1907 W. Laurier -Any man who says he is a Canadian, but something else also, isn't a Canadian at all.

Seems a fine underpining immigration/citizenship policy to me
rce 2012

Sir Wilfrid Laurier ideas on Immigrants and being a Canadian in 1907.


'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes a Canadian and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.

But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet a Canadian, and nothing but a Canadian ... There can be no divided allegiance here.

Any man who says he is a Canadian, but something else also, isn't a Canadian at all.

We have room for but one flag, the Canadian flag... And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the Canadian people.'

Wilfrid Laurier 1907

What has happened to debtors in all cases where a new currency has been launched to replace a current currency – is it a windfall for debtors or do they get hit hard ?

Martin Armstrong writes
in June 20/2012 Answering Your Questions Blog Entry

...
" It (Gold) will probably hit $5,000 by 2017 BEFORE the currency changes so (ed. note s/read ?but?) it is impossible to say even what that $5,000 means in purchasing power today. So will real estate, and of course shares, collectibles from coins & stamps to fine art & antiques. This is why people HOARD in a crisis. They instinctively see something is wrong. In Greece, leading into the elections, more than 1 billion euros were being withdrawn from ATMs each day. That was the hedge to hoard cash just in case!"

whole thing
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2012/06/20/answering-your-questions/


USA & Canada Investors
Prepare for Price Inflation due to Currency Devaluation - Buy Tangible Assets

NB RE/MAX Ont/Altantic boss M. Polzler said "you can't live in a mutual fund" - it's still true .... and true of physical gold

2012 Rce --Knowing when to sell (and having another 'place to live' ready) is the trick ...

re: ex-Lt Gov's defense - "the Queen can do no wrong"

 

Dear Editors & CP,

Thank you for "Quebec's ex-lieutenant-governor claims royal privilege" which I spotted from the Windsor Star on Bourque.com.

The position of Marc Labelle (lawyer for Lise Thibault, Quebec's former lieutenant-governor) that the person holding office as a Provincial Deputy of the Governor General, acting under BNA/Constitution 1867 s.14 is indivisible from Her Majesty is laughable!

I can only guess at the enormity of the person or thing that the former Lt Gov is hoping to conceal/protect (for a while) by advancing this defense.

14. It shall be lawful for the Queen, if Her Majesty thinks fit, to authorize the Governor General from Time to Time to appoint any Person or any Persons jointly or severally to be his Deputy or Deputies within any Part or Parts of Canada, and in that Capacity to exercise during the Pleasure of the Governor General such of the Powers, Authorities, and Functions of the Governor General as the Governor General deems it necessary or expedient to assign to him or them, subject to any Limitations or Directions expressed or given by the Queen; but the Appointment of such a Deputy or Deputies shall not affect the Exercise by the Governor General himself of any Power, Authority, or Function.

To my view, s.14 says the authority to appoint Deputies is a "thinks fit" option, the appointment of a particular Deputy may/may not be subject to unique and non-uniform limitations and the appointment of Deputies "shall not affect" the GovGen him/herself

To pretend that the person holding:

1) a perhaps-limited/directed office of Time-to-Time Lt-Gov appointee;

2) in one of Ten+Three Canadian jurisdictions;

3) whose powers/office may be withdrawn by the Gov Gen "at pleasure";

and

4) whose delegated, Lt Gubernatorial powers do not affect the "Power, Authority or Function" of the Officeholder granting that Lt Gov his/her appointment;

is EQUAL to the Monarch's office is folly.

Further, with reference to the "little-used common-law statute that states that "the Queen can do no wrong"", I think the student of little-used statues will find that this principle is an aspect of Ministerial Responsibility (post Glorious Revolution 1688) where in exchange for the Monarch agreeing to rubber-stamp any Bill or Order from Her Westminster Privy Council-of-the-Day, that in the event a policy/Bill/Order/decision had to be reversed, the Minister (or the whole Privy Council) who gave that "Bad Advice" to HM, agreed to instantly resign because while "the Monarch can do no wrong", S/He can be presented with lousy/short-term, all-political recommendations that S/He is bound to approve under the un-written constitutional conventions of the U.K..

In contrast, the "similar in principle"(ie NOT the same) Canadian situation is much different -the rules are written for one thing - and s.55 is quite clear,

55. Where a Bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor General for the Queen's Assent, he shall declare, according to his Discretion, but subject to the Provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty's Instructions, either that he assents thereto in the Queen's Name, or that he withholds the Queen's Assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the Signification of the Queen's Pleasure.

the Gov Gen has (and Lt Gov's have) three choices: Assent, Withhold Assent or Reservation for Signification (2 years -failing such approval the Bill expires). All three are final, cannot be appealed in Canada and are available to the GovGen (Lt Gov's s.90) as an individual (s.12 also is quite clear -especially when contrasted with s.13  -Provincially s.65 vs s.66))

All Powers under Acts to be exercised by Governor General with Advice of Privy Council, or alone

12.All Powers, Authorities, and Functions which are legally vested in or legally exerciseable by the existing Governors or Lieutenant Governors of the existing Provinces, irrespective of whether these powers are to be used (a) with the Advice, or (b) with the Advice and Consent, of the existing Provincial Executive Councils, or any Members thereof ... or (c) by those Governors or Lieutenant Governors individually, shall, ... be vested in and exerciseable by the Governor General in relation to the new Dominion on the same basis, namely (a) with the Advice or (b) with the Advice and Consent of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, or any Members thereof, or (c) by the Governor General individually, as the Case requires. These powers are still subject (except with respect to such as exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) to be abolished or altered by the Parliament of Canada. (7)

From the Plain Language version of Canada's BNA/Constitution 1867

Red indicates modifications,

... indicates deletions,

(text) is commentary,

Green indicates noteworthy & as-written (tho' some might not believe it)  

Justice Dept Version of BNA 1867 Executive Powers Sections

In this 60th Jubilee year, I encourage the Court's examination of the Sovereign immunity defense and the principle of Ministerial responsibility as raised in this CP news story.

I can only hope that this letter might shed some light on the abuses of power and self-interest advantages being exploited by our "Stewards of the Canadian Crown" that lurk in the dark shadows that lie right under our noses.

rce

If we replace Monarchy - who will sit at The Top of the Totem?

Mr Hepburn (and Bliss),

 

Thanks for The Queen: three steps for Canada to replace the monarchy

 

 

I'm sure it will stimulate dinner table conversations around and about the country.

 

May I advance a thought or two on the not-so-simple aspects of the easy "replacement" ideas advanced:

 

a) re: Prof Bliss' First, Ottawa should hold a national referendum on a Yes-or-No question: “Should Canada sever ties with the British monarchy?” A simple majority would be sufficient to proceed further.

 

While I fundamentally object to 50%+1 as the standard for ANY decision ....what about the "amending formula"?

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;
(c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(e) an amendment to this Part.

 

b) re: Prof Bliss' Second, if the answer is yes, (Bliss #2 PART I) a federal commission (please don’t call it a “royal commission”) should examine how we could select a head of state. (Bliss#2 PART II)The commission, with a one-year mandate, could be appointed jointly by the prime minister and provincial premiers. (Bliss#2 PART III) The commission could look at various models for choosing a head of state, such as direct election or appointment by the federal Parliament.

 

Let's leave the Head of State selection process (#2 PART I & III) and leave the selection of that "federal Commission" (#2 PART II) for a paragraph or two and consider first the foundation upon which the "new" Canadian power-hierarchy will stand 

 

Given that the Monarch is Canada's Head of State and the GovGen(and Lt Gov's) are the "local" representatives of that sovereignty (i.e. the source of all lawful executive and legislative authority) and given that the system of governance in Canada is a Constitutionally-limited Monarchy;

 

If your objective is to remove the UK/Commonwealth/Canadian Monarchy as sovereign in Canada, what governance system are you proposing to substitute?

--a republic? (no king, but many possible sources of sovereignty e.g. North Korea is a republic);

--a true democracy or true representative democracy? aka 'popular sovereignty' (the citizenry is the source of authority - everything is owned, operated & decided of/for/by the great unwashed);

--an oligarchy? (actually similar to the anti-de jure PMO/PCO cabal 'top-downing' everything since 1940 - with vote-by-colour, phony-promises elections periodically);

--a military-industrial complex-ocracy as in the USA?;

--a theocracy (likely you have in mind a Secular-Humanist-ocracy)

etc etc

 

If you remove the House of Windsor (Hanover wed to Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha) from Head of State ... what becomes of the ownership of the Crown Lands, the Crown's interest in all fee simple (non-allodial) land grants, the Crown Attorneys, the Queens Bench, existing loyalty Oaths and pledges of allegiance,  Royal Proclamations (1763 was the root of all we have now), Royal Assents to all Bills since then .etc etc ...we've been working under the "similar in principle to the U.K." idea for a long time. Be careful what you wish for ... you might get something else!

 

Returning to (Bliss#2 PART II)The commission, with a one-year mandate, could be appointed jointly by the prime minister and provincial premiers.    Let's remember that the source-power, aka sovereignty, of the Canadian Crown will be "transferred" to "somewhere" in the event that the Monarchy is replaced - the last people I want picking the members of the federal commission on re-shaping that sovereignty are the officers most wanting to grab-it-all for themselves.

 

Returning to (Bliss #2 PART I) ... a federal commission ... should examine how we could select a head of state ...+ ... (Bliss#2 PART III) The commission could look at various models for choosing a head of state, such as direct election or appointment by the federal Parliament.   IMHO, only once the replacement "form or type" of sovereignty is decided could we endeavour to decide the selection process. If we chose a democracy/popular sovereignty then surely the citizenry would have to directly elect the Head of State

 

c) re: Prof Bliss' Third, a second referendum would be held on the commission’s top two recommended methods of choosing the next head of state.

 

Notwithstanding my objection to 50+1 as sufficient support for even minor decisions regarding governance - if a less-than-bias-free commission proposes two less than perfect choices to a pan-Canadian plebiscite ... how can the small minority that 'have a better idea" vote for "None of the Above"? in the scenario proposed by the Professor?

 

 

di) Instead of sorting out all these problems, thus requiring a re-opening of the BNA/Constitution 1867-1982 for piecemeal butchering and horse-trading by our vested (and wannabe) stakeholders (to obtain their consent to the Monarchy replacement), why not just redefine the de facto meaning-in-use of the terms "Crown" & "Monarch/Queen/King" in Canada?

Change the meaning of "Crown" to "the resident-taxpaying-citizens" of Canada (ie 3 part-qualification, no substitutes, zero-tolerance)

 

This would have to be a Tacit Revolution/Revelation/Resolution because any Legislation or resolution to the same effect would require 100% Amending Formula Consent PLUS the Monarch/Queen/King-of-the-Day would have to agree not exercise Their still extant and valid Disallowance Power anytime during the 2 yrs after that resolution/Bill's passage (BNA1867 s.56)

 

ii) Instead of seeking a new Head of State  ... just make the Governor General the Head of State on behalf of the "New Crown". Simply keep everything as it already is according to the as-written constitutional texts - except the allegiance of all officeholders and civil servants (including the GG) now would be to the "resident-taxpaying-citizens of Canada" rather than to a non-resident, hereditary OfficeHolder who (I'll wager) no ordinary Canadian feels has a mandate to make Executive decisions about our country.

 

iii) Instead of hoping for a fool-proof and fair Head of State selection process via Bliss' federal commission idea, simply have the Prime Minister's recommendation of a New Governor General be decided by an at-large vote simultaneous with every-other General Election (single-transferable balloting, one term only, starting 365 days after the return of the Writs)

 

Oh yes, yes, and tut, tut -indeed the Queen/King/Monarch will still be included the Constitution .... but that hasn't bothered us or hindered our political "evolution" since 1982 or since 1947 or since 1931.

 

The key elements are:

 - no re-opening Constitution can-of-worms; 

 - only requires a "deemed disposition" of Crown Assets/treasury;

 - causes a return to the as-written provision of our Fundamental Laws;

and most importantly

- the power-sharing agreement we call a Constitution, composed of Confederal Executive/Legislative + Provincial Executive/Legislative will for the first time include/enfranchise/empower the resident/taxpaying/citizenry at The Top of the Totem.

 

 

rce