[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

I don't really want to debate the issue, I am just noting it was a bad idea then and it is still a bad idea.  But the thing I think we agree on is it is certainly a bad idea to do it though the back door.

[Grey Fox]

The federal government, no matter who's in government, blocks all kinds of ideas and policies for and from Québec. Not going to shed a tears when it happens to someone else.

Umm, they actually don't.

Don't get me wrong - the Federal Government has the power to do it.  It's called "disallowance".  The Federal government, if it wanted to, could have disallowed the entire laicite bill, or any other bill.  But they don't - it's seen as undemocratic.  Apparently the last time the power was used was in 1943 (against Alberta), but even by then it was rarely used.

I'm actually struggling to think of an example where the Federal government has blocked policies from Quebec.

But my side is not the side the Nazis are happy to see in power.

Grow up Francis.

I don't expect you to like Poilievre and the Conservatives, but they're not Nazis.  They don't plan to invade Poland, don't plan to round up Jews, don't plan to burn the Reichstag.

Pierre Poilievre is not a terrific dancer.

They are not but Nazis exist in Canada and they are happy to see the Conservatives in power.


Quebec's government regularly ask to be able to have more control over immigration  is but one example.

[Barrister]

They are not but Nazis exist in Canada and they are happy to see the Conservatives in power.

First of all they aren't happy.  They'd prefer to see Bernier and the PPC in power.  But yes - they like the Conservatives more than the Liberals.

But so what?  Lots of communists would prefer the Liberals to the Conservatives.  That doesn't make Trudeau a communist.

Quebec's government regularly ask to be able to have more control over immigration  is but one example.

They ask because immigration is a federal power.

[Sheilbh]

The idea was that if you then give the Senate democratic legitimacy the Senate then would be empowered to block legislation.

See Paul Keating saying he'd forbid a cabinet minister from the House of Representatives being hauled in front of the Senate (or as he put it the "unrepresentative swill over there")

I agree thought I think it's a big challenge with two chambers of equivalent democratic legitimacy, but different powers to avoid ultimately ending up in some sort of conflict.

It's funny though I think Italy's the only country in the world where both chambers have exactly the same powers and are both elected (on a slightly different basis, with a different suffrage). It causes a lot of problems in passing legislature because the government in the Chamber of Deputies often doesn't have a majority in the Senate. There was a proposal to basically end it as an elected chamber and move it to an appointed, less powerful chamber - but that was rejected in a referendum. On the other hand Ireland has a less powerful weirdly constituted Seanad (a mix of weird hangovers from British elections like university constituencies and corporatism). There was a proposal to reform it to make it more democratic and powerful That was also rejected in a referendum. I basically think most people, most of the time don't like constitutional noodling

[Zoupa]

The violation against minority religious rights are pretty blatant. 

 

Keep pushing, anglos. You'll make the embers of independance flare up like you always do.

[Valmy]

But so what?  Lots of communists would prefer the Liberals to the Conservatives.  That doesn't make Trudeau a communist.

Really? I always thought they preferred the NDP.

But maybe they just like the color red too much.

[crazy canuck]

The violation against minority religious rights are pretty blatant.

 

Keep pushing, anglos. You'll make the embers of independance flare up like you always do.

I can respect the argument that the breach of Charter rights is justified and that the Legislature in Quebec made the correct decision to make it clear that the Charter does not apply.

I cannot respect an argument which tries to pretend Charter rights are not being violated by that legislation.

[Barrister]

But so what?  Lots of communists would prefer the Liberals to the Conservatives.  That doesn't make Trudeau a communist.

Really? I always thought they preferred the NDP.

But maybe they just like the color red too much.

I chose my language carefully and stand by it.

[Barrister]

The violation against minority religious rights are pretty blatant.

 

Keep pushing, anglos. You'll make the embers of independance flare up like you always do.

So just to be clear:

I said Quebec was pretty blatantly violating minority religious rights.

Quebec used the notwithstanding clause.

I also said the SCC would be stupid to try and pretend the notwithstanding clause doesn't exist.

Yet that is somehow fanning the flames of separatism.   

[viper37]

Look. We had many chances to change the Constitution.  "It was never the right moment", "there was no appetite for this", "there was no need to change it for Quebec", so you kinda have to deal with the mess you guys have created.  You did not want change when it was time, so just deal with it.

It sucks because it's the Liberals, and it's likely to suck if a more right wing populist government does it in the future, but it's what we got.

There is no mess to clean up.  There are people trying to use the Constitution in ways that were never intended.

Naming Senators is a privilege of the Executive council.  The PM can name Senators whenever he wants to, especially when he sense he's going to be defeated.  Afaik, Brian Mulroney filled all vacancies he could in the Senate as did Trudeau before him, and Harper named as many Senators as he could.  I respect Harper because he didn't pick Senators strictly based on their ideological alignment

[crazy canuck]

Look. We had many chances to change the Constitution.  "It was never the right moment", "there was no appetite for this", "there was no need to change it for Quebec", so you kinda have to deal with the mess you guys have created.  You did not want change when it was time, so just deal with it.

It sucks because it's the Liberals, and it's likely to suck if a more right wing populist government does it in the future, but it's what we got.

There is no mess to clean up.  There are people trying to use the Constitution in ways that were never intended.

Naming Senators is a privilege of the Executive council.  The PM can name Senators whenever he wants to, especially when he sense he's going to be defeated.  Afaik, Brian Mulroney filled all vacancies he could in the Senate as did Trudeau before him, and Harper named as many Senators as he could.  I respect Harper because he didn't pick Senators strictly based on their ideological alignment

I agree with all of that. And the point you're not addressing is the point raised by BB that senators need to understand their role when they get appointed to the Senate.  There is a concern that the appointments that Trudeau has made have been far more partisan appointments, and in the past, and those senators appointed in the recent past have shown a tendency to act in a partisan way.

This is a troubling trend within our parliamentary democracy, because as discussed in this thread in the past, our Supreme Court of Canada has also become much more politicized. This is the first time in our history that we can point to more than one appointment on the bench that doesn't have an obvious record of judicial excellence to be deserving of the appointment.

More and more we become a faint shadow of the US political system without their constitutional framework.

I am even more concerned that these changes appear to be above the notice or understanding of the average voter and so of course we continue down the slide. This is not the sort of topic that is gonna show up on a social media post, Instagram reel or TikTok dance video.

[viper37]

To the last question, can the refuse to vote on a budget?  Theoretically, yes, I don't think anything could prevent it.  They are unlikely to do it though, unless there is something really eggregious about it.  They may resend the budget to the House, triggering a Constitutional crisis though, as I don't think it's been ever done, and it would delay the adoption of the credits by the House committee.

Strongly disagree.  Theoretically Senate should never prevent a budget bill from passing. That is the core Parliamentary power.  Senate can suggest Parliament consider the fine print on a finance bill, but never prevent its passing.

They can return a bill to the House for them to redraft.  And they can stall long enough for a bill to die during the session while they are studying it, so it is in their theoretical power.

The Salisbury convention has no force of law.  It can be disregarded like anything else should the Senators choose to.

[crazy canuck]

Much of what makes our parliamentary system work is based on norms. Once you start talking about the force of law in relation to those norms, the whole thing starts falling apart.

You only need to look a few miles south to see the effect of that.

[viper37]

I agree with all of that. And the point you're not addressing is the point raised by BB that senators need to understand their role when they get appointed to the Senate.  There is a concern that the appointments that Trudeau has made have been far more partisan appointments, and in the past, and those senators appointed in the recent past have shown a tendency to act in a partisan way.

This is a troubling trend within our parliamentary democracy, because as discussed in this thread in the past, our Supreme Court of Canada has also become much more politicized. This is the first time in our history that we can point to more than one appointment on the bench that doesn't have an obvious record of judicial excellence to be deserving of the appointment.

More and more we become a faint shadow of the US political system without their constitutional framework.

I am even more concerned that these changes appear to be above the notice or understanding of the average voter and so of course we continue down the slide. This is not the sort of topic that is gonna show up on a social media post, Instagram reel or TikTok dance video.

With regards to the Senate, the Constitution could have been changed and clarified, something English Canada steadfastly refused.  Deal with the mess you have.  You rely on "traditions" and "unspoken rules", this is what you get.

As for the Supreme Court, I can not say.  I have been very displeased by many of their rulings, especially in criminal law, but I lack the right knowledge to analyze their decisions.  I can not even say "they pass law from the bench" as they are kinda in agreement with the majority in the House of Commons, and the majority view in Canada in most cases.

[crazy canuck]

I'm happy to have a system, built on tradition and norms. Where that sort of system falls apart is when the general population is no longer educated to know those traditions and norm sufficiently to understand them now that they're changing right before their eyes.