Canada and links to British monarchy....

[doomhammer]

Hello all,

I know the views on this subject are divided but being a relative new comer to this country from the U.S. I find it strange that Canada has links to the British monarchy still in this day and age.

Question is what do you guys feel about this and secondly should the country severe all ties with the British monarchy? I hear Charles is visiting sometime before the year end.

Comments?

[Oni-kun]

It doesn't really matter. The Queen is just a representation. They have no real political power in Canada.

[Tharyn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Monarchy

As mentioned above, the Queen is just a ceremonial representation, personified as the the Governor General.

[BornRuff]

It serves as an interesting throwback to our heritage. As pointed out, they have no real power

[ADIL86]

it would be a major pain to the butt to sever all ties constitutionally speaking. it's not an important enough issue for any govt to make a push for it, especially now.

[resu]

Waste of money and a sore reminder of the inequality that was much more prevalent a while back.

[CSK'sMom]

Just to clarify, Prince Charles and Camilla are visiting this week through Remembrance Day. I think my kid is cooking for them when they visit and officially open the teaching winery and wine center at Niagara College on Thursday. They will also be in Niagara On The Lake on Thursday and Hamilton IIRC.

[sxz]

Looks like the OP was watching CTV News tonight when they interviewed the old guy. Personally, it's always good to be reminded of and humbled by your roots. It's not like the Queen or her representative in Canada has any say in how the country is run.

[whampoa]

The Brit monarch are the only thing holding this country together.

Don't believe me, just ask the separatist from Quebec to Alberta, what happened if the Queen leaves the boat.

[Yankees 1903]

Is Prince Charles going to be on our currency when he becomes King? Oh, and the Yankees won again (Of course no one in here cares beside me) :D.

[Nikita]

The Brit monarch are the only thing holding this country together.

Don't believe me, just ask the separatist from Quebec to Alberta, what happened if the Queen leaves the boat.



:arrowu: :rolleyes:

[D582]

I like the monarchy. It provides a link to our history as well as to other nations (UK, Australia, NZ etc). It does not really affect us and I just don't see the point of changing anything.

Is Prince Charles going to be on our currency when he becomes King? Oh, and the Yankees won again (Of course no one in here cares beside me) :D.

Yes, if he becomes King. If QEII chooses to abdicate before she dies, she can name her successor. Prince William (Charles' son) is the favourite.

[ZenOps]

What you learn in school is that the Queen is representational. You also learn that man landed on the moon sometime in 1969, but IMO - Neither are true.

As you grow older - the truth usually shines through. You need only look at the back of your coins to know whos got the power.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/04/harper-jean.html

Truth be known, yes - Michelle Jean does really have more power than Stephen Harper in many ways. Harper still has to go to the Queen or Queens Governor General to do something as drastic as dissolving the government in a non-confidence vote.

Once the government is dissolved (and amazingly it happened last Christmas 2008 during non-wartime) guess whos in charge? You got it - the Queen.

In the Queens absence, technically Michelle is Canadas "head of state" or at least that is the way I infer her role. When the Queen is on Canadian soil - its business as usual - The Queen is head of state. At no time ever is the Prime minister head of state. Prime ministers are always subordinate to a King or Queen. Presidents are different.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2125245

As a new immigrant to the country - you don't have to sing the national anthem. You do however have to recite "God save the Queen".

[ronin893]

The Brit monarch are the only thing holding this country together.
Nah. The Empire is protecting us from an invasion by the Rebel Alliance to the south. :lol:

[45ED]

If this thread is about Canadian relations to the British monarchy, why is this thread being represented by a American flag icon beside the thread title?

[Quiggie]

should the country severe all ties with the British monarchy?
Yes, it's outdated and there's no reason to maintain it. I know they have no real power, but still why maintain it?

[Peckerwood]

Yes, it's outdated and there's no reason to maintain it. I know they have no real power, but still why maintain it?
Constitution...you must read it...both documents

;)

[Montague]

You need only look at the back of your coins to know whos got the power.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBav72i7I3s

[BadDrafter]

God save the queen!

[setell]

As a new immigrant to the country - you don't have to sing the national anthem. You do however have to recite "God save the Queen".
I think you have to sing the national anthem too. Well I remember singing O'Canada years ago when I was officially an Canadian.
If this thread is about Canadian relations to the British monarchy, why is this thread being represented by a American flag icon beside the thread title? I was wondering the same thing!:confused::confused:

[winner2000]

There was a big survey done recently, and apparently most Canadians really don't give a crap about the Prince, Queen or Monarchy in general.
For the most part, I think only the 65+ crowd cares about them......people in their teens, 20s, 30s, 40s and immigrants probably couldn't care less about anyone or anything relating to the Royal family

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/26/prince-charles-poll.html

[BornRuff]

What you learn in school is that the Queen is representational. You also learn that man landed on the moon sometime in 1969, but IMO - Neither are true.

:rolleyes:

As you grow older - the truth usually shines through. You need only look at the back of your coins to know whos got the power.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/04/harper-jean.html

Truth be known, yes - Michelle Jean does really have more power than Stephen Harper in many ways. Harper still has to go to the Queen or Queens Governor General to do something as drastic as dissolving the government in a non-confidence vote.

Once the government is dissolved (and amazingly it happened last Christmas 2008 during non-wartime) guess whos in charge? You got it - the Queen.

In the Queens absence, technically Michelle is Canadas "head of state" or at least that is the way I infer her role. When the Queen is on Canadian soil - its business as usual - The Queen is head of state. At no time ever is the Prime minister head of state. Prime ministers are always subordinate to a King or Queen. Presidents are different.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2125245

As a new immigrant to the country - you don't have to sing the national anthem. You do however have to recite "God save the Queen".

You are right in theory. The Queen is our head of state, and ceremonially she has a lot of power. In theory the Queen was in power while parliament was prorogued, but did the queen actually do anything during that time? No, because it's just ceremonial.

In practice, she has 0 power in Canada, other than the power to command to be waited on hand and foot.

When Harper went to ask the GG to dissolve parliament, she did exactly as she was told by her first minister(Harper). In recent memory, the Governor General or the Queen have never interfered with the authority of parliament.

[ZenOps]

There was a big survey done recently, and apparently most Canadians really don't give a crap about the Prince, Queen or Monarchy in general.
For the most part, I think only the 65+ crowd cares about them......people in their teens, 20s, 30s, 40s and immigrants probably couldn't care less about anyone or anything relating to the Royal family

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/26/prince-charles-poll.html

Monarchy is just fine. I think more people follow the monarchy than the line of prime ministers.

Probably true, a majority don't follow either. But yes, the Brits are probably the only thing preventing the US from invading Canada (Again - like they tried to do in 1812)

I think even hardcore Brits tend to shake their head when Charles is mentioned.

[Nettles]

I don't personally believe that the Brits have "0 influence" on us. From a lot of the stuff I've read (and the credentials can be questioned), Canada isn't a sovereign country through certain backhand agreements made, especially around the Trudeau regime. And that the British MONARCHY (not gov't) actually gets a chunk of Canadian taxes as revenue and directly influence decisions made by the Canadian government. The Canadian citizen of course would never believe this if it were true because they've supposedly made the illusion that we live in a democracy. This ties into the illuminati though (the Monarchy being one of the elitist families and would also go on to suggest that they still have a lot of control in the US).

I dunno to what extent this is true but I don't think that the Queen is just a "figure head" and European royalty definitely has more of a say in determining the future of Canada than the average Canadian citizen. In other words, our politicians don't listen to us, they listen to someone else.

[BornRuff]

I don't personally believe that the Brits have "0 influence" on us. From a lot of the stuff I've read (and the credentials can be questioned), Canada isn't a sovereign country through certain backhand agreements made, especially around the Trudeau regime. And that the British MONARCHY (not gov't) actually gets a chunk of Canadian taxes as revenue and directly influence decisions made by the Canadian government. The Canadian citizen of course would never believe this if it were true because they've supposedly made the illusion that we live in a democracy. This ties into the illuminati though (the Monarchy being one of the elitist families and would also go on to suggest that they still have a lot of control in the US).

I dunno to what extent this is true but I don't think that the Queen is just a "figure head" and European royalty definitely has more of a say in determining the future of Canada than the average Canadian citizen. In other words, our politicians don't listen to us, they listen to someone else.

We certainly do pay money to the royal family, that is no secret.

I don't see a reason to suspect back room deals between Britain and Canada though. I can't think of any major government actions that have benefited Britain. I guess you probably think that to simplistic though right? They don't work on behalf of Britain either now?

[ZenOps]

:rolleyes:



You are right in theory. The Queen is our head of state, and ceremonially she has a lot of power. In theory the Queen was in power while parliament was prorogued, but did the queen actually do anything during that time? No, because it's just ceremonial.

In practice, she has 0 power in Canada, other than the power to command to be waited on hand and foot.

When Harper went to ask the GG to dissolve parliament, she did exactly as she was told by her first minister(Harper). In recent memory, the Governor General or the Queen have never interfered with the authority of parliament.

Sure now, but just you wait until WW III hits.

Then the Queen is going to pull rank and whoever she is fighting agaist - we are fighting against - I'd say she would make us all fight (draft) like the US does during wartime.

War measures act still is under British law (martial law) meaning we are all loyal subjects of the Queen until further notice.

That Harper had to *ask* Michelle Jean for permission to shutdown parliament tells you right there whos the Alpha.

[BornRuff]

Sure now, but just you wait until WW III hits.

Then the Queen is going to pull rank and whoever she is fighting agaist - we are fighting against - I'd say she would make us all fight (draft) like the US does during wartime.

War measures act still is under British law (martial law) meaning we are all loyal subjects of the Queen until further notice.

Why on earth would the Queen be involved in that? All the royal family does is carry out ceremonial duties, attend parties, and sometimes act as philanthropists. What do they know or care about the military? Military decisions are much more heavily influenced by our ties with the US, NATO, and the UN.

If the Royal Family ever tried to "pull rank" on us, we can just kick them to the curb. Short of invading us, they have no mechanism to enforce their will over here, and really, what do they have to gain by invading us? That would surely trigger a war with the US, and they don't want that.

That Harper had to *ask* Michelle Jean for permission to shutdown parliament tells you right there whos the Alpha.

It's ceremonial! Get it through your head. The news channels tried to play it up as if there was ever a chance of another decision, but in reality, she had no choice. If she tried to go against the first minister, it would be the beginning of the end for the Governor General in Canada.

[zenpher]

If we're a part of the British Empire, we should be allowed to get the same benefits in Europe as British citizens do.

[Nikita]

Why on earth would the Queen be involved in that? All the royal family does is carry out ceremonial duties, attend parties, and sometimes act as philanthropists. What do they know or care about the military? Military decisions are much more heavily influenced by our ties with the US, NATO, and the UN.

If the Royal Family ever tried to "pull rank" on us, we can just kick them to the curb. Short of invading us, they have no mechanism to enforce their will over here, and really, what do they have to gain by invading us? That would surely trigger a war with the US, and they don't want that.



It's ceremonial! Get it through your head. The news channels tried to play it up as if there was ever a chance of another decision, but in reality, she had no choice. If she tried to go against the first minister, it would be the beginning of the end for the Governor General in Canada.

Well put! The Queen has absolutely NO power to make us go to war or force us to retain a government following a non-confidence motion or anything else. Canada most certainly IS a sovereign country, the Queen is merely a figurehead. There's not a single thing the Queen can force on Canada. In fact, I'll issue a challenge to anyone who wants to tell us one thing she's done or one decision she's forced on this country since Trudeau repatriated our Constitution, or even any relatively recent time before that.

[Sauerkraut]

...In recent memory, the Governor General or the Queen have never interfered with the authority of parliament.

Governor General Lord Byng refused the prime minister's request to dissolve parliament in 1926 - became known as the King-Byng affair. I remember because I did a history report on it in public school back in 19(mumble).

The queen is good for tourism and the mounties. Everytime she shows up to collect flowers from some school kid in Timmins, the mounties have to break out those red clown costumes. How else would they justify it.

[Nikita]

Governor General Lord Byng refused the prime minister's request to dissolve parliament in 1926 - became known as the King-Byng affair. I remember because I did a history report on it in public school back in 19(mumble).

The queen is good for tourism and the mounties. Everytime she shows up to collect flowers from some school kid in Timmins, the mounties have to break out those red clown costumes. How else would they justify it.

Umm, 1926 is hardly 'recent'!

[Sauerkraut]

Umm, 1926 is hardly 'recent'!

Tell that to an Ottawa Senators fan. It's the last time they won the Stanley cup

[gordholio]

The British royalty is a symbol of privilege and immense wealth attained simply by birth and nothing else.
I don't think that Canada should be connected to that sort of thing.

[tomtomtom]

I found this pretty interesting from Rick Mercer. Some of you may have watch this already, which is about Canada's parliamentary system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1yhp-_x7A

I was born in a British colony in the east Asia. Seeing how messed up that place looks now, I wish it can be brought back to what it used to be, when the government has the right to determine what is best for ourselves instead of looking up to the big boss for their opinion over some significant matter.

Anyways, my point is, the British have helped us define and develop a unique entity where we are proud to be, without much interference behind the scene. We should remember the legacy and maintain the present system. Plus, it really does make much difference to any one of us anyway, except we have to pay an "undisclosed" amount of money to the British Royal family.

Hmm..I wonder how much is it? Would it be a mere peppercorn payment?

[BornRuff]

I found this pretty interesting from Rick Mercer. Some of you may have watch this already, which is about Canada's parliamentary system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1yhp-_x7A

I was born in a British colony in the east Asia. Seeing how messed up that place looks now, I wish it can be brought back to what it used to be, when the government has the right to determine what is best for ourselves instead of looking up to the big boss for their opinion over some significant matter.

Anyways, my point is, the British have helped us define and develop a unique entity where we are proud to be, without much interference behind the scene. We should remember the legacy and maintain the present system. Plus, it really does make much difference to any one of us anyway, except we have to pay an "undisclosed" amount of money to the British Royal family.

Hmm..I wonder how much is it? Would it be a mere peppercorn payment?

My understanding is that we don't pay a set amount of money to the Royal Family, we just pick up the tab for any of the costs associated with them acting as the Canadian Royal Family. That means any time any of them come over here, we foot the bill, and if they are acting on our behalf outside of Canada, we also foot the bill. These costs would fluctuate greatly depending on the year. The years that the Queen comes to visit were pricey I'm sure.

The main set costs for u come from maintaining the offices of the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors.

[wiggy]

I don't personally believe that the Brits have "0 influence" on us. From a lot of the stuff I've read (and the credentials can be questioned), Canada isn't a sovereign country through certain backhand agreements made, especially around the Trudeau regime. And that the British MONARCHY (not gov't) actually gets a chunk of Canadian taxes as revenue and directly influence decisions made by the Canadian government. The Canadian citizen of course would never believe this if it were true because they've supposedly made the illusion that we live in a democracy. This ties into the illuminati though (the Monarchy being one of the elitist families and would also go on to suggest that they still have a lot of control in the US).

I dunno to what extent this is true but I don't think that the Queen is just a "figure head" and European royalty definitely has more of a say in determining the future of Canada than the average Canadian citizen. In other words, our politicians don't listen to us, they listen to someone else.

Wow. That's a special kind of delusion. Do you belong to one of those militias?

[wiggy]

The British royalty is a symbol of privilege and immense wealth attained simply by birth and nothing else.
I don't think that Canada should be connected to that sort of thing.

There's a big pile of people in this thread who need a civics course so they can understand how our government works and the history of how it got that way.

[Becks]

Canada is a pretty young country, and it wasn't until Trudeau that we got a constitution onto paper. I don't see what the problem is with having links to the monarchy at all. However, I am knowledgeable in history and poli sci, so maybe am more informed on things than the average Canadian. Anyways, I think a more pertinent question that the OP should be asking is why does the US still have the electoral college.

[Peckerwood]

Canada is a pretty young country, and it wasn't until Trudeau that we got a constitution onto paper. I don't see what the problem is with having links to the monarchy at all. However, I am knowledgeable in history and poli sci, so maybe am more informed on things than the average Canadian.
You forget the British North America Act which is also cited as the Constitution Act of 1867. Our Constitution is two documents, not one.

Section 129 of the CA1867 transferred all previous Acts and Common Laws validating Rights, prior to 1867, as of 1867 unchanged by us. Habeas Corpus is mentioned in the Charter and so is Due Process, but they are undefined by it. Those definitions are left to the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, and the furthered court precedents of Due Process dating all the way back to Magna Carta of 1215, where it is still one of the last statutes not yet specifically extinguished.

While the Statute of Westminster of 1931 gave us the authority to make new Laws and and Acts on Rights, we still have yet to specifically extinguish those previous Common Law rights.

Section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms acknowledges this fact in it's savings: "26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada."

[YYZFA]

If we're a part of the British Empire, we should be allowed to get the same benefits in Europe as British citizens do.

We are not part of the "British Empire". Why do you think we are? Canada is part of a Commonwealth of nations, who share a similar historical and cultural history (former British colonisation). Canadians are not British and Brits are not Canadian. Citizens of Great Britain cannot simply assume the rights of Canadian, Australian, South African, et cetera citizens. Why would the reverse be true?

[Hairball]

You forget the British North America Act which is also cited as the Constitution Act of 1867. Our Constitution is two documents, not one.

The Canadian constitution actually consists of a lot of documents. Constitution Acts 1867 and 1982, the Statute of Westminster 1931 (that you mentioned) among others.

But I guess the 1867 and 1982 documents are the most commonly cited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_constitutional_documents




As for the original question, no I don't think Canada should sever ties to the monarchy. It's part of our tradition, and they don't really use their theoretical power anyway. If we have an elected president as head of state, he will have legitimacy even if the prime minister is still the head of government. It'll lead to these co-habituation problems like they have in France and other countries.

[hagbard]

According to Alex Jones, the Royal Family are the heads of some globalist empire that wants to wipe out most of the world's population. According to David Icke the Royal's are lizard people from another planet who also want to destroy us. Do we want "people" like this running our country? :lol:

Personally, I think their a comedy trope (along with Jones and Icke) and perfect representatives for our country. :razz:

[ZenOps]

We are not part of the "British Empire". Why do you think we are? Canada is part of a Commonwealth of nations, who share a similar historical and cultural history (former British colonisation). Canadians are not British and Brits are not Canadian. Citizens of Great Britain cannot simply assume the rights of Canadian, Australian, South African, et cetera citizens. Why would the reverse be true?


Of course we are, were all serfs in the greater British Empire.

Does Canada have to rename all provinces with "British" in front of them like "Columbia" to make it any more obvious? The coinage should have been hint enough.

The day that British Columbia is renamed to *just* Columbia is the day that I will consider the idea that Canada has some semblance of control over its own destiny (independance).

Heck, might as well call Saskatechwan the Chinese Republic of Saskatechwan, or something like French Quebec, sort of like French Guyana.

[Hairball]

Of course we are, were all serfs in the greater British Empire.

Does Canada have to rename all provinces with "British" in front of them like "Columbia" to make it any more obvious? The coinage should have been hint enough.

The day that British Columbia is renamed to *just* Columbia is the day that I will consider the idea that Canada has some semblance of control over its own destiny (independance).

Heck, might as well call Saskatechwan the Chinese Republic of Saskatechwan, or something like French Quebec, sort of like French Guyana.

Names are just names. Even Chinese Hong Kong is full of British references and names, it's more of a historical thing.

But obviously we have a lot of British connections because we still have the Queen as head of state.

[dphythian]

To be clear, Queen Elizabeth is our sovereign not because she's the Queen of England but because she's the Queen of Canada. Technically they're seperate and distinct titles that happen to be held by the same person.

[ZenOps]

Names are just names. Even Chinese Hong Kong is full of British references and names, it's more of a historical thing.

But obviously we have a lot of British connections because we still have the Queen as head of state.

Actually the Queen does have distinct control over Canada in regionally definied and well drawn out land masses.

The Queens right (Crown Land ownership)

95% of land in Newfoundland, Labrador and Manitoba is Crown land.

94% of land in British Columbia is Crown land, 1% Native reserve, 5% private.

~48% of land in New Brunswick is Crown land

~40% of land in Alberta is Crown land, the majority of the remainder is defined as under the jurisdiction of a local magistrate.

Overall, 89% of Canadas land mass is defined as Crown Land. If you really want to go to the library and find it - there are maps with exact latitude and longitude boundaries.

By very definition "Crown" is control under monarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Krone_Kaiser_Rudolf_II_Kaisertum_%C3%96sterre ich.jpg

In Canada if you have a legal dispute, you usually go "up against the Crown" or a crown prosecutor, even for parking tickets. The gigantic British Crown right in front of most major provincial law buildings should also be pretty obvious.

Currency, Land, Law - What else is there?

[Hairball]

To be clear, Queen Elizabeth is our sovereign not because she's the Queen of England but because she's the Queen of Canada. Technically they're seperate and distinct titles that happen to be held by the same person.

I was a bit surprised when I learned of that awhile ago. Hence we have a Canadian Royal Family as well, that currently consists of the same members as the British one.

It's theoretically possible for us to have a different royal family then, and have someone else be King or Queen. But of course this would violate the Statute of Westminster, 1931 regarding the succession of the crown.

[Fanboy]

Of course we are, were all serfs in the greater British Empire.

Does Canada have to rename all provinces with "British" in front of them like "Columbia" to make it any more obvious? The coinage should have been hint enough.

The day that British Columbia is renamed to *just* Columbia is the day that I will consider the idea that Canada has some semblance of control over its own destiny (independance).

Heck, might as well call Saskatechwan the Chinese Republic of Saskatechwan, or something like French Quebec, sort of like French Guyana.

:rolleyes:

New York says "Hi".

[hagbard]

Actually the Queen does have distinct control over Canada in regionally definied and well drawn out land masses.

The Queens right (Crown Land ownership)

95% of land in Newfoundland, Labrador and Manitoba is Crown land.

94% of land in British Columbia is Crown land, 1% Native reserve, 5% private.



The property under our house in BC was owned by the Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay, not the crown. That's what it said on the documents and that's what our lawyer told us.

[YYZFA]

Of course we are, were all serfs in the greater British Empire.

Your logic totally confounds me. Just we have retained our ties ties and many British traditions to Britain does not make us part of an empire. That was true one day, but Canada is completely sovereign. Do you even know what the word "serf" means? If you did, you wouldn't try and use it to describe Canadians' relationship with the monarchy.


Does Canada have to rename all provinces with "British" in front of them like "Columbia" to make it any more obvious? The coinage should have been hint enough.

The day that British Columbia is renamed to *just* Columbia is the day that I will consider the idea that Canada has some semblance of control over its own destiny (independance).

Heck, might as well call Saskatechwan the Chinese Republic of Saskatechwan, or something like French Quebec, sort of like French Guyana.

Dumb comment. British Columbia was a name chosen when it was a colony of Britain. This was in the past. Just because it is now part of an independent country (although maintaining ties to Britain through the Commonwealth), does not mean that a name change was necessary. That is like saying that Birmingham. Alabama or the New England States are part of the British Empire. Of course they are not, but they were once when those places were named.

Louisiana is full of places named after their former French masters, but you are not arguing that they should change their names or they'd become part of France again.

A significant difference between Canadian sovereignty and the course of the U.S. is that the Americans became independent suddenly and severed all ties to Britain. Canada chose another path, and gradually became more independent. Canada did not revolt against British rule, but rather mutually changed its relationship with Britain over time until it became completely independent as well. As others have said, the retention of the monarchy is based on historical ties. The Queen only has ceremonial power here (and anywhere), and this does not make us serfs part of an actual empire, even in theory.

[ronin893]

Dumb comment. British Columbia was a name chosen when it was a colony of Britain. This was in the past. Just because it is now part of an independent country (although maintaining ties to Britain through the Commonwealth), does not mean that a name change was necessary. That is like saying that Birmingham. Alabama or the New England States are part of the British Empire. Of course they are not, but they were once when those places were named.

Louisiana is full of places named after their former French masters, but you are not arguing that they should change their names or they'd become part of France again.
ZenOps probably thinks that Albuquerque is really Mexican.

[ZenOps]

Canada is Sovereign - Yes.

If by definition you mean that Canada has control over all of its own lawmaking decisions during peacetime - Yes.

Canada is not independant however. During wartime - martial law can and has been declared before. During WWII Japanese Canadians were all thrown in jail (interment camps) and their possesions taken and never compensated = because they were on the wrong side of the British.

There were some Italian and German like colonies who did the exact same to anyone who was British sympathetic. Tibet was probably taken over mainly because it was slightly German sympathetic.

It is possible that someday someone will write a true independance with sovereignty powers - but as a whole - Canada has enough trouble trying to keep Quebec from declaring sovereignty as a French language state seperated from the Queen as is right now. (Which goes all the way back to the 1713 Treaty of Utrect, when most of Eastern Canada was actually definitively owned by the French)

The USA is the "land of the free" Canada is most definitely not. "Screw A Free Tibet, Free Canada first!"

Why does the Royal family send Prince Harry (who will probably eventually become king) to Canada for schooling? Because its the safest British Imperium landmass on the entire planet.

[BornRuff]

Actually the Queen does have distinct control over Canada in regionally definied and well drawn out land masses.

The Queens right (Crown Land ownership)

95% of land in Newfoundland, Labrador and Manitoba is Crown land.

94% of land in British Columbia is Crown land, 1% Native reserve, 5% private.

~48% of land in New Brunswick is Crown land

~40% of land in Alberta is Crown land, the majority of the remainder is defined as under the jurisdiction of a local magistrate.

Overall, 89% of Canadas land mass is defined as Crown Land. If you really want to go to the library and find it - there are maps with exact latitude and longitude boundaries.

By very definition "Crown" is control under monarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Krone_Kaiser_Rudolf_II_Kaisertum_%C3%96sterre ich.jpg

In Canada if you have a legal dispute, you usually go "up against the Crown" or a crown prosecutor, even for parking tickets. The gigantic British Crown right in front of most major provincial law buildings should also be pretty obvious.

Currency, Land, Law - What else is there?

First, all references to the "crown" are to the crown of the monarchy of Canada, not Britain. Since our government is all ceremonially centered around our monarchy, any reference to the crown essentially means the government, or the state.

You are way to focused on optics and you are ignoring how things actually work.

Crown land technically does belong to the Canadian Royal family, but they can not do anything with the land unless advised to do so by the cabinet. They also don't receive any money from the land, that all goes to the government.

If they have no control of the property, and receive no income from the property, what meaning does their title to the land really have?