Talk:Succession to the Throne Act, 2013

Supreme Court of Canada

Will the Canadian government's method of allowing the British government to amend the Canadian succession, be challenged in court as unconstitutional? If so, remember to provide sources. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally take this legislation a case of incorporation by reference, so if amending rules of succession by ordinary legislation is constitutional, amending it this way is also constitutional. I take the text to mean Succession to the Crown Bill 2012 is also Canadian law, and should be have no difference compared to tabling the entire text of the latter bill as its text (not merely as schedule).

That said, this is WP:OR.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 23:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I had considered the same thing. However, as you say, it's speculation, since the government--the Department of Justice, specifically--hasn't given anything more than a cursory explanation of the rationale behind this bill and the process it's part of and, even then, that brief outline is full of odd claims like "Canada has no succession laws" and "the line of succession is... determined by UK law and not by the Sovereign", despite the fact the assent of the sovereign in parliament (represented by the governor general) is required for the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 to become law... Further, there's still the question of any effect, or lack thereof, on the still extant Succession to the Throne Act 1937, which incorporates in it (in full) Britain's His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, which itself spelled out amendments to the Act of Settlement. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me, that since the UK can no longer legislate for Canada (Canada Act 1982, patriation of the Constitution), and that UK laws do not apply in Canada, this "law" has the same effect as the Canadian Parliament consenting to changes in US Presidential election laws. It's no more than a symbolic gesture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 03:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The UK can't legislate for Canada. However, the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 says that Canada is a federal dominion under the Crown of the UK. If the UK changes its succession laws, they don't extend to Canada, but our monarch will be the same as theirs regardless as a result of our own law. SteveMcQwark (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, in fact, the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867 says that Canada is united under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which, of course, is a crown that no longer exists. In 1922, the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland became the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If that evolution is recognised in the modern reading of the Constitution Act's preamble, why isn't the further evolution of the Crown post-1931, wherein the distinct Canadian Crown emerged, given equal recognition? Drawing a line at 1922 seems entirely arbitrary and if, by doing so, one concludes that Canada is today under the Crown of the UK, then one is saying Canada is not a sovereign country, which is pretty difficult to swallow. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The change to Northern Ireland was a deliberate, legally undertaken, alteration to an existing institution. The emergence of a distinctly constituted Canadian Crown was explicitly not the intention at the time of the imperial conferences, at the passage of the Statute of Westminster, or at the time when the Her Majesty was granted a distinct Canadian title. This is all well documented. There has never in Canada been a political action either effecting or acknowledging the development of a distinctly constituted Canadian Crown. The idea that "it happened anyways just because we think it should have" is intellectually dishonest. SteveMcQwark (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I followed the debate and committee hearings. The government and the experts consulted were fairly clear that the act assents to the passage of the UK law in order to satisfy the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, and that they believed only the UK had to change its succession laws. The Heritage Trust disagreed, but kept saying stuff like "it might not have been intended but...", meaning they're trying to reinterpret historical legislative and political actions away from their original intent in order to suit an ideology, and hence even the senators who were skeptical of the government's approach didn't take them seriously. Here are a few things to note. (1) While Justice Rouleau, in the oft cited O'Donohue case, talks about succession laws being part of Canada's constitution, what he actually used in his decision was the argument that Canada's monarch is constitutionally required to be the same as that of the UK, and so changing succession would require either removing that requirement or changing British law, both of which are outside the competence of the court. (2) Canada's sovereign parliament has passed an act providing assent for the purposes of an international commitment by a foreign sovereign parliament in order for that foreign sovereign parliament to change its own law. The UK could technically break that commitment (parliamentary supremacy), but it would be a bad idea (understatement). (3) While the 1937 Canadian Act includes the British Act in its schedule, it doesn't enact it, it just refers to it in the preamble (I have a copy of the Act). Compare to the Canada Act 1982, which includes the Constitution Act 1982 in its schedule, and specifically contains a clause enacting it. Also note that both the Canadian act and the British act in 1936/1937 also had the text of the Instrument of Abdication in their schedules, which is clearly not a legislative instrument. SteveMcQwark (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this lucid account, Steve. That analysis by one who followed the debate and committee hearings and who has studied the statutes supports the view that, in the event, there will be practically no point left to moot about. This is implicit in the article as now written. It may be adverse to the private hopes of some editors or readers, but there is reason to expect that those responsible for advising and acting for the Queen in right of Canada (and in the other realms) are savvy enough to steer among the shoals and currents of the law and practice affecting the issue. Vivat regina/ Vivat rex, as the case is and may hereafter be. Qexigator (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You do realise courts frequently strike down laws passed by parliament, no?

I too watched the committee's proceedings and Toffoli wasn't nearly as waffling as SteveMcQwark makes out. Steve also neglects to mention that S.4 of the Statute of Westminster, which was in 1936 still in force in Canada, states that any British law assented to by a Dominion extends "to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion". When the Canadian government gave its approval for the Abdication Act to extend to Canada, the Abdication Act became "a part of the law of [Canada]". S.4, of course, is no longer in Canada's Statute of Westminster; the Canadian parliament's assent to the Succession to the Crown Act won't make that act part of Canada's laws and, as has already been mentioned, S.2 of the Canada Act unequivocally disallows any act ot the British parliament from applying to Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The invocation of S. 4 was most likely unnecessary, but they were in a rush and trying to make sure all their bases were covered. The Parliament of Canada could pass a Succession Act right now, making it part of the law of Canada. But it would contradict the Constitution of Canada (which even then, needed to be amended under subsection 7(1), which was not invoked), and thus be of no force or effect. If you agree that Canada was constituted under the Crown of the United Kingdom prior to 1936, then invoking S. 4 in 1936 could not have changed that. SteveMcQwark (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In cases of this kind judicial reasoning tends to result in decisions other than those for which more amateur quibblers would contend. The main thing for editors is not to lead readers further than the statutes and precedents allow, other than to mention some generally acknowledged uncertainty in the law as it stands, if there are sources to vouch for it. Of course, Toffoli or others may have a point, and punters may be given odds for or against any of them passing the post should they ever get off to a start in proceedings against the Crown in Canada. Qexigator (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

S.4 of the Statute of Westminster made the Canadian government's consent a requirement in 1936, if Edward VIII were to abdicate from the Canadian throne. The government gave that consent before the Abdication Act was given Royal Assent in the UK and, by doing so, made the Abdication Act a part of the laws of Canada, meaning it's still in force in Canada today.

You still miss my point about the preamble to the Constituion Act 1867: it does not say Canada is united under the Crown of the United Kingdom. It says Canada is under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland no longer exists; so, that term in the preamble must today be read differently from its literal meaning. The government and you are attempting to say it should be read as meaning the modern Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, taking into account the change in the scope of the British Crown's sovereignty over the island of Ireland in 1922 and the subsequent change in name of the United Kingdom in 1927. Yet, to halt there requires ignoring the enactment of the Statute of Westminster 1931 and the later Canada Act 1982, which together ended the sovereignty of the British Crown (the Crown in its UK cabinet, parliament, and courts) over Canada. Do you really believe Canada is not an independent country?

If the Canadian parliament passed a bill similar to Australia's or New Zealand's--which make explicit changes to the lines of succession within those countries--it would be unconstitutional only if "the Office of the Queen" were to be interpreted as anything more than simply the powers and functions of the office. The Constitution Act 1982 isn't that specific about what "the Office of the Queen" exactly is, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the reasoning behind these objections. There has to be an independent Canadian Crown for Canada to be independent. Since we know that Canada is independent, the Crown must have split at some point, and it must have been the Statute of Westminster that did it. However, this turns out not to be true, and since the approach underlying the development of the Statute of Westminster was to make the minimal legislative changes necessary to enable the independence of the Dominions, the Crown was never split. All the Statute of Westminster accomplished was to transfer legislative competence from the UK Parliament to the Canadian Parliament and provincial legislatures. It didn't even grant us full legislative independence, since the powers of reservation and disallowance are still on the books. Much of Canada's independence was not legislated at all, but instead was established by political agreements at the Imperial Conferences, which established the constitutional convention that the Government of a Dominion has exclusive right to advise the Crown in relation to its own affairs. Judicial independence was achieved after the passage of the Statute of Westminster by separate legislation blocking appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The Statute of Westminster was not a transfer of sovereignty from one Crown to another. When the Crown, as part of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, enacted the Constitution Act, 1867, it made itself part of the Parliament of Canada as well. It is therefore, by necessity, the same Crown forming part of both Parliaments, and the transfer of legislative authority was from the Crown to itself acting in a different capacity.

As for claiming that the Crown has changed since the passage of the Constitution Act, 1867, and thus why can't we arbitrarily say that those changes include a hypothetical fission of the Crown, first of all that's not a real argument. "Why not" is never a justification for asserting something to be true. Beyond that, the current Crown (of the UK and also, therefore, of Canada) is still the same Crown, not a successor. In the Irish Free State Act, the Crown that enacted it (as part of the UK Parliament) retained sovereignty over the Irish Free State (the same King who enacted it retained the ability to appoint the Governor-General). The Crown ceded sovereignty over what became the modern Republic of Ireland in 1949:

"It is hereby recognized and declared that the part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire ceased, as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, to be part of His Majesty’s dominions." - Ireland Act, 1949

No similar provision has ever been passed for Canada. I understand that you might not accept my evidence as definitive, but neither is yours. As such, the way the article currently presents Gary Toffoli's opinion is a violation of NPOV, since it appears to state certain aspects of his point of view as fact, and I suspect this is because you agree with him. SteveMcQwark (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, what you say about reservation and disallowance rather demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the subject. The ability of the governor general to reserve a bill for the Queen's analysis and the ability of the Queen to disallow a bill or even nullify an act of parliament is not some indication that the British government and/or parliament has a role in the Canadian legislative process (as though Elizabeth II were actually still, today, a conduit for Britain's authority into the Canadian parliament). The Statute of Westminster's main purpose was to end that role which the British parliament and government previously played in Canada. The SoW only stopped short of giving Canada full sovereignty because Canada's governments (provincial and federal) at the time couldn't agree on a constitutional amending formula, and so the job of amending the constitution remained with the parliament at Westminster. Even then, the SoW stipulated that such changes could only be made at the request of the Canadian government and with its consent.

Farther on, the patriation of the constitution in 1982 absolutely terminated Britain's part in Canadian affairs; section 4 of the SoW (which allowed the Queen in her British parliament to make constitutional amendments for Canada) was repealed and section 2 of the Canada Act (barring the Queen in her British parliament from ever again legislating for Canada) was enacted. If sections 54, 55, or 56 of the Constitution Act 1867 were ever followed and the Queen was presented with a Canadian bill for her personal consideration, it would be as Queen of Canada, acting on the advice of her Canadian ministers only. To say otherwise is as ludicrous as claiming the Canadian Cabinet could advise her on what to do with a bill passed by the British parliament.

This is absolutely, fundamentally all about sovereignty. In 1922, the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to have sovereignty over Ireland; Ireland was split between the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State and, thereafter, George V in his British parliament could not legislate for the Irish Free State without that country's government's consent (evidenced in the abdication crisis, for example), nor could British ministers tell the King how to use his executive authority in the Irish Free State (the appointment of governors-general, for example), and vice-versa. That was the one evolution I spoke of. Similarly, whether in 1931 or 1982 or between the two dates, the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to have sovereignty over Canada; the Queen in her British parliament cannot legislate for Canada: section 2 of the Canada Act: "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law". As you ackowledge, convention has esablished that British ministers cannot tell the Queen how to use her Canadian executive authority (in the case of Conrad Black, Tony Blair, Jean Chretien, and honours, for example), and vice-versa. The Queen on her British bench cannot strike down Canadian laws, and vice-versa. That was the other evolution I spoke of, which is also the one ignored by those who think Canada is today still under the sovereignty of the Crown of the United Kingdom because the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867 still uses the term "Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". Willful ignorance does not make for a sound argument.

This carving off of the sovereignty the British Crown is not some fantasy of Gary Toffoli's or my own; it's a fact supported by a hundred (if not hundreds) of sources in use in a dozen or more Wikipedia articles. If you feel those sources are incorrect, well, you'll have to take it up with the authors (though a few, no doubt, are no longer with us).

I'm not sure what your beef is with the paragraph in the article dealing with Toffoli's argument against the government's claims of what this act achieves. It seems to me to be presented in pretty much the same way as the others. Perhaps you'd like to be more specific in another section of this talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

My comment on reservation and disallowance comes not from ignorance but from studying the reports from the Imperial Conferences which drafted the Statute of Westminster, specifically from the conferences of 1926 and 1930, and the reports of the Committee on Inter-Imperial Relations (1926) and of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation and Merchant Shipping Legislation (1929). In these reports, you can see what they chose to address with legislation (extra-territorial operation of Dominion legislation, transfer of legislative authority) and what they chose to deal with through convention (independence of the executive, ending disallowance and the UK government's involvement in reservation, succession to the Crown...). The Canada Act didn't deal with reservation or disallowance either, since it was considered a settled issue, and it has never been the practice in the Westminster system to legislate were conventions will serve. One interesting thing to note is that the convention about succession they put in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster was introduced because they believed that, with their new legislative powers, the Dominions could unilaterally change succession to the shared Crown for everyone (even before being able to change their own constitutions), the same way the UK could before the Statute of Westminster, and thus a convention had to be established that was "similar to that which has in recent years controlled the theoretically unfettered powers of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate upon these matters." Further, W. P. M. Kennedy, a leading 20th century constitutional expert, stated:

"It is submitted, on the true interpretation of the Statute of Westminster, (i) that there is no obligation imposed on the part of the legislature of the United Kingdom not to legislate in the matter of succession to the throne apart from Canadian request and consent; and (ii) that s. 4 was never intended to deal with succession to the throne. It is difficult, then, to subscribe to the doctrine that from 'a legal standpoint' [...] the request and assent of Canada were necessary as flowing from S. 4." - W. P. M. Kennedy, Canada and the Abdication Act, 2 U. Toronto L.J. 118 (1937-1938)

SteveMcQwark (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're free to believe Canada is not an independent country if you wish. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument and you know it. I've provided ample evidence that Canada's independence is not irreconcilable with having a shared Crown with the UK, and indeed that much of Canada's independence arose specifically from reconciling the two. I have yet to see any evidence presented that these political arrangements were at any point superseded by an arrangement where the Crown is divided, since all you've presented are condescending, strongly worded statements to that effect without anything to back them up. SteveMcQwark (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

An occasional lapse when promoting a possibly blinkered point may have been noticeable. This present instance is one where impartial appraisal of the known facts (including use of "King of Ireland") of the law and practice of the constitutions, both of the United Kingdom and of the sovereign and independent monarchy of Canada, tends to show Steve. to be on the better side of the argument, and something to that effect could helpfully improve the article, in the view of...Qexigator (cannot find tilde on this keyboard.)

You're the one who said the Queen of the United Kingdom (she in her Cabinet, parliament, and courts of British jurisdiction) can dissallow laws passed by the Canadian parliament; that it is that Crown that is part of our parliament. If you want proof that a Canadian Crown was split away from the British Crown, just look through the relevant articles on Wikipedia and all the good sources that support them. A few examples: "Canada enjoys the status of a constitutional monarchy in its own right..."p.2; "the Statute of Westminister, 1931... with the passage of this law, the Canadian Crown became something that was Canada’s own"p.9; "[t]he proclamation reaffirmed the newly crowned monarch's position as Queen of Canada, a role totally independent from that as Queen of the United Kingdom..."p.10; "The Act conferred legally and publicly, on the eve of the Queen’s Coronation, the principle of a distinct constitutional monarchy for Canada. Elizabeth II was equally Queen of Canada and the United Kingdom. The monarch remained shared, but the institution of monarchy had now evolved into independent constitutional entities."p.27; "the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada"[3]; "Our constitutional ties with England have come to an end since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. However, we retain an allegiance to the Monarchy, not as Queen Elizabeth II of England but as Queen Elizabeth of Canada"p.3. There are many more; I encourage you to read them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the primary sources I've listed in order to help put all those comments in perspective. These comments don't really contradict my points, they're just considering the philosophical implications of the legal reality I've described. Reading the primary sources should also help you understand how my comment about disallowance does not in any way imply that the UK can still disallow Canadian legislation. If you want some more context, read the work of W. P. M. Kennedy or a similarly reputable legal scholar. A book that was recommended by James Bowden was The Constitution of Canada: An introduction to its development & law. The updated edition has some relevance to unity of the Crown and succession, but the author goes into further detail on his views in the article I cited earlier. SteveMcQwark (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that an undertsanding of the constitution of the Commonwealth realms requires an aptitude which is aware of the influence of the Balfour Declaration of 1926 in the course of events, the sort of debating points being argued against Steve'.s position are less than convincing. In fact, it is unclear why the points at 18:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC) have been cited as if in conflict with that position. In my view, reference to the manner in which the present Queen's accession was proclaimed (Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II[4] would be a helpful guide to an otherwise uninstructed but reasonably intelligent reader, whether familiar with the topic or not. Qexigator (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The comment that spurred this whole string of debate was this: "There has to be an independent Canadian Crown for Canada to be independent. Since we know that Canada is independent, the Crown must have split at some point, and it must have been the Statute of Westminster that did it. However, this turns out not to be true, and since the approach underlying the development of the Statute of Westminster was to make the minimal legislative changes necessary to enable the independence of the Dominions, the Crown was never split [emphasis mine]. All the Statute of Westminster accomplished was to transfer legislative competence from the UK Parliament to the Canadian Parliament and provincial legislatures. It didn't even grant us full legislative independence, since the powers of reservation and disallowance are still on the books [emphasis mine]."

What is it that "turns out not to be true"? That the Statute of Westminster split the Crown, or that the Crown was ever split at all? That seems to be pretty clearly answered by the subsequent assertion that "the Crown was never split"; "never" being the key word in that sentence. Then, it's stated that the SoW didn't grant Canada full legislative independence because it didn't remove the powers of reservation and disallowance, as though those powers somehow negate independence. Carrying on that logic, when it's said those powers of reservation and disallowance "are still" on the books, the statement being made is that Canada "still" does not have full legislative independence.

Perhaps the wording wasn't crafted carefully enough. But, the choice of words composed as they were speak the message that there is no Canadian Crown, just the Crown of the United Kingdom operating in Canada--in its parliament, courts, and cabinet. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair comment, Mies., but compared to the world where events happen (such as the before mentioned proclamations of the present queen's accession) these points are about as real as splitting hairs with the teeth of a comb. Some time ago (15:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)) it was remarked below that "It's a wait & see situation, until the British amend their succession". Well, the Westminster act has now passed, but the situation remains "wait and see" until the next demise and accession, by which time present sovereignties and constitutions may have further changed de jure or de facto, by enactment, convention, sentiment, force majeure or otherwise. The main thing for this and other articles is avoidance of bees buzzing in bonnets. In the real world Canada has frontiers with the republic of USA, and the United Kingdom is signed up to the European Union, the former rebelled against George III the latter is largely composed of 20c. republics formed to escape previous regimes, while in some Commonwealth realms republicanism attracts a following which may come to influence events. Qexigator (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I have not communicated effectively, though I did choose my words with care. There is a single Crown for the United Kingdom and Canada (and its other Realms and Territories, but that's extraneous). The Crown acts in Canada in its Canadian Parliament, courts, and council, and in the United Kingdom in its British Parliament, courts, and council. Canada is fully independent, but that independence wasn't granted entirely by the Statute of Westminster and the Canada Act. Reservation and disallowance – among other things, including various aspects of executive independence – were not addressed through legislation (hence why they're still on the books despite being inoperative), but instead by conventions established at the Imperial Conferences, documented in a series of reports which I still encourage you to read. The changes that people seek to explain by postulating a fission of the Crown are actually due to the conventions set out in these reports, which also emphasize the shared nature of the Crown (and not just of the person of the monarch through personal union). The Crown's authority in Canada is exercised under the Great Seal of Canada. When people say the Queen brought the Constitution Act, 1982 into force as the Queen of Canada, they mean that she did so by proclamation issued under the Great Seal of Canada, as provided for in that Act. SteveMcQwark (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Case rests?

To my mind, while we wait and see, the case rests as so explained by SteveMcQwark (21:24, 6 May 2013 UTC), but is there anything to be added to the article about the finer points of supposedly doubtful constitutional law? Perhaps enough has been said there about the points which were raised and rebutted while the bill was proceeding before enactment. But it may be useful to mention this in other articles whose topic is the constitution, such as Canadian constitutional law, Constitution of Canada, Constitution Act, 1982 or Amendments to the Constitution of Canada, and let the discussion be pursued on those Talk pages. May be "See also" links would suffice? Qexigator (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Tricky situation?

The bill has been passed by the Senate unamended. We're now in a tricky situation as to how to describe in this encyclopaedia the succession rules in Canada; parliament has said one thing while courts and constitutional experts have said something else. What a mess. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The article lead has been duly updated. In the event of proceedings being commenced in any court of competent jurisdiction that can be mentioned in the article when it happens. Academic debate is otherwise of little relevance. There may be political difficulties for the government to face. But that does not as such put the article in a mess. Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I obviously spoke of a scope wider than this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is about the article. We do not need to say "purportedly". Parliament's enactment was to alter or declare the law, like most other acts. Any legislation may turn out to be deficient or ineffective or politically inept or embarassing. The academic position is sufficiently and correctly covered by the sentence about disagreements. To put "purportedly" would be undue and misconceived if not mischievous. Lower case correct. Qexigator (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has to start somewhere. This contents of this article could necessitate changes elsewhere.

"Purportedly" was an attempt to communicate that this legislation may have changed nothing. The final sentence hints at this, but only hints. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Could? Have you anything definite in mind? More than a hint, a pointer to what will be expanded in the body, but whatever the arguments may be the legislation is what it is and so remains until some future legislative or juridical event has repealed or voided de jure, or maybe some political state of affairs has rendered ineffective de facto. But at present that is no more than speculation. Qexigator (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as the actual UK bill is still not law, C-53 is just a law that assents to a bill being debated in the UK. I've adjusted to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead is improving.

Two things immediately come to mind: articles that make well sourced mention of what documents are part of Canada's constitution and the ineffectiveness of British legislation in Canada after 1982. But, I suppose those can be dealt with on an individual basis, should they need to be. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have put a cite on the latter issue--it's Art 2 of Canada Act 1982 (UK) which stated "[n]o Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law."--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting read on the subject: http://crht.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CRHT-Background-Paper-on-Canadas-Law-of-Succession.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 23:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a wait & see situation, until the British amend their succession. If nobody tries to get the 2013 Act overturned? there's nothing more to be said. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Further update following enactment

Would it be acceptable to let the final paragraphs on page 6 of the article mentioned above by Notwillywanka be referenced in the article, like this: "One commentator has proposed that the question which still has to be answered is whether the Succession to the Throne Act 1937 of the Parliament of Canada, has now been made subject to the authority of section 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and therefore requires a constitutional amendment to alter, or whether it has remained under the authority solely of the Parliament of Canada; and that, while there is a strong case (as explained in the Canadian Royal Heritage Trust's background paper of 4 February, 2013) that section 41(a) has the authority, either way, once properly determined, would be a correct method of altering the rules of Succession to the Throne for Canada in Canada and should be the path followed by calling the Canadian Succession to the Throne Act, 1937 into service."

• The section "Legislation" needs revision: either past tense for Bill or changed for the Act. Which? Qexigator (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

All that is already in the paragraph starting with "In the opinion of Gary Toffoli". That is what I was commenting on, that it was an interesting read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 13:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Done: section now revised with past tense for bill, and nfa re: Toffoli. Qexigator (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I see a problem, though: the bill was passed unopposed and unamended, so the text of the Act is identical to the bill. Is past tense actually necessary for this purpose?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, but the section is reporting about what happened in the bill's succsesive stages. It passed as presented (but it was debated in Senate?). It will do no harm (maybe some good) to add, as you have written, that the bill was passed unopposed and unamended, and the text of the Act is identical to the Bill. But shall this be put at the beginning or end of the section? I am opting for beginning because the article is now about the act. Note 'is' refers to the act, while past tense applies to the bill. But the section is about the bill so please put at end if preferred. Qexigator (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The bill was opposed by some Senators. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Was it formally opposed by vote in the Senate, or only by speaking against in debate? Or do you refer to witnesses being heard in Committee? Where is the link to the official record? Qexigator (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Senator Joan Fraser is on record in Hansard speaking against the bill in the Senate. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Mies: Taillon addition noted. But also of interest to my mind for use in the article is the part of the Fraser's speech at 3rd reading from "The government then tabled in the House of Commons on February 4 a bill saying that the Parliament of Canada assents...." to "...I truly hope we do a better job." Would you agree? I propose the following:

• In debate on Third Reading Senator Fraser said that the Canadian Parliament was being asked to assent to a bill passed by a foreign sovereign parliament, the final form of which had not yet been seen, and that the Canadian bill was to give assent to the bill "laid before" the Parliament at Westminster, which bill had since then been amended. Senator Fraser commented that when the Senate had given the bill third reading, she would take that as formal notification that assent was being given to the bill as eventually passed in Westminster, but it would have been better if Canada had done as Australia and New Zealand were doing: instead of passing a bill to assent to another Parliament's legislation, they were passing their own, standalone legislation, and saying that the Queen of Australia is the Queen of Australia and it will be Australian law that determines who she will be; and New Zealand is taking the same position.in Hansard The bill was further debated when Third Reading was resumed, and then passed without amendment.[5] --Qexigator (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think adding a summary of Fraser's argument would require a section of its own as well as the addition thereto of a summary of Joyal's rebuttal to Fraser given in the Senate the following day. I'm not against the idea, since that was about the only parliamentary debate there was on this bill (sadly), but it's a not insignificant amount of work. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The account of the legislative positiion now given in the article is sufficent to allow the inference that if, when the time came, the Canadian government were not satisfied that the Westminster bill as finally enacted was in accordance with the intent of the Perth Agreement, the Governor General could be advised to refrain from letting the present Act come into effect while the government steered a repealing act through Parliament. Thus, Canadian sovereignty is retained, compatibly with the precedent at the time of the abdication acts, with the niceties of constitutional convention and practice generally, and with political expediency. Qexigator (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that; it required some copyediting for grammar and readability, but, otherwise, is a decent addition. Can you, though, from here on, please use the proper reference templates for cites? Bare urls aren't allowed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, mainly preferable, and addition to academical opinion noted. Qexigator (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We know this much, the provinces & territories aren't being given a say :( GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there something about that for the article? Qexigator (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The 2013 Act, seems to be in breach of section 38 of the Canadian Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no conflict with s.38, who does?- and if notably sourced why not add to the article? Qexigator (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

S.38 No, but S.41 Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 19:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, s. 41 is already mentioned, and the various opinions among academics over the Act's constitutionality and effectiveness. But the Act is now an accomplished fact and has been passed as advised by the ministers of the Queen's Canadian Cabinet under the realm's system of responsible government. Enough said for this article? Qexigator (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

One can only hope. Maybe the NDP will adopt 5-55-13, and win the next election, all will be moot point then. I wasn't trying to argue with you, just agreeing that s 38 no, s 41 yes. Being a "fait accomplit" maybe, but what will be is yet to be known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Quebec

Information about "Legal challenge" in Quebec Superior Court noted.[6] Readers would be helped to understand the significance of this if there were added in a succinct way, such as by link, something about the extent of that court's jurisdiction, and what is the locus standi of the persons in the proceedings, and whether existing judicial precedents in Canada are relevant. Otherwise, readers are being left to infer that this is probably no more than a publicity stunt by politically motivated activists. Qexigator (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There's not much else to go by, so far. We can't start engaging in original research and speculations. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

And which most of what the Québec separatist government does, is as you say "a publicity stunt by politically motivated activists", even when correct and done for the right reasons, such as this. Disclaimer: I am in no way even remotely affiliated with the PQ, unless you consider speaking French as being guilty of such affiliation!

Other provinces?

Will other provinces be able to become intervening parties in the Federal SC? The summary of information added in the last few days from recently available sources, and the further information available in the linked sources, let readers have a pretty good understanding of the issues for the Canadian and other realms. Noting per the CBCnews source that "...Nicholson may opt to refer arguments straight to the Supreme Court for one definitive ruling", updates will be welcome. Qexigator (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The article now cited, "Royal baby bill prompted Manitoba to warn Harper government". Jun 24, 2013 [7] while suffering from the usual journalistic inaccuracy about the state of the law, is worth a mention if it accurataely reports Manitoba's A-G as writing "not in any way a precedent" for future constitutional changes, which is no more than a statement of the obvious when courteously replying to the Federal Senate's routine inquiry. It is also notable that other provinces have not yet replied one way or the other. We may draw our own conclusions, but, of course, not write them into Wikipedia. It would be better to see the date of the letter and its actual contents. Qexigator (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The letter from Swan is shown at the foot of the CBC article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, had missed it. Noted date 6 March 2013. Also noted that Swan's letter is crafted to avoid being trapped into appearing to accept short notice in respect of future alterations to the constitutional and legal framework of Canada, but does not imply commitment to the view that this change is such. The Senate could see well enough that the provincial government was not opposing the federal government's declared position. Qexigator (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added the date of Swan's letter into the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Addition of {{about}} hatnote

I added the {{about}} hatnote to this article, as the title is just one word different to the British counterpart (at first, I thought the only difference was the comma!) The reason I only distinguished between these two was because the sister Acts in the other Commonwealth realms either have quite different names, or those which are the same do not (yet) have articles. The fact that the British Act is linked to in this article at some point isn't hugely relevant; the purpose of a hatnote is to easily and quickly distinguish similarly-named articles to the reader without requiring them to form a particular understanding of the subject. ninety:one 00:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It also seems to me that the Canadian law mainly, and the other dominions laws to a certain extent, are "subordinate" to the UK law, and should refer back to the "parent" law, not the "sibling" laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 03:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The acts in each of the Australian states are also called the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (though most have '(Reguest)' added between 'Crown' and 'Act' and there are no articles for them... Yet. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Judicial precedent

This section is based on primary sources, reporting obiter dictum of judges before the current act was introduced. I have no problem mentioning them if they are included in current sources. It is also written in a POV way. It begins for example by saying the Supreme Court of Canada decided the Bill of Rights 1689 was "part of the law of Canada." It does not mention though that the Ontario Court of Appeal decided it was not part of the consttitution and the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal Nov 21, 2014. TFD (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the hard information?

In view of the above discussions, and given that it is undisputed that Canada, like other Commonwealth realms, has its own parliamentary sovereignty independent of the UK government, parliament and judicial system, is there any hard information yet available, such as court documents, stating the exact point that is in issue in the Canadian legal proceedings currently scheduled to be argued before the Quebec court later this year, if not earlier withdrawn or otherwise ended? At least on the face of it, the government's stated position in 2013[8] appears straigtforward, intelligible, rational and commonsensical, despite the successive legislative enactments and supposed judicial 'precedents', so what is the basis for proposing otherwise? This may be of little notability beyond competing factions engaged in intra-Canadian politics or rival academic law schools, and without the hard information much of the article's reportage about it is merely giving undue publicity to opinions that have been overruled or which are speculative or partisan. Qexigator (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What I'm reading there is a call for the article to champion the Cabinet's position (which you clearly agree with) by pretending contrary opinion doesn't exist and relevant precedents aren't admissible because you say, without verification, they were overruled or partisan. That's contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:V. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Not so. It is my personal opinion that most thinking people who think about this npov-wise would expect the government's position to prevail in the event of a judicial determination. I have no interest in 'championing' the government's position, but, for the reasons given on this page, the quantity of words given to those who are contending otherwise appears undue and should be trimmed. NPOV editing can note that after a considerable lapse of time, the actual point at issue as shown in court documents is being withheld from public information and scrutiny. Is that a sign of weakness or strength? Is this, in fact, still a live issue in Canada? Qexigator (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your opinionating on the legality of the Cabinet's position aside, by all means, Qexigator, if you have additional sourced arguments in favour of the Cabinet's stance, feel free to add them. I've put in all those I could find. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be organized better. Rather than listing countless people without explaining the view of their views, it would be better to explain the main views and how prevalent they are. I would not presume necessarily that the government is right as they have a big interest in winning this case. TFD (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

In what way are their views not explained??

Reorganisation may help. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The replies above tacitly confirm that the actual issue in the court proceedings has not been published, and without that there seems little point in any further editing, apart from severe trimming, to avoid undue publicity for partisan opinions. The issue, whatever it turns out to be when published, will be resolved before many months have passed, so that much of the text of the article is obsolescent and the speculative opinions will be superseded by the result. Meantime, admittedly, the current version may be of some help to Canadian and other readers looking for such information as is available to explain that, once the Australian legislation has passed, the UK Lord President may yet be advised to let the alterations to the line of succession in UK and all other realms be held in suspense to await the result of the proceedings in Canada. But if the Canadian government advises the Queen to treat Canada as concurring in the alterations, as all the other realms will have done, whether the UK Lord President will delay further is an open question. Qexigator (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

+Today's news from Australia:[9] royal assent. Qexigator (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Look at what's used to source the "Challenges in Canadian courts" section.

If "partisan opinions" are to be censored here, then the Cabinet's partisan opinion has to go, too. Of course, you don't want that. You want the opinions that differ from the government's to be deleted. One more time: that's not allowed under WP:NPOV. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please resist the temptation to make false suppositions and accusations, to support what appears to be a partisan pov. Your above comment is not only wrong but out of order. I have made no proposal to censor, only to trim npov-wise to avoid giving undue prominence to opinions which failed to persuade the Candian government, or the Canadian parliament. Editors here, and any thinking persons who think about it, can see for themselves that whatever may be the position of the academics making noises about the Canadian act being unconstitutional, in a Canadian court or otherwise, it remains uncertain whether or not the Canadian government will be agreeable to letting the Lord President bring the operative provisions of the UK act into force before the motion in the Quebec court is determined (for all we know it may not even proceed to a hearing), and thereupon to advise that the Canadian act come into force in the manner prescribed, so as to let the alterations to the line of succession made by the UK act apply also to the succession in Canada. Qexigator (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

An argument convincing the Cabinet or parliament is just an arbitrarily chosen benchmark for it getting full explanation in the article and one that conveniently favours the arguments that align with the Cabinet's.

The latter sections of this article might need some copyediting to get the information across more succinctly. But, that is not what I'm hearing you ask for. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making so revealing a reply. Whatever you may be hearing, I am not dissenting from copyediting, including some trimming, but doubt its usefulness, due to the inevitable obsolescence mentioned above. Beyond inviting you to reconsider the actualities, I cannot help you if you are of the opinion that an argument 'convincing the Cabinet or parliament' is merely an editorial device by way of 'an arbitrarily chosen benchmark' (!) for it to get a 'full explanation in the article' that happens to conveniently favour the arguments that align with the Cabinet's. That is a pov which, wilfully or not, indicates a poor understanding not only of the interplay of constitutional law, juridical practice and political context in common law countries with parliamentary systems deriving from the English/British tradition, but also of the manner in which such an article as this should be constructed. But I am happy to acknowledge that many of the edits of yours which I have seen have improved this and other articles. The question posed at the top of this section was 'Where is the hard information?', and the comments tacitly confirm that this is not available. So let this section be closed, with the present version of the article as it now is, subject as usual to further information and any improving copyediting which editors are able to contribute. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Aritcles are constructed according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

If sources used for the court challenges section of this article aren't the "hard information" you asked for, than, I have no idea what you could possibly have meant by "hard information yet available, such as court documents, stating the exact point that is in issue in the Canadian legal proceedings currently scheduled to be argued before the Quebec court later this year." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, the content of the motion and other such matter in the Quebec proceedings which define the issue(s) to be determined by the Court: either that is not in the article or its links, or (quite possibly) I have missed it. This will, of course, be known to the Canadian Governor General and government, and, it can be surmised, to the Lord President, whose advice and action will take it into account. If it is linked by source [59], that link seems to be faulty. I agree the content of the link at source [60] comes close, but it looks as though that report may be slanted. Source [62] includes 'Binette said he was hoping Ottawa would exercise its discretion and refer the case directly to the Supreme Court for an opinion, which would be a much more speedy resolution.' Is there any updating report? If this is a live issue, something more would be available. Do we positively know if the motion is still proceeding and not been stayed or abandoned? Anyhow, as said above, the current version may be of some help to Canadian and other readers looking for such information as is available. Qexigator (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The two recent edits supply the 'hard information'.[10] The citation at [58] enables a websearch to a text of the Motard motion.[11], and the external link to Michel Bedard's Legislative Summary suffices to let a reader be fully informed of the issues. Readers may thereby decide for themelves whether its sections 3.3 and 3.5 show that it is conceivable that responsible ministers in Canada and in UK may be minded not to wait the outcome of the Motard motion, but to act on the basis that, given the constitutional principle of symmetry of the Crown in Canada with the Crown in UK, the federal unanimity process would be involved for an alteration resulting in deviating from symmetry but not otherwise, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms mentioned in section 3.5 is irrelevant. Qexigator (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutral language

We've been through this, GoodDay. You don't get to determine who the head of state of a nation is. That's not something that Wikipedia does. In Australia, opinion is divided, as is easily demonstrated. "Monarch" or "Sovereign" is the accepted term, has the advantage of being accurate, and avoids the sort of disruption we've seen in the past. --Pete (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll let others weigh in on this, Skyring. We're not likely to ever agree on this. In the meantime, I'm asking that you 'not' revert (which you haven't) until you get a consensus for your proposed change. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The article has: the heads of government of the 16 Commonwealth realms, which share Elizabeth II as head of state, announced... . The linked article has: Monarch's role in the realms: The monarch is the head of state of each of the Commonwealth realms.... Given that there is no dispute that the queen is the monarch and sovereign in every one of the 16 realms, and so will her successor be, and that the topic is about succession to the queen as such, which includes her capacity as 'head of state' to the extent that the constitution of each realm requires, acknowledges or allows, 'sovereign' instead of 'head of state' could better suit the context in this article, and should not be treated as contentious. Qexigator (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with both of you. Best we allow others to weigh in, gentlemen. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Compromise: Let's remove the sentence "...which share Elizabeth II as head of state". GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't need to be mentioned there at all. The article and the act are about succession to the throne - of the monarch, understood. The 'Judicial precedent' section quotes the judge saying that at the root of Canada's constitutional structure is a constitutional monarchy, where the monarch is shared with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries. Qexigator (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If Skyring agrees, shall I impliment? GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've implimented the 'compromise' :) GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Quote - which version?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the quote from the lawyer representing the two law professors read: “The position [of the federal government] seems to be that, still, British law applies automatically in Canada, which we consider to be a colonial position, and it’s a throwback to ancient times”, which was the version published in The Guardian or User:Miesianiacal's preferred version which is: “The position [of the federal government] seems to be that, still, British law applies automatically in Canada, which we consider to be a colonial position...”? AnonAnnu (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I hate lengthy quotes and would prefer summarizing what was said. TFD (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

How about just that the lawyer described the government's position as a "throwback to ancient times"? AnonAnnu (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the government says that whoever is sovereign of the UK is sovereign in Canada. The lawyers object, saying that British law is not valid in Canada. TFD (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The question for the purpose of the article is not whether the lawyer is right or wrong - that's something that will likely be determined in court - it's what part of the quote should be included. We're not saying the lawyer is right or wrong, simply that this is the position of the lawyer and his clients. AnonAnnu (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A moot point (British meaning), perhaps. First, is it notable at all? Secondly, longer or shorter quote? To my mind, the shorter suffices to show, as little else could, the academics' motivation, and therefore the Quebec government's which is also a party in the proceedings, but do we know whether as supporter or neutral? The longer quote also shows that they may be opposing a straw man or tilting at a windmill. This will no doubt be evident to the judge, Bouchard, who is neither fool nor patsy, and who knows full well that there is an appeal court above. Before long, it will be overtaken by the court's judgment. Meantime, the full quote would better serve to inform the reader, and that should be in the text. Qexigator (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the Canadian government, the sovereign of the UK, whether king, queen, regent or president, is sovereign of Canada. TFD (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source for According to the Canadian government...? And is that distinguishable from the position of all or any of Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, St Lucia, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu, that concluded legislation was not necessary? Was the Canadian assenting act merely a gesture signifying unbroken continuity from the event of SoW 1931, and to demonstrate, to all in and outside Canada, Parliament's formal concurrence with the changes, in fulfilment of the prime minister's commitment at Perth? Has this been made public in any way, or is it expected in the course of the hearing in Quebec? Qexigator (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As the Statute of Westminster is law in Canada and the UK, the "assent" was thought required to meet the convention set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster that the assent of all the parliaments of the realms is required to amend the line of succession. That's all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not quite "all". In the course of time we shall see what Bouchard makes of it, after hearing the arguments against and supporting validity. Qexigator (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the government posted its opinion on the Canadian Heritage website, although I cannot find it. They say, "The laws governing succession are UK law and are not part of Canada’s constitution."[12] That's the same position as the other realms that were not mentioned in the Statute of Westminster. It seems there is no more explanation than that. I expect that more information will be provided to the courts. We should explain the government's position before getting into the opposing views. TFD (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. Given that it is officially authenticated as being issued by the Office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, and that it contains the statement quoted below, and that the article gives extensive coverage to the personal opinions delivered by academics, including one specialising in the constitutional law of the Commonwealth of Australia, there is good reason to let the link be added it as an External reference:

"The changes to the laws of succession do not require a constitutional amendment. The laws governing succession are UK law and are not part of Canada's constitution. Specifically, they are not enumerated in the schedule to our Constitution Act, 1982 as part of the Constitution of Canada. Furthermore, the changes to the laws of succession do not constitute a change to the "office of The Queen", as contemplated in the Constitution Act, 1982. The "office of The Queen" includes the Sovereign's constitutional status, powers and rights in Canada. Neither the ban on the marriages of heirs to Roman Catholics, nor the common law governing male preference primogeniture, can properly be said to be royal powers or prerogatives in Canada. As the line of succession is therefore determined by UK law and not by the Sovereign, The Queen's powers and rights have not been altered by the changes to the laws governing succession in Canada. The legislation introduced today is in keeping with the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931, which provides that any changes to the laws governing succession require the assent of Dominion Parliaments. The Government of Canada is working in collaboration with all parties to ensure swift passage of the bill."

Qexigator (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The "throwback to ancient times" is pure lawyer hyperbole. No one else (and likely that lawyer in any other circumstance) considers Canada's colonial era to be "ancient times"; "ancient times" is the Third Dynasty of Egypt and other periods that far back. (See Ancient history.)

The gist of the argument is given in the words "we consider [the government's] to be a colonial position". That suffices. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not the gist of what is being reported, which notably includes in the full quote the mood and sentiment of the litigious academic, and possibly of the Quebec government, and the full quote should be in the text, not a truncation or paraphrase to suit an editor's own sentiments for the content or the style of its expression. Qexigator (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I said it's the gist of the argument. If you want mood and sentiment, it's there in "we consider [the government's] to be a colonial position", too. The "ancient times" bit goes off the deep end. It's pure hyperbole, of no real encyclopædic value, and extends a quote needlessly, essentially repeating the previous statement but with language amped up to the ridiculous for more impact. If this were an article on lawyer-speak, sure, it'd be a great illustration. For this page though: totally unnecessary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed amped up to the ridiculous for more impact, and our service is to let the reader be informed accordingly, not of the rightness or not of the speaker's cause (awaiting judgment after court hearing), but the personal animus which sits badly with any surmised pretension to academic sobriety and objectivity. Qexigator (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think your personal animus is showing. It seems you're wanting to include the lawyer's use of public theatrics (the kind lawyers frequently play to the press) as a way to discredit Taillon, Motard, and their efforts. That is most certainly contrary to WP:NPOV.

Since it can't be kept for that reason, we're back, again, to the question of why it should be in the article. It's redundant; it has no value (it's not showing this lawyer to be in any way unique, even if that mattered to the article). That's enough reason to keep it out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent, there is no animus on my part. The advocate is professionally engaged to represent the clients who appointed him, and to advance their cause in court, and if need be in other ways such as interviews with press reporters. I see no reason to keep it out. Qexigator (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I had no intention of starting to misrepresent. You seemed to want to use the hyperbole to tarnish Taillon and Motard; "our service is to let the reader be informed [of] the personal animus which sits badly with any surmised pretension to academic sobriety and objectivity". Translation: "we should discredit Motard and Tallon by revealing their academic sobriety and objectivity to be pretentious by way of comparing it to the lawyer's hyperbole (classified as 'personal animus')." Maybe that's not how you intended to come across, but, it did come across that way.

I've given a good reason to keep it out. None has been given as to why it should stay in. "He speaks for his clients" just doesn't cut it. The trimmed quote still "speaks for his clients" and does so by avoiding a redundant repetition rendered less clear by its use of more dramatic language. Quite frankly it's more encyclopædic to keep it out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

(Seen this only after my last edit to restore the quote) No, you were and persist in being mistaken on both points. Your attempt to justify your misreading of my comment is frankly unconvincing, and I doubt I am the only person who can see you have failed to justify exclusion of full quote. The mistake and the failure may be linked. Qexigator (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I wasn't; you merely persist in mistaking "it seemed like you did..." with "you did..."

You've failed to justify why we need a redundant repetition rendered less clear by its use of more dramatic language. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

+Your last edit summary, poor grammar/ rm what doesn't have consensus; those trying to repeatedly reinsert must familiarise themselves with WP:BRD; AnonAnnu's original addition was Bold, my removal was Revert, we're now Discussing. It's BRD, not BRRRRRD)[13] certainly confirms, unsurprisingly, my above comment. BRD does not = Mies rules the roost. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Glad you figured that out (though, I was unaware you thought BRD did equal "Mies rules the roost"). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A little bird tells me that what may be of some interest is how the advocate argues the case in court and what really matters is what and how the judge decides. Qexigator (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that little bird is right. If you agree with it, you should then see the lack of worth in putting media showmanship in the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

By Miesianicaal's argument the phrase "if the glove fits, you must acquit" should be removed from any article on the OJ Simpson case because it is hyperbolic. Our job, however, is not to rewrite copy for lawyers and second guess what parts of what they say are reasonable and what parts are not and we shouldn't be leaving a phrase out because we're personally offended by it, as Miesianical is by the reference to "ancient times." Frankly, if the quote is to be truncated it is the "ancient times" part which any writer of even an academic article would keep because it is a clear and vivid indication of the speaker's frame of mind. Indeed, by Miesianical's argument we should be sifting through articles making sure to remove any colourful quotes that we don't agree with or where we think the speaker goes to far. However, it is not our job to pass judgment on whether or not what the speaker is saying is valid. AnonAnnu (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

False comparison. A catchy phrase is not necessarily hyperbole. Also, if "it's a throwback to ancient times" becomes a world-renowned phrase, you can add it back in, just for notability.

Don't misrepresent me. It's disingenuous.

The clear and vivid indication of the speaker's frame of mind and Motard and Taillon's argument is the colonial comment. The rest is a redundant repetition rendered less clear by its use of more dramatic language. No reason to keep what's redundant. No reason to keep what's less clear.

WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I would just say that the parties say new UK laws do not extend to Canada. Perhaps better to use their motion as a source, rather than the media soundbite. TFD (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

But given that the government is not claiming that "new UK laws extend to Canada", that would be at best a half-truth and we would better use the plaintiffs' advocate's quote which more truthfully lets readers know, npov-wise, what their intentions are, "soundbite" or not. Qexigator (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

We are just saying what they claim, not endorsing it. Obviously we are not endorsing their comments that the government considers Canada to be a colony. TFD (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commencment date

I've inserted the commencment date (26 March 2015), into the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Appeal?

So, what was the result of the appeal to the Quebec ruling? Haven't heard anything for quite a while now. GoodDay (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Has there been an update on this? Has the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No word yet? GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

News media reported that the Quebec Court of Appeal would hear the case in February, 2018, but there is no record of a decision. Meanwhile the Monarchist League appears now to agree with the government position. TFD (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The decision was announced in October 2019. The ruling - 'whoever' is the British monarch? is the Canadian monarch - was not rejected. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was made in December 2019. Lambsbridge (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

For anyone coming across this thread, the Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, so the decision is final. TFD (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

In other words @The Four Deuces:, assuming that Canada is still a monarchy & has the same individual as monarch as the UK, by the time George becomes king? Then his eldest child (if female) will follow him as Queen regnant. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. And if the UK becomes a republic, then the president or whatever they choose to call him or her will become king or queen of Canada. Fortunately, the Canadian parliament can decide what their title will be. TFD (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

With one superior court ruling the succession laws are an integral part of the Canadian constitution and another superior court ruling they're only there "in spirit", who knows what the future holds? Someone might try to make another freedom of religion Charter case, or something, and consequently reopen the whole can of worms. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

If Canada is still a monarchy, by then. Until then & until a different result, the current (born after Perth agreement) rule is eldest child, not eldest son. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

While the statement in the Donohue case was obiter dictum, the one in the latest case was ratio dicidendi. IOW, the comments in the first case made no difference to the decision, while they did in the second. So only the comments in the second were issues that the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court could determine.

References in the BNA to HM refer to her heirs and successors (as determined by Westminster) following her demise. If the UK became a republic then her successor would be the president of the republic.

The religion issue is a non-starter because the constitution is not subject to Charter rights. Ontario separate schools for example violate the Charter but are protected by the BNA.

Separate schools are protected by s. 29 of the Charter; they do not violate the Charter. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps Canada will be like Andorra, where the president of France is ex officio Co-Prince. But I suspect they will choose another title than "of the United Kingdom, Canada [etc.], KIng."

The irony is that the former monarch would continue to reign in Australia. TFD (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Mass deletions

Do we really need all that info transferred over to the Monarchy of Canada page? GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

See discussion at related page, which ties into this page. Best to keep the discussion of the transference of information, in one place. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)