Asking all English Canadians

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Not really, sky. The monarch fills the same function here as she does in Britain. She is a defanged head of state, but her assent is still required for anything really important to happen, like laws being passed. She is also the ultimate head of the armed forces. In short, she is a fail safe, final check against potential abuse by the PM and cabinet while at the same time saving us all from the spectacle of low life politicians slinging mud at each other for the priviledge of occupying a similar position.

Do you seriously expect she would retain that ultimate veto power if she actually tried to employ it? If so, you're nuts.

[Tingkai]

Kuci, the simple fact is that the G-G, who is the Queen's representative, has a veto power and the power to dissolve the government. The likelihood of the G-G using the veto power is slim, but it still exists.

As well, the Queen's representatives in Canada act on her behalf, giving orders every day, often in life or death situations and these orders are obeyed. This occurs in the Canadian Armed Forces. Canadian military officers are commissioned by the Queen to carry out orders on her behalf. All members of the Forces are governed by the Queen's Regulations & Orders.

Members of the Forces swear allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and successors, not to parliament or the prime minister.

[Kuciwalker]

Wouldn't you just ignore the GG if he actually used veto power?

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Wouldn't you just ignore the GG if he actually used veto power?

Either that or we'd pull a Cromwell on the Queen...

[Muad'Dib]

Give the Froggs their independence so we can gain 9 new states. Plus your standard of living will dramatically increase. Not to mention your sports franchises will finally be able to compete financially--they won't have to worry that the Willy is only worth 10 cents to that of the George.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Muad'Dib
Give the Froggs their independence so we can gain 9 new states. Plus your standard of living will dramatically increase. Not to mention your sports franchises will finally be able to compete financially--they won't have to worry that the Willy is only worth 10 cents to that of the George.

Wow.

1. Our standard of living is fine. We were the best country in the world a few years ago and we are still in the top ten.

2. Death to sports.

3. Which one's the Willy and which one's the George? Bill Clinton VS George III? Prince William VS George Bush? Gah. Our currency will reach par very, very, very soon anyways.

[Wezil]

Oncle -

Give me a break will you? there's a difference between swearing an oath to an abstract heuristic concept and refusing to blindly follow a policy set up by a specific government.

The role of the Crown is not as abstract as you would have us believe. NYE and others do a fine job of explaining the role in prior posts. As one who deals with oaths and the Crown on a regular basis I assure you it is taken very seriously in some quarters.

In law, when you swear an oath you know not to be true it is called perjury. When you refuse to obey other laws (perhaps b/c you refuse "...to blindly follow a policy set up by a specific government") you may also be guilty of a CC offense. Choose to do so if you wish, but be honest about what you are doing and be prepared to accept the consequences. In an ideal world a BQ member would refuse the oath but I won't hold my breath waiting for that sort of integrity in politics.

Yeah... by allegiance to the Crown, I shall be entitled to hand a flag to anyone who asks...

?

'I' - you personally? the BQ MP?

'entitled' - was this the word you want? I would hope every Canadian would feel entitled.

If 'required' was the word you meant - I think any MP in the government of Canada (see my above position regarding the oath and taking your seat) would be more than happy to provide a Canadian flag to a Canadian veteran. It is ONLY the MPs that swore an oath they knew to be untrue that appear to have difficulties with this. In short, if the law were followed from the start this would not have happened.

Since treason is actually a crime defined within the law, perhaps you should contact the Secret Services and ask for an investigation?

The Criminal Code violation as I pointed out is Perjury not Treason. The conduct of the BQ members falls short of the CC requirements for either Treason charge. Before you have me call the Secret Services (whomever they may be...?), I would ask that you give better advice.

Perjury
131. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.

Video links, etc.
(1.1) Subject to subsection (3), every person who gives evidence under subsection 46(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, or gives evidence or a statement pursuant to an order made under section 22.2 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes a false statement knowing that it is false, whether or not the false statement was made under oath or solemn affirmation in accordance with subsection (1), so long as the false statement was made in accordance with any formalities required by the law of the place outside Canada in which the person is virtually present or heard.

Idem
(2) Subsection (1) applies, whether or not a statement referred to in that subsection is made in a judicial proceeding.

Application
(3) Subsections (1) and (1.1) do not apply to a statement referred to in either of those subsections that is made by a person who is not specially permitted, authorized or required by law to make that statement.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 131; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17; 1999, c. 18, s. 92.


High treason
46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason
(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Canadian citizen
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

Overt act
(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 46; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.

[Muad'Dib]

Don't you guys want to be the new battleground states. Hell, with the influx of you Socialists, the Democrats my actually win an election. Think of all the new blue states. Heck, I'm willing to give socialism a try if means there are 9 new stars. Plus, you would make Alaskans happy; they would actually be linked finally to the rest of the country.

[Fake Boris]

Wezil, when is it that Bloc MPs swore to hand out flags to veterans?

[Wezil]

They didn't. They also didn't swear to take the paycheque with the Canadian flag in the corner or the Government of Canada pension. All come with the job.

[Fake Boris]

As long as they didn't do anything illegal, the voters will decide what their job is.

[Wezil]

You also apparently overlook the MP's responsibility to serve ALL their contituents as well - not just those that voted for them.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by notyoueither
Not really, sky. The monarch fills the same function here as she does in Britain. She is a defanged head of state, but her assent is still required for anything really important to happen, like laws being passed. She is also the ultimate head of the armed forces. In short, she is a fail safe, final check against potential abuse by the PM and cabinet while at the same time saving us all from the spectacle of low life politicians slinging mud at each other for the priviledge of occupying a similar position.

Do you seriously expect she would retain that ultimate veto power if she actually tried to employ it? If so, you're nuts.

Aww bless. You're explaining Canadian poltical realities to me. Thank you so much for your guidance.

What I actually said is that the Queen, or GG, could use the power once, and then better have been very right or...

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Wouldn't you just ignore the GG if he actually used veto power?

We can't ignore her. Assent is required for any legislation to become law.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Wouldn't you just ignore the GG if he actually used veto power?

The current GG is a woman, Adrienne Clarkson (Her late father Bill Poy was a friend of my family. Quite a nice guy and very intelligent).

[edit: deleted bit that repeats what NYE said]

The GG is unlikely to ever use the veto power, just as the Queen does not. Instead, they work behind the scenes (less so for the GG) using moral suasion.

If you want an example of the GG actual power, just look at the current minority government. If the government loses a no-confidence vote then two things can happen: an election is called or the other parties form a government.

Who decides? The G-G, and in this situation, she would consult with Queen and the Queen would have the final say.

[Wezil]

What do ya think she'd do under your example?