Chiefs remind King Charles about his treaty obligations
Chiefs remind King Charles about his treaty obligations
www.nationalobserver.com
Chiefs remind King Charles about his treaty obligations
29 comments
-
As an outsider looking in this seems very weird. I guess the king of England is also technically the king of Canada, but I'm failing to see why that matters even if it's incredibly strange. I know in England the monarchy is almost entirely symbolic with nearly all the actual governing done by the PM and Parliament. I would assume Canada is the same. Does the monarchy have any actual power in Canada? I believe in England they have a (incredibly rarely used) veto power over parliament but that's it. Is Canada not the same?
-
There's no point in saying technically, he is the King of Canada. That being said the Crown is mostly symbolic like the UK, however symbols can be very powerful. By inviting the King to open Parliament, Carney is symbolically reminding Trump that Canada is much bigger than just one country. Likewise the Chiefs are reminding Canada, specifically Alberta, that the Crown holds the treaties, not Canada.
Basically this is like getting picked on in school then bringing your big brother to lunch. He doesn't have to do anything, the point is to remind your bullies you have some pretty strong support, and they should think again about continuing to bully you.
-
That's largely correct, and this demonstration is mostly symbolic as well.
The treaties with indigenous peoples of Canada are administered by an arm of the federal government, but the treaty agreements themselves are technically between the indigenous peoples and the crown, hence the address to King Charles.
-
That does raise an interesting question though. What would happen to those treaties if Canada decided to officially become fully independent of the crown? I don't think anything is really stopping that from happening other than there not really being a significant upside for Canada.
Also side question, is the king (and I guess the entire royal family) considered a citizen of Canada and all the other countries that apparently never really got their independence from England? That's got to be incredibly weird for someone marrying into the royal family. "Congratulations you married a royal, here's your new citizenship to a dozen different countries most of which you've probably never set foot in before".
-
-
The key piece of information is the treaties. Long story short: The treaties a were signed with "the Crown", the absolute power of Canada that still exists (it's just no longer controlled by the actual Kng but by the government) with the sovereign first nations.
This is a small distinction but it makes all the difference. The treaties supercede any other Canadian legislation because they are signed with the Crown itself, the representation of the full abstract authority of the government, so they outweigh (at least in theory) any other law that came after.
The chiefs are calling the King as a power move, they are reminding him and the Canadian bureaucrsts "your ancestors and descendants are bound by this deal, the power you represent is bound by this deal, it is not a negotiation"
Imagine pulling an email with the CEO while talking to a manager, this is what they are doing.
-
CC'ing the CEO when telling the manager: per my previous email
-
-
He has the power to dissolve parliament, same in Australia and NZ.
-
I believe in England they have a (incredibly rarely used) veto power over parliament but that's it.
The monarch has more power in the UK then you'd think, but a lot of it is not exercised because recent monarchs know it wouldn't sit right in a democracy.
I won't list all of the King's powers as others have already gone into more detail, but one I find interesting is the King's ability to call (or not call) an election. There is theoretically a precedent where the King is suppose to reject a prime minister's request for an election if there is still a functioning parliament. So in the present context, if Keir Starmer were to ask for an election today, the King is supposed to reject it on the basis that Keir Starmer has a strong majority, and still comfortably retains parliament's confidence. But if the King ever felt like he had to exercise this power, it would put him in a very uncomfortable position, and people would be willing to criticise him for whichever move he made, and then perhaps wonder why an unelected hereditary monarch is the one making this decision...
For more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
-
Your talking about royal assent, where a law needs the nod from the monarchy in order to be passed.
Its incredibly rare for this to be vetod it's never happened in Canada and last happened in the UK in 1999 regarding the Iraq war.
-
He is useless when we spend 60 millions every years for it
-
-
About time to burn down the Monarchy!
29 comments