Canadian sovereignty

As such, Canada was affected by the conflicts in England in the 17th century, between monarch and parliament, over which was the ultimate authority, culminating in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights, 1689, which is today part of Canadian law.

With the enactment of the British North America Act, 1867, the modern polity of Canada was founded and was granted self-government.

[1] Charles III, King of Canada, as well as of the United Kingdom and 13 other Commonwealth realms, is the country's monarch and, as such, is the focus of the Oath of Allegiance taken by various government officials, civil servants, military members, and new citizens.

[10] This was later superseded by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (within the Constitution Act, 1982), which brought into Canada the American notion of the supremacy of the law.

[8] The Fathers of Confederation viewed this system of constitutional monarchy as a bulwark against any potential fracturing of the Canadian federation.

[1] Per the convention of sovereign immunity, the monarch, whether in his federal or provincial jurisdictions, is free from the scope of foreign courts.

A still burgeoning jurisprudence developed by the court, however, is the monarch's duty to consult with and accommodate First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, where their rights and interests may be at stake.

The five Arctic states—Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Norway, Russia, and the United States (via Alaska)—are limited to a 200-nautical-mile (370 km; 230 mi) economic zone around their coasts.

[28] Upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a country has a 10-year period to make claims to extend its 200-nautical-mile zone.

Canada has orchestrated certain events to assert its sovereignty in the Arctic area, such as when, in 1970, the federal Cabinet advised the Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II, along with her husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and two of her children, Prince Charles (now King Charles III) and Princess Anne, to tour Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk, in the Northwest Territories,[32][33] the latter being on the coast of the Northwest Passage.

[34] In 1969, the SS Manhattan, an American oil tanker, became the first commercial vessel to transit the passage, prompting much debate about Canada's claims to that body of water.

[43] The act was conceived of as a means by which the province would "no longer recognize [the federal Cabinet's and parliament's] claimed authority over provincial areas of constitutional sovereignty.

"[51] Various Alberta politicians opposed the act,[55] as did the chiefs representing Treaties 6, 7, and 8, pointing out that the Executive Council had not consulted with indigenous communities.

[56] Among potential constitutional challenges envisioned by law professors Martin Olszynski and Nigel Bankes is the "impermissible delegation of legislative authority"—the so-called "Henry VIII clause", which gives the provincial Crown-in-Council the power to amend laws without debate in the legislature[24]—and added that the bill was both "significant" and "unprecedented" in the way it intrudes into the jurisdiction of Canada's superior courts.

Any disputes would be settled by a "community council", composed of an equal number of ministers from each side and presided over, alternately, by a Canadian and a Quebecer.

Whereas the question in that referendum proposed to negotiate sovereignty-association with the Canadian Crown, the referendum in 1995 (which was defeated by a margin of 50.58 per cent "no" to 49.42 per cent "yes") proposed "sovereignty", along with an optional partnership offer to the rest of Canada, asking the question, "do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

The Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Bronwyn Eyre claimed the law would "help protect our economic growth and prosperity from intrusive federal policies that encroach upon our legislative sovereignty.

The Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations opposed the bill, stating the Executive Council failed in its duty to consult.