CPC(M-L) HOMETML Daily ArchiveLe Marxiste-Léniniste quotidien

September 19, 2022 - No. 16

Funeral of the Queen and National Day of Mourning

What Exactly Is Canada Mourning?

• An Example of What Constitutional Monarchy Looks Like

• Will Students Be Expected to Stand For or Sing the
"Royal Anthem" -- "God Save the King" ?

• Parliamentary Convention Called "King's Consent" --
Corruption from the Top Down

• Emphasis on the "Stability of the Constitutional Order" 

• Stability for Whom and With What Aim?

• How Charles III Intends to "Modernize the Monarchy"

Letters to the Editor

• From Our Readers

For Your Information

The Proclamation of King Charles III, St. James Palace,
London, England - September 10, 2022

• Official Canadian Delegation Attending Queen's Funeral

• Transition of the Crown -- What Government of Canada
Says It Means for Canadians

• Monarchy of Canada -- What Wikipedia Has to Say

• Who Said What at September 15 Special Session of House of Commons
Called to Pay Homage to the Queen 

Funeral of the Queen and National Day of Mourning

What Exactly Is Canada Mourning?

The Marxist-Leninists and many others have put forward the demand for the non-succession of the monarchy in Canada and Quebec. They put forward the need for democratic renewal in which the people are empowered to decide on all matters that concern them, not a privileged elite which rules on their behalf to which they must submit without question. To take up this serious concern head on is to defend the human right to conscience which necessarily requires vesting sovereignty in the people.

The monarch is not merely symbolic, without meaning to our lives. When newcomers become Canadian citizens, they are required to take an oath to the "Queen of Canada." The same is true for members of Parliament and of the provincial legislatures and the Quebec National Assembly, for judges and all those whose job is "in the service of the Crown" and its institutions. Despite this, discussion on what the monarchy to which we swear allegiance represents does not take place. With all the pomp and pageantry surrounding the death of the Queen, her funeral and the dynastic succession to the throne of her eldest son Charles, it is important to participate in discussions which provide an understanding of what, exactly, Canada is mourning and celebrating at once.

All the talk from the elites and their media in praise of the Queen deserves attention because they erect an image with very definite characteristics said to espouse universal values which everyone supports. The case is made for the importance of the succession to continue a constitutional order which is presumably key to our future stability and happiness. It is not for nothing that those who represent factional party interests which are antagonistic and are used to divide the people are united as one when it comes to their praise for the Queen and the succession of the constitutional order. With one voice Trudeau, the Liberal, Poilievre, the Conservative and Jagmeet Singh, the New Democrat, speak to present the Queen as the person of state, who ensures the stability of the system because she represents the unity of the nation and is above partisan interests and does not interfere in political affairs. Is it true? What does it mean? What is the significance of the monarchy in Canada, in Quebec? For the Indigenous peoples? For the peoples of the world?

Only the victims of this constitutional order and enlightened forces not willing to set aside their conscience for career or other gain, speaking in their own name, are taking a dignified position on this matter. Only they are bringing forth the actual experience with this constitutional order which raises the need for democratic renewal so that sovereignty is vested in the people, not in the graven image of a fictitious person of state to which everyone is supposed to pay homage.

It is time now, more than ever, to explore the truth of what this monarchy represents. Already the truth about the colonial atrocities committed against the Indigenous peoples and those enslaved or massacred in the name of progress or used as cannon fodder to further the cause of the British Empire are becoming better known. In recent years, the genocidal violence against First Nations has been brought to the forefront as a result of the efforts of Indigenous peoples themselves, which led to the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the confirmation of genocide committed against them, including as a result of the residential school system. To this day, Canada's constitutional order continues to uphold the Doctrine of Discovery contained in papal bulls and used by the Queens and Kings of England to establish the constitutional order foisted on Canada through brutal acts of suppression of all those who have fought on the basis of their own right to be, traditions and thought material. All of it is said to be "legal" and immutable.

It is not for nothing that this constitutional order is based on a fictional person of state as the symbol of a national unity and universal values which deny the people's right to be. To claim today that the new monarch will champion reconciliation and a healthy social and natural environment as it is alleged Elizabeth II did in her lifetime -- which is patently untrue -- is not only a bad joke but one which cannot be hidden behind the veil of pomp, pageantry, wealth and privilege. On the contrary, the more this is on display, the more anachronistic it is seen to be.

The people who take dignified stands are pointing out that in "truth and reconciliation," the important thing is the truth. And no matter how hard they try, this truth can no longer be contained by ruling elites desperate to perpetuate their rule. To serve their interests they say that no matter the views people are entitled to have about the Queen or the monarchy, our future depends on defending Canada's constitutional order. When push comes to shove, this order shows its true essence by keeping redress for the crimes the state commits and condones against the people every day out of their reach.

Nonetheless, as the people speak out about their own experience, the heavy chain the constitutional order forces them to carry around their necks will be lifted.

Haut de page

An Example of What Constitutional Monarchy
Looks Like

The opposition of the Ontario Minister of Education to the just stand of the York District School Board (YRDSB) instructing the teachers and educators in its jurisdiction on how to address the significance of Queen Elizabeth II on the occasion of her death,  is a good example of what the constitutional order that prevails in Canada looks like. 

On September 9, the YRDSB, Ontario’s third largest public school board, issued a memo to its teachers providing guidance to educators on how to address the death of the Queen in the schools under its jurisdiction. The memo stated “[w]e request that school staff please refrain from developing tributes or activities to memorialize the death of the Queen, as well as displaying objects associated with the Queen for the purposes of memorializing. For some, the death of the Queen is very triggering.”

Schools were also asked not to play “God Save the Queen” or to livestream events related to the funeral and to offer students a neutral space “to have a break from potentially triggering media exposure.”  

In response, Minister of Education Stephen Lecce used his prerogative powers as Minister of the Crown, to whom he has sworn allegiance, to direct the school board and by extension its teachers to “honour the queen on the date of her funeral (Monday September 19).”

Making it clear this directive is for all school boards in the province, he said: “We have made clear our direction that all schools are to recognize the profound impact of Queen Elizabeth II’s lifelong and unwavering devotion to public service.”

“I have directed this board [YRDSB] to implement the province’s expectation, honour the Queen on the date of her funeral, and enrich students with a strong understanding of the values and enduring legacy of Canada’s constitutional democracy.”  

A government spokesperson said Minister Lecce also spoke to all school board chairs, directors and board leaders and shared an expectation that “all schools participate in the moment of silence.”

The clash between the values of the vast majority of Canadians and those of the ruling class that are said to be "Canadian values" to which everyone must swear allegiance, is growing by leaps and bounds. For the teachers and educators, protecting the well-being of the students, and teachers and educators, is a fundamental duty. To be directed to sing hosannas to the symbol of the enslavement, oppression and even genocide of millions the world over is to deny the right of the entire population to their conscience. Primary and secondary students  are particularly sensitive to the stories they are now well aware of related to the residential schools, slavery, suppression of the rebellions of the people of Québec against British rule, of the people of Ontario against British rule, of the Métis, of the brutal acts of war and covert police actions in Ireland and the countries of Africa and Asia and the Caribbean and so on. For many, the thought of having a King “rule over them” is anathema. This is what the constitutional order in Canada is all about.

Large numbers of youth participated in actions condemning the genocidal treatment of Indigenous children in residential schools. Above action July 1, 2021 in Toronto.

Ontario has not declared September 19 as a holiday for schools and other workplaces but has instead declared it a provincial day of mourning along with a moment of silence at 1 p.m.  This means that many parents will be permitting their kids to stay seated, or leave the room or simply not go to school that day. This is just the beginning of the constitutional crisis the ruling class faces going forward if they persist in dictating what conscience the people can or cannot have.

(Empower Yourself Now with files from Global News)

Haut de page

Will Students Be Expected to Stand For or Sing
the "Royal Anthem" -- "God Save the King" ?

"God Save the King/Queen" is the de facto national anthem of the United Kingdom. It is also one of two national anthems used by New Zealand since 1977, as well as by several of the UK's territories that have their own additional local anthem. It is also the royal anthem -- played specifically in the presence of the monarch -- of the aforementioned countries, in addition to Australia (since 1984), Canada (since 1980), Belize (since 1981), Antigua and Barbuda (since 1981), The Bahamas (since 1973), and most other so-called realms of the Commonwealth.

The lyrics of the standard version used in the United Kingdom of the Royal Anthem are as follows:

God save our gracious King!
Long live our noble King!
God save the King!
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the King!

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter his enemies,
And make them fall:
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix:
God save us all.

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On him be pleased to pour;
Long may he reign:
May he defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the King!

Then there is a special Canadian verse in English that was once commonly sung, in addition to the two standing verses:

Our loved Dominion bless
With peace and happiness
From shore to shore;
And let our Empire be
Loyal, united, free,
True to herself and Thee
For evermore.

Is this what the government of Canada is saying Canadian children should stand for or even sing? One thing is certain: they will be wanting to know why they should do such a thing.

(Empower Yourself Now with files from Wikipedia)

Haut de page

Parliamentary Convention Called "King's Consent" -- Corruption from the Top Down

Manchester, England, September 10, 2022.

Bills affecting the royal prerogative and the personal property and "personal interests" of the monarch require what is called "King's Consent." In Canada it is typically expressed by what is called a "Minister of the Canadian Crown." It is a "Parliamentary Convention" which exposes how blatantly the Royals can intervene to introduce or block legislation according to their personal private interests.

The website of the royal family describes consent as "a long established convention." This conventions means that "in the United Kingdom, as well as bills that affect the prerogative, bills affecting the hereditary revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall require King's Consent. Bills affecting the latter also require Prince's Consent from the Prince of Wales in his capacity as Duke of Cornwall. In certain circumstances, such as for the House of Lords Act 1999, the consent of the Prince of Wales, in his capacity as Earl of Chester or Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, must also be obtained where a bill affects his interests. In 1993, both Queen's Consent and Prince's Consent were required in respect of the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 that enabled the ordination of women in the Church of England."

According to the explanation it is all very proper. "Consent is usually signified in one (in unicameral legislatures) or both houses (in bicameral legislatures) of parliament, at either the second or third reading, by a privy counsellor and is recorded in Hansard. Where proposed legislation which might affect the royal prerogative or the private interests of the crown is sponsored by the cabinet (as is the case for most bills considered by parliament), the department sponsoring the bill must write to the palace giving as much time as possible, but never less than 14 days before the bill is introduced to parliament. In the Scottish parliament, consent is signified by a member of the Scottish government. In the Canadian parliament, Royal Consent can be signified in only one legislative chamber. In the UK Parliament consent is signified using the following wording (with similar wording for Prince's Consent):

"I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the [name of bill], has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Measure."

If consent is required but not signified, a bill may make no further progress through parliament. If a bill is mistakenly allowed to progress even though the required consent was not signified and the error is discovered before royal assent has been given, the proceedings may later be declared void. Where a bill requires the consent of the Prince and Steward of Scotland or the Duke of Rothesay, the Scottish parliament cannot debate any question whether the bill be passed or approved unless such consent to those provisions has been signified by a member of the Scottish executive. Once a bill has passed parliament and received royal assent, it is regarded as legally valid by the courts, regardless of any deficiency in parliamentary procedure, in accordance with the usual principles of parliamentary privilege.

The entire thing is a fraud because it is a process whereby bills can be changed before they are tabled in the parliament in the first place. The Guardian newspaper reported in February 2021 that memos had been found in the U.K. National Archives revealing that the advance notice of forthcoming bills allows the monarch to lobby for legislative changes without actual consent being invoked. The documents were reviewed by Thomas Adams, a specialist in constitutional law at Oxford University, who said they revealed "the kind of influence over legislation that lobbyists would only dream of." The existence of the consent procedure appeared to have given the monarch "substantial influence" over draft laws that could affect her, Adams said.

As of 2021, over 1,000 bills had been submitted to the Queen or Prince Charles for Queen's or Prince's Consent. More than 50,000 people had, by February 28, 2021, signed a petition requesting a parliamentary inquiry into the convention of Queen's Consent. Buckingham Palace responded to The Guardian, with typical double speak which avoids answering the question. The Palace stated that consent was always granted when requested and that legislation was never blocked.

The facts The Guardian presented show that Buckingham Palace is known to have requested changes to draft legislation in some cases; it is not known how many. In 1973, when a companies bill incorporating transparency measures was to be introduced in the UK parliament, after receiving advance notice as required by the consent procedure, the Queen's lawyer and the trade department agreed an exception for heads of state. This allowed the Queen to avoid the embarrassment of disclosure of beneficial ownership of shares by the Crown until at least 2011. Consent was not required for the bill, as eventually introduced.

The Guardian revealed that Prince Charles had used Prince's Consent to have proposed legislation changed so that his Duchy of Cornwall leasehold tenants would not have the right to buy their homes that was provided by what later became the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

Prime Minister John Major is said to have expressed his "particular concern" about this aspect. The government did not wish to grant this exception, fearing that it would create a precedent for other major landowners, but ultimately, reluctantly, included the special exemption to avoid what a Whitehall official described as "a major row with the Prince of Wales," saying "the will of ministers can prevail over that of monarchy but a constitutional crisis would add a further dimension of controversy to the bill which would be better avoided."

It was reported in July 2021 that the advance notice provided by the consent procedure was used in the Scottish Parliament in 2021 to arrange for draft legislation to be modified so that the Queen, one of the largest landowners in Scotland, would become the only person in the country not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy. The Scottish government did not disclose the intervention of the Queen's lawyer when the energy minister added the exemption to the green energy bill, key legislation to combat the climate emergency. It is not known why the Queen's lawyer wanted the bill change, The Guardian wrote.

Since its creation in 1999, the Scottish Parliament has given the Queen advance notice of at least 67 parliamentary bills deemed to affect her. It is not known how many were consequently changed. The Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie asked the Scottish government in a parliamentary question for a list of acts amended as a result of exchanges with the Queen's representatives. The Scottish government ultimately refused to answer the question, but confidential briefing notes were later disclosed which said that it was almost certain that some bills had been changed before introduction, but that as they had not been "amended" in parliamentary terms they would not have been included.

In response to these reports about consent in Scotland, Buckingham Palace said: "The royal household can be consulted on bills in order to ensure the technical accuracy and consistency of the application of the bill to the crown, a complex legal principle governed by statute and common law. This process does not change the nature of any such bill."

In 1999, the Queen, acting on ministerial advice, refused to signify her consent to parliament debating the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill. This was a private member's bill which sought to transfer from government (strictly speaking, the monarch acting on ministerial advice) to parliament the power to authorize military strikes against Iraq. This prevented the bill from being debated. In 1988, the Palace of Westminster (Removal of Crown Immunity) Bill could not be debated in the parliament because Queen's Consent was withheld, as with the Reform of the House of Lords Bill in 1990.

(UK National Archives, Wikipedia, The Guardian, House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee (2014). The impact of Queen's and Prince's Consent on the legislative process: Eleventh Report of Session 2013-14 (PDF) (Report). The Stationery Office, The House of Commons)

Haut de page

Emphasis on the "Stability of the
Constitutional Order"

Demonstration outside Cardiff Castle on the occasion of King Charles III's visit, September 16, 2022, renounces the monarchy and declares Wales doesn't need a prince.

The constant message fed by "King Charles III" and all his courtiers, including first and foremost the BBC, is that throughout her long reign the Queen helped maintain social "stability" and ensured "continuity" of rule. Similarly, it is the central message delivered by Charles about his own "reign."

The essence of the "King's Declaration" delivered on September 10 to the 700 or so Privy Councillors after the official "Proclamation of King Charles III" is:

"I shall strive to follow the inspiring example I have been set in upholding constitutional government and to seek the peace, harmony and prosperity of the peoples of these Islands and of the Commonwealth Realms and Territories throughout the world."

He speaks of "the irreparable loss" that "the whole world" has suffered.

Prior to this, in his "Inaugural Address" delivered from Balmoral Castle in Scotland on September 9, the day after the Queen died, "King" Charles tells us that "in her life of service we saw that abiding love of tradition, together with that fearless embrace of progress, which make us great as Nations.

"[...]In the course of the last 70 years we have seen our society become one of many cultures and many faiths. The institutions of the State have changed in turn. But, through all changes and challenges, our nation and the wider family of Realms -- of whose talents, traditions and achievements I am so inexpressibly proud -- have prospered and flourished. Our values have remained, and must remain, constant.

"The role and the duties of Monarchy also remain, as does the Sovereign's particular relationship and responsibility toward the Church of England -- the Church in which my own faith is so deeply rooted. In that faith, and the values it inspires, I have been brought up to cherish a sense of duty to others, and to hold in the greatest respect the precious traditions, freedoms and responsibilities of our unique history and our system of parliamentary government.

"... I too now solemnly pledge myself, throughout the remaining time God grants me, to uphold the Constitutional principles at the heart of our nation. And wherever you may live in the United Kingdom, or in the Realms and territories across the world, and whatever may be your background or beliefs, I shall endeavour to serve you with loyalty, respect and love, as I have throughout my life."

The promotion of the "younger Royals" allegedly leading "national conversations" is another show of hubris which comes with entitlement. Charles said:

"[...] our new Prince and Princess of Wales will, I know, continue to inspire and lead our national conversations, helping to bring the marginal to the centre ground where vital help can be given.

About the significance of the funeral, he once again emphasizes empire. He says, "[...] In a little over a week's time we will come together as a nation, as a Commonwealth and indeed a global community, to lay my beloved mother to rest. In our sorrow, let us remember and draw strength from the light of her example."

Haut de page

Stability for Whom and With What Aim?

We are told the hereditary passing of immense power and privilege from god-appointed mother to son to "reign over us" is a fait accompli, a matter of "stability" in a changing world. Stability for whom we must ask, and with what aim?

Can we say that there has been stability for the working people and the oppressed of the world, or of the Commonwealth countries or of Britain or Canada because of such anachronistic institutions and arrangements? What about all the countries and peoples that have been the victims of British rule and forms of governance called "peace, order and good government?"

Peace signified the brutal suppression of the struggles of the colonized peoples for independence. "Order" meant the establishment of the system of courts, police, and prisons to keep the working people in check and to deal with political and economic rivals. "Good government" refers to the system of party rule and elections that make sure the people are divided and cannot formulate and implement a nation-building agenda of their own that favours them, not the rich and their rule.

Has this "constitutional order" brought stability for the people? Of course not. Even the rich and the rulers bemoan the fact every day that everything is out of their control. No matter what dictates they issue to force people to submit to them and to control the productive forces, the productive powers are growing exponentially and have broken the bounds of anyone's control.


Haut de page

How Charles III Intends to "Modernize
the Monarchy"

An example of how King Charles intends to implement his desire to "modernize the monarchy" can be seen in the statement that the relationship between the Indigenous peoples and the Crown will remain intact. 

The fact is that a federal day of mourning has been declared for the Queen when she is being buried but no such day was declared to mourn the missing children sent to residential schools when the first set of unmarked graves were uncovered in May 2021. Instead, it was the people who took their own measures to have public mourning ceremonies and vigils. This goes to the heart of the matter of the kind of relations that exist between the Crown and the Indigenous peoples.

It is also an example of how the death of the Queen and the ascension of Charles to the throne are used to cover up all the historical crimes of the rule of the monarchy and divert from the need to renew the constitutional order by replacing it with a Constitution adopted by the people that vests the sovereign decision-making power in their hands, not those of a ruling elite.

It is high time the colonial relations with the monarchy and the undemocratic constitutional order and institutions are ended. The constitutional order based on the monarchy and the Westminster system of rule has split society in two -- the wealthy, privileged and degenerate element has set itself up to rule over the whole of society. This is nothing worthy of praise.

(Empower Yourself Now)

Haut de page

Letters to the Editor

From Our Readers

We have our own experience with this constitutional monarchy and we must defend the honour and memory of all those who asserted their right to be and their right of conscience by refusing to submit to the arbitrary power of the crown and the mounted police of "his majesty." We are the patriots of Lower and Upper Canada hung and sent into exile for attempting a nation-building project based on the equality of all. We are Louis Riel, the Métis, and Indigenous peoples who fought for our right to be against the violence of the propertied interests represented by the Crown. We are the Chinese and East Indians denied equal rights because the constitutional order decides who is legitimate and who is not. We are the young men who refused to fight for the British Empire in the First World War and whose demonstrations were suppressed by armed force, as were our strikes for the right to live and work in dignity. So too are we the Slavs, Irish, Portuguese, Greeks, Italians, Africans, Arabs, Latin American and Caribbean peoples and all others who are subject to assimilation or integration to prove their worth. We are the patriotic intellectuals and workers of Quebec and Canada who opposed the War Measures Act and all those who oppose state-organized racist attacks, human trafficking and the wars of aggression waged to impose this constitutional order on the peoples of the world. We are the working class of Canada and Quebec which clearly states that our future lies in the defence of the rights of all. The workings of the constitutional order based on racism and privilege are under fire by all those who fight for life itself by taking up the responsibility to humanize the natural and social environment in a manner which favours the people, not the rich.

- Reader in the Outaouais

Canadians are told that unlike the Caribbean countries that are breaking away from monarchy and establishing republics, Canada will not be able to do so because the Canadian constitution would make such an amendment virtually impossible. It is clear that if a constitution denies the ability of the people to have a say in anything, then the only thing to do is to develop a modern one of our own that affirms that the time of monarchs and royal privileges and prerogatives must give way to the people as decision-makers on matters that affect them.

- Reader in Vancouver

The death of the Queen and ascension to the Throne of England of a new monarch provides a historic opportunity to advocate the non-succession of the monarchy in Quebec. It opens the way for changes and democratic renewal that are needed. It is a renewed affirmation of our right to be that will define our identity in change. Getting rid of the current constitutional order with a foreign monarch as head of state will remove a heavy weight on society which blocks change. The institution of the monarchy is a straitjacket that has no place in a modern Canada or Quebec.

- Reader in Sherbrooke, Quebec

Haut de page

For Your Information

The Proclamation of King Charles III, St. James Palace, London, England -- September 10, 2022

Whereas it has pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy our late Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second of Blessed and Glorious Memory, by whose Decease the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is solely and rightfully come to The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George: We, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm and Members of the House of Commons, together with other members of Her late Majesty's Privy Council and representatives of the Realms and Territories, Aldermen and Citizens of London, and others, do now hereby with one voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart publish and proclaim that The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George is now, by the Death of our late Sovereign of Happy Memory, become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lord Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to whom we do acknowledge all Faith and Obedience with humble Affection; beseeching God by whom Kings and Queens do reign to bless His Majesty with long and happy Years to reign over us.

Given at St. James's Palace this tenth day of September in the year of Our Lord two thousand and twenty-two.


Haut de page

Official Canadian Delegation Attending
Queen's Funeral

The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) provides the following list of who is attending the Funeral of Queen Elizabeth II on September 19, 2022.

- Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau

- Governor General Mary Simon and her husband, Whit Fraser

- Former Governors General Michaëlle Jean and David Johnston

- Former Prime Ministers Kim Campbell, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper

- Assembly of First Nations National Chief RoseAnne Archibald, President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami Natan Obed and President of the Métis National Council Cassidy Caron

- Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet and former High Commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Janice Charette

- High Commissioner for Canada to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ralph Goodale.

The PMO informs that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and representatives of regiments of the Canadian Armed Forces join uniformed personnel from other Commonwealth countries in the procession as do members of the Order of Canada Mark Tewksbury, Gregory Charles and Sandra Oh, and Cross of Valour recipient Leslie Arthur Palmer who will participate in a procession of recipients of national honours.

The PMO also announces that a national commemorative ceremony is being held at Christ Church Cathedral, the Anglican cathedral in Ottawa, attended by former Prime Ministers Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark. It says all Members of Parliament have been invited and that the ceremony is being broadcast live "for everyone to watch."

Haut de page

Transition of the Crown -- What Government of Canada Says It Means for Canadians

The following information is the sum total of what the Government of Canada released on September 12 to explain the meaning to Canadians of the death of the Queen.


The accession is the moment when a new Sovereign assumes the throne upon the death of the previous King or Queen. The King automatically became Sovereign of Canada on the passing of Queen Elizabeth II. Members of The Queen's Privy Council for Canada assembled to proclaim the accession of the new Sovereign.

The accession event in Canada was held at Rideau Hall on Saturday, September 10, 2022. The proclamation was issued on the authority of an order in council to announce the demise of the Crown and the accession to the throne of the new Sovereign.

"Whereas our late Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth the Second, passed away on September 8, 2022, by whose death the Crown of Canada vests in His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George;

"We, the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, assisted by His Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, proclaim that His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George is now, by the death of our late Sovereign, Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to whom we acknowledge faith and allegiance.

"Given at Ottawa, this tenth day of September, two thousand and twenty-two.

"Long Live the King"

- Proclamation read by Dr. Samy Khalid, Chief Herald of Canada, Ottawa, September 10, 2022

Canadian currency, passports, and official documents

Canadian currency that bears the image of Her Majesty remains legal tender and can still be used. This is also the case with passports and other official documents.


People who have sworn allegiance to Her Majesty do not need to swear allegiance to the new Sovereign.

Honorary positions and military appointments

Her Majesty's honorary positions and military appointments do not automatically transfer to the new Sovereign.

The Governor General of Canada and the lieutenant governors remain in office.

The Governor General and the ten lieutenant governors represent the Crown in Canada and act on behalf of the Sovereign, Canada's Head of State.

Constitutional monarchy

As per the terms of the Canadian Constitution, Canada will continue to be a constitutional monarchy.

Haut de page

Monarchy of Canada -- What Wikipedia Has to Say

While the Wikipedia description of the Monarchy of Canada seems accurate enough, what does it even mean when it comes to the claim that we elect our representatives and thus have a representative democracy but the people who represent us owe their allegiance to the monarch? The Wikipedia explanation puts it this way:

"While the power for these acts (of the executive) stems from the Canadian people through the constitutional conventions of democracy, executive authority remains vested in the Crown and is only entrusted by the sovereign to the government on behalf of the people. This underlines the Crown's role in safeguarding the rights, freedoms, and democratic system of government of Canadians, reinforcing the fact that 'governments are the servants of the people and not the reverse.'"

Wikipedia reads:

"The monarchy of Canada is Canada's form of government embodied by the Canadian sovereign and head of state. It is at the core of Canada's constitutional federal structure and Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. The monarchy is the foundation of the executive (King-in-Council), legislative (King-in-Parliament), and judicial (King-on-the-Bench) branches of both federal and provincial jurisdictions. The king of Canada is Charles III.

"Although the person of the sovereign is shared with 14 other independent countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, each country's monarchy is separate and legally distinct. As a result, the current monarch is officially titled King of Canada and, in this capacity, he and other members of the royal family undertake public and private functions domestically and abroad as representatives of Canada. However, the King is the only member of the royal family with any constitutional role. While some powers are exercisable only by the sovereign, most of the monarch's operational and ceremonial duties (such as summoning the House of Commons and accrediting ambassadors) are exercised by their representative, the governor general of Canada. In Canada's provinces, the monarch in right of each is represented by a lieutenant governor. As territories fall under the federal jurisdiction, they each have a commissioner, rather than a lieutenant governor, who represents the federal Crown-in-Council directly.

"As all executive authority is vested in the sovereign, royal assent is required to allow for bills to become law and for letters patent and orders in council to have legal effect. While the power for these acts stems from the Canadian people through the constitutional conventions of democracy, executive authority remains vested in the Crown and is only entrusted by the sovereign to the government on behalf of the people. This underlines the Crown's role in safeguarding the rights, freedoms, and democratic system of government of Canadians, reinforcing the fact that 'governments are the servants of the people and not the reverse.' Thus, within Canada's constitutional monarchy the sovereign's direct participation in any of these areas of governance is normally limited, with the sovereign typically exercising executive authority only with the advice and consent of the Cabinet of Canada, and the sovereign's legislative and judicial responsibilities largely carried out through the Parliament of Canada as well as judges and justices of the peace. However, there are cases where the sovereign or their representative would have a duty to act directly and independently under the doctrine of necessity to prevent genuinely unconstitutional acts."

To grasp what this is all about, let us see what the "doctrine of necessity" is about. From the vantage point of the working people of Canada and Quebec and the Indigenous peoples, Inuit and Métis, this "doctrine" is vile. Furthermore, it is not an exception but the rule. It reveals the essence  and aim of Canada's constitutional order.  At a time when laws are frequently passed which permit the unfettered use of the executive powers and everything has become a permanent state of exception, government of police powers has become the new normal.

About the "doctrine of necessity," Wikipedia explains the following:

"The doctrine of necessity is the basis on which extra-constitutional actions by administrative authority, which are designed to restore order or attain power on the pretext of stability, are considered to be lawful even if such an action contravenes established constitution, laws, norms, or conventions. The maxim on which the doctrine is based originated in the writings of the medieval jurist Henry de Bracton, and similar justifications for this kind of extra-legal action have been advanced by more recent legal authorities, including William Blackstone."

Bracton, aka Henry Bretton lived from 1210 to 1268 so he was definitely addressing medieval concerns and the struggles for power under those conditions. The "more recent" legal authority, William Blackstone, was not so recent either, having lived from 1723 to 1780. He wrote the famous four volume opus titled Commentaries on the Laws of England which continues to be the most influential treatise on English Common Law. Besides English Common Law being imported in toto into Canadian law when the British North America Act was imposed on Canada in 1867, all of which remained in force in the patriated version in 1982, it also guided the writers of the American Constitution which explains why, even though the U.S. is a republic, not a monarchy, the system of government and rule is also based on prerogative powers which direct the presidential, legislative and judicial orders of government.

According to Wikipedia, thanks to the way the monarchy works, "the Crown primarily functions as a guarantor of continuous and stable governance and a nonpartisan safeguard against abuse of power. The sovereign acts as a custodian of the Crown's democratic powers and a representation of the "power of the people above government and political parties."

The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada urges its readers to convoke study groups which delve into what the monarchy is in Canada and the essence of the constitutional order it enforces. An understanding of who controls the decision-making process in a country and how the decision-making power is exercised is key when the working class and people from all walks of life provide themselves with suitable guides to action when seeking justice and redress.

The Party Press will also continue to provide pertinent information on this matter. The Wikipedia entry "Monarchy in Canada" is not a bad place to start along with the expressions of the experiences and statements from all sides of the political spectrum. Not surprisingly, the Wikipedia explanation does not provide answers to the pertinent questions when inquiring about monarchy in Canada. Those answers will come from those posing the pertinent questions when they seek solutions to the problems they face as individuals, collectives and members of society. Most importantly, the answers will be understood by all the human persons who are keen on uniting in action with all others to humanize the natural and social environment in favour of the peoples of the world.

Haut de page

Who Said What at September 15 Special Session
of House of Commons Called to Pay Homage
to the Queen

The report carried by the National Post on the Special Session of the House of Commons convoked on September 15 to pay homage to the Queen reads:

"MPs in Ottawa paid tribute to her late majesty Queen Elizabeth II on September 15, but at least one party leader argued it's time Canadians have a discussion about moving past the monarchy. Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet paid condolences to the Queen's family, but said his MPs would not take part in the tributes, noting Quebec's history with the monarchy was 'thorny and cruel.'

"Bloc Québécois MPs stayed through the leader's speeches and a moment of silence, but left shortly after as the House passed a motion offering condolences and support for King Charles' ascension to the throne. Outside the chamber Blanchet said the monarchy is an anachronism and it is time to consider something different.

"'Let's arrive in the 21st century and see that any power which is supposedly based on divine right, which has so much influence and is so terribly expensive, might be considered as something of the past,' he said."

Good for the Bloc Québécois for taking a dignified position which represents the interests of the Quebec people and nation.

Blanchet's formal statement at the September 15 session follows:

"Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, its elected officials, members and staff, I would simply like to express my condolences to anyone who is grieving the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

"We, as nationalists and sovereignists, do this only after much deliberation amongst ourselves. Everyone's feelings should be considered through a historical lens. The history between the British Crown and the Quebec nation is full of dark and sometimes even cruel times. Our history and values irrevocably separate us.

"However, respect must come first, and so we have a duty to distinguish between the person's institution and policies and sincere grief. It is therefore with no ulterior motives that we express our deepest condolences to the people of England who are grieving.

"I think members will understand when, after the leaders have given their messages of condolences and we have observed a minute of silence here in the House, the members of the Bloc Québécois withdraw from the chamber and allow Canadian MPs to continue their tributes.

"I invite all members to later reflect on this situation. In the meantime, our thoughts are with those who are mourning the loss of someone who was a prominent figure over the past three-quarters of a century."

What the Other Party Leaders Had to Say

Prime Minister Trudeau: "Many words have been used to describe the qualities that mark the legacy of her majesty, words like duty, service, devotion and stability." "For her majesty, public service was her entire life. Right up until the very end. She had an unflinching, enduring commitment to service and to building a better world and a better future."

"Today the world is in a tough place," Trudeau said. "We're all reeling from an unprecedented global pandemic. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's brutal and unjustifiable war is threatening global stability. Around the globe, democratic institutions are being challenged.

"But Canadians can rightly be proud of living in one of the strongest democracies in the world. Our institutions are healthy, our debates are robust. It is this very strength and stability, represented by the Crown and embodied by the Queen, that Canadians have always benefited from."

Leader of the Loyal Opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada Pierre Poilievre: "The separation of symbolic authority from political power allows partisan politics to be contested fearlessly without threatening the enduring constitutional order." He added, "The Crown preserves parliamentary democracy and the commoners practice it, as we do here in this place."

Poilievre said that while the Queen had a special place in many Canadians' hearts, Canada also had a special place in hers because she visited this country more than any other.

"When the Queen spoke at the patriation of our Constitution in 1982 she said, 'The genius of Canadian federalism lies in our consistent ability to overcome differences through reason and compromise,'" he said.

"That ability is reflected in the willingness of ordinary people of French-speaking and English-speaking Canada and of all regions to respect each other's rights and to create the conditions together under which all may prosper in freedom."

Jagmeet Singh: "She reminded us that we will get through the challenge and the pain of not being able to see loved ones. She asked us to greet the tough times with optimism," he said.

Before the session began Singh said there will be a time to have a discussion about the future of the monarchy. In Parliament he called on the new King to address the impacts of colonization and to respond to the challenges of reconciliation.

"I hope that he will meet the challenge of reconciliation that has been laid out by First Nations leaders," Jagmeet Singh said.

Haut de page

(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)



Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  office@cpcml.ca