is the same as court decisions previously made in the UK and Canada, as well as both Canadian and British official publications. As well, in a separate case last year a Canadian judge stated that the Queen of Canada is not "a foreign sovereign". This court case was not about deciding if the Queen is Canadian, but if a constitutional amendment is required to change the order of succession. Regardless of the reasoning, the actual ruling is only that the rules of succession do not constitute part of the "office" of the sovereign and therefore does not require a constitutional amendment. The logical wranglings of how the succession changes were implemented, and what this means for Canada's status vis a vis the UK is a separate issue than the ruling itself. trackratte (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is what Professor Lagasse said a few months ago about the government's position in the court case (ie the position which the court ruling affirms):
While the judge said many things, the ratio decidendi is that the succession to the Canadian throne is determined by the rules of succession to the British throne. Canada's assent to the changes is a non-binding convention. That does not mean that the office is the same, just that the person is the same. TFD (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- So, was the Canadian succession rules changed in March 2015? or not? We need clarity here, as this effects (according to the Perth Agreement) the other Commonwealth realms, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, they all changed at the same time. We should stop giving undue weight to fringe views. TFD (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- What changed? The government kept saying there are no Canadian succession laws. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- They meant that the rules of succession are not Canadian laws. What changed is that an elder daughter will inherit the Crown, and become Queen of Canada, in preference to a younger son, whereas previously she would not. That's a change, n'est pas? TFD (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- To the question "So, was the Canadian succession rules changed in March 2015?" you answered "Yes". If there are no Canadian succession rules, there can't have been a change to Canadian succession rules. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- If an Quebec court decides to enforce the terms of an English will, would you say that the court did not rule, because the rule was English? That is more or less what happened here. A Quebec court has determined that an inheritance decided by the Queen and endorsed by her British parliament, which is the local convention, will be enforced in Canada. TFD (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- To the question "So, was the Canadian succession rules changed in March 2015?" you answered "Yes". If there are no Canadian succession rules, there can't have been a change to Canadian succession rules. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- They meant that the rules of succession are not Canadian laws. What changed is that an elder daughter will inherit the Crown, and become Queen of Canada, in preference to a younger son, whereas previously she would not. That's a change, n'est pas? TFD (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- What changed? The government kept saying there are no Canadian succession laws. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, they all changed at the same time. We should stop giving undue weight to fringe views. TFD (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Motard v. Canada (Attorney General)
A text version of the decision in the Motard case is now available in text version here. Editors can cut and paste the contents into Google translate and receive a readable version. In his decision, Justice Bouchard quoted Section 9 of the British North America Act 1867: "The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. " The Queen is identified in the preamble as Queen of the UK ("federally united into one dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom....") Therefore the Queen of the UK is automatically Queen of Canada.
The imperial laws and common law of succession are not part of the Canadian constitution nor part of the "office of the Queen." While the succession act in the UK is a law, in Canada it is a fact. The Canadian law is declaratory, it does not determine the succession but acknowledges it. The same with the Canadian OC and law acknowledging the abdication of Edward VIII and the consequent change in succession. So no more arguments about two kings ruling in different realms during the crisis.
I think the article should acknowledge this as the mainstream view, while accepting that we can mention alternative views.
TFD (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think one should be careful with any assumption it's up to us to determine what's "mainstream". A number of people well studied in this matter have disagreed with the judge's opinion; other court rulings (including from the Supreme Court) don't seem to align with it. That doesn't mean it should get dismissed. It just shouldn't automatically be taken as gospel. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- It will be easier once there is a body of literature about the issue. In the meantime, It is reasonable to assume that the government and parliament of Canada as well as the government and parliament of the UK and the governments of the other Commonwealth realms, with their opinion now upheld in Canadian courts represents a majority view. TFD (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Queen of the UK is not automatically the Queen of Canada, as the court clearly states that the offices are separate and legally distinct since 1931. The court also notes that when the preamble was written, Canada was still part of the UK and not independent, so it is the principle of symmetry that is taken from the preamble for the decision, not that the office of Queen is shared by the two countries. The person designated as Queen of the UK is automatically recognised as Queen of Canada in accordance with Canadian law. It seems minor I guess, but it makes all the difference, otherwise as Lagasse has noted, it would amount to a Quebec court finding that Canada is not a sovereign state. trackratte (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- The court explicity relies upon the preamble of the BNA Act (Constitution Act 1867), which states: "Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom" [emphasis added]
- The Queen of the UK is not automatically the Queen of Canada, as the court clearly states that the offices are separate and legally distinct since 1931. The court also notes that when the preamble was written, Canada was still part of the UK and not independent, so it is the principle of symmetry that is taken from the preamble for the decision, not that the office of Queen is shared by the two countries. The person designated as Queen of the UK is automatically recognised as Queen of Canada in accordance with Canadian law. It seems minor I guess, but it makes all the difference, otherwise as Lagasse has noted, it would amount to a Quebec court finding that Canada is not a sovereign state. trackratte (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, according to Google Translate, Justice Bouchard's ruling states[2]:
- [ 141 ] In short, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the King or Queen of the United Kingdom is the King or Queen of Canada, the principle under Article 9 of the 1867 Act , in light of the preamble which states that Canada is "under the Crown of the United Kingdom, with a Constitution similar in principle to that of the UK." [emphasis added]
- Indeed, according to Google Translate, Justice Bouchard's ruling states[2]:
- [ 142 ] This principle was not changed by the adoption of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the Parliament of the United Kingdom retaining the power to legislate and amend the rules of succession to the throne, but under that, under reserve of the preamble this status, it must, by constitutional convention, obtain the consent of the other Commonwealth countries. [emphasis added]
- Alexander's Hood (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Au demeurant, la règle de la symétrie faisait en sorte que la personne désignée Roi ou Reine du Royaume-Uni l'était aussi pour le Canada."(para 146) The person is shared, not the office.
- "En outre, lorsque le Parlement impérial adopte la Loi de 1867 qui crée la Confédération canadienne, le Canada demeure subordonné au Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande et l'article 129 de cette loi réitère la règle voulant que les lois impériales ne puissent être modifiées par les législatures de la fédération nouvellement créée. Le préambule de cette loi revêt aussi une grande importance, puisqu'il rappelle que l'union fédérale n'est pas indépendante et demeure sous la gouverne du Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande. À cet égard, la PGQ s'en remet à l'opinion de la professeure Twomey qui énonce que lors de la constitution du Canada en 1867, il y avait seulement une Couronne et que les lois applicables à l'occupation du trône s'appliquaient d'emblée aux colonies, dont le Canada, qui n'avaient pas le pouvoir de les changer... Ainsi, toute référence à la Reine dans la Constitution du Canada était une référence à la Reine du Royaume-Uni."(paras 34-37) So, a literal reading of the preamble cannot be made today, as when it was written, Canada was a British colony (dominion) and all references to the sovereign were to the Queen of the UK.
- Since 1931, this is no longer the case, as all references to the sovereign are to the Queen of Canada (Interpretations Act) and para 67 of this ruling: " C'est donc à partir de 1931 qu'apparaît l'existence d'une Couronne canadienne séparée de la Couronne britannique, à savoir un chef d'État distinct malgré que les deux États désignent la même personne physique." Which is to say since 1931 the office of the Crown has been separate and distinct since, even though the 16 countries designate the same person as their "distinct heads of state".
- So, your own personal interpretation based on a plain reading does not jive with current Canadian law, nor the judge's verdict. trackratte (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Trackratte, you're confusing the discussion portion of the ruling, where the court recapitualates the arguments made by the various sides, and the conclusion of the ruling where the court gives its actual decision. The passages I cite above are from the conclusion and are the court's direct opinion, not, as is the case with the passages you cite which are much earlier, a review of what the applicants were arguing. Alexander's Hood (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, the reference to PGQ above refer to la Procureure générale du Québec ie the Attorney General of Quebec who was intervening in the court case against the federal government. The passages you cite are the court referring to and encapsulating Quebec's arguments and is not the actual view of the court. Alexander's Hood (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Trackratte, you're confusing the discussion portion of the ruling, where the court recapitualates the arguments made by the various sides, and the conclusion of the ruling where the court gives its actual decision. The passages I cite above are from the conclusion and are the court's direct opinion, not, as is the case with the passages you cite which are much earlier, a review of what the applicants were arguing. Alexander's Hood (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- (resp to TFD) It makes one wonder. How long would the Canadian monarchy last, if the British monarchy were abolished. It's safe to assume that the British monarchy would continue on, if the Canadian monarchy were abolished. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'm not. Para 146 is from the conclusion and states:
- "[146] Par ailleurs, le Canada n'avait pas à modifier ses lois ni sa Constitution pour que les règles de succession royale britanniques puissent être modifiées et effectives; l'assentiment à celles-ci suffisait selon le préambule du Statut de Westminster et la convention qui s'y trouve. Au demeurant, la règle de la symétrie faisait en sorte que la personne désignée Roi ou Reine du Royaume-Uni l'était aussi pour le Canada"
- Para 141, which you've interpreted using a plain reading in ignorance of the judge's reasoning above, restates what is written in the Constitution Act of 1867, which as they describe above, no longer applies literally but the principle which they draw out does, that of symmetry. They then proceed through paras 142 to 145, to quickly outline the Constitutional evolution since 1867 and what that means to the present case through 1931 Statute, 1936 Abdication, and all the way up to the 1982 Constitution Act mentioned in para 149.
- You also must remember that all of this is to provide us with the reasoning, the decision itself is only held in para 150, "le tribunal est d'opinion qu'une modification aux règles de succession royale au Royaume-Uni ne constitue pas une modification de la Constitution du Canada". The ruling itself is not to determine the status of the Canadian Crown, but to determine whether a constitutional amendment has to happen for a change in succession rules to take effect. That being said, the conclusion clearly states that, based on the constitutional principle of symmetry derived from the quote in para 146, "the rule of symmetry ensures that the person designated as king or queen of the United Kingdom is also designated as such for Canada". trackratte (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Other passages you quote are from earlier in the ruling and recap the applicant's arguments and para 146 doesn't contradict a plain reading of para 141 and is contrary to some of the POV some editors are trying to push in this article (indeed, I seem to recall an editor removing references to the very same idea you're quoting above). In any case, none of us are constitutional scholars so we should see what they say about the ruling. Alexander's Hood (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be bringing in your personal conflicts into this discussion, what other editors quoted or removed from an article has no bearing on this discussion. The assertion that the Queen of the UK is currently the Queen of Canada is countered in the court decision by para 146 and para 67, as well as the broader context explored by the courts on how this situation has changed since 1867, specifically in 1931 and 1982. If you don't see a distinction between sharing a person (having the same person be two separate sovereigns), and sharing an office (sharing the same sovereign), then let me know as that likely means it's a semantic issue and we're not understanding the same things from what these words mean (or are actually meaning to say the same thing and are just talking past each other). Regardless, the Court has made it clear that Canada and the UK have two separate and distinct sovereigns, even though both countries share the same person for both respective offices. This is not something that this Court has decided, only they have explicitly recognised it. trackratte (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Symmetry is obtained by continuing the imperial law in art. 9 of the British North America Act where the Queen (of the UK) is queen of Canada. And there is a clear distinction between the office of the sovereign, which is eternal, and the mortal person of the sovereign. While not mentioned in the judgment, this distinction has been understood at least since Calvin's Case 1608. TFD (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, although as a corporation sole, the two are legally one and the same and are inseparable. However conceptually, they are very much distinct, for example the treatment of the Queen's personal property (Crown Estate) versus Elizabeth II's personal property (Privy Estate). This is, I think, one of Lagasse's major issues. It's a bit of a fuzzy topic really, and doesn't have direct relevance to the question of the Succession Act I don't think. trackratte (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- The concept that corporation sole applies to the sovereign is theory and not settled law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.51.212 (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, although as a corporation sole, the two are legally one and the same and are inseparable. However conceptually, they are very much distinct, for example the treatment of the Queen's personal property (Crown Estate) versus Elizabeth II's personal property (Privy Estate). This is, I think, one of Lagasse's major issues. It's a bit of a fuzzy topic really, and doesn't have direct relevance to the question of the Succession Act I don't think. trackratte (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Other passages you quote are from earlier in the ruling and recap the applicant's arguments and para 146 doesn't contradict a plain reading of para 141 and is contrary to some of the POV some editors are trying to push in this article (indeed, I seem to recall an editor removing references to the very same idea you're quoting above). In any case, none of us are constitutional scholars so we should see what they say about the ruling. Alexander's Hood (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'm not. Para 146 is from the conclusion and states:
The queen of Canada and the queen of the UK are two distinct corporations sole. The connection is that the Queen of Canada is whoever happens to be Queen of the UK. That is why the rights and obligations of the two are different and of course different again from the personal rights and obligations of the incumbent.
I do not understand the comment that the law is not settled. It was settled at least by Calvin's Case over four hundred years ago.TFD (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
See Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England: In Four Books, Volume 1, Turpin and Tomkins' British Government and the Constitution: Text and Materials, and Lordon's Crown Law, in addition to numerous academic articles and probably quite a bit more if I bothered to dig. It seems quite thoroughly established to me. trackratte (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)