[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Basically what the Federal Liberal party did for many years to Quebec.

Your solution is that the Feds should do all the things you think are wrong?

If the Feds decide they should intervene in Quebec's politics, I don't see why they would shun from doing it in other provinces.  Unless you are saying there is something very special about Quebec that requires the kind of interventions the other provinces do not need?

[Malthus]

If the Feds decide they should intervene in Quebec's politics, I don't see why they would shun from doing it in other provinces.  Unless you are saying there is something very special about Quebec that requires the kind of interventions the other provinces do not need?

Quebec's government is in the habit of doing  stuff contrary to the Charter - indeed, it's doing more of it right now!  Invoking the "notwithstanding" clause to ban women wearing hijabs from working in 'responsible' positions:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-quebec-tables-legislation-on-religious-symbols-ban-includes/

[HVC]

Snc-lavalin had threatened the government with a move to the USA.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/snc-lavalin-blasts-leak-of-plan-b-that-warned-of-u-s-move-1.1236436

[crazy canuck]

If the Feds decide they should intervene in Quebec's politics, I don't see why they would shun from doing it in other provinces.  Unless you are saying there is something very special about Quebec that requires the kind of interventions the other provinces do not need?

Quebec's government is in the habit of doing  stuff contrary to the Charter - indeed, it's doing more of it right now!  Invoking the "notwithstanding" clause to ban women wearing hijabs from working in 'responsible' positions:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-quebec-tables-legislation-on-religious-symbols-ban-includes/

The Charter includes the notwithstanding clause.  But it is fashionable these days to ignore that.

[viper37]

If the Feds decide they should intervene in Quebec's politics, I don't see why they would shun from doing it in other provinces.  Unless you are saying there is something very special about Quebec that requires the kind of interventions the other provinces do not need?

Quebec's government is in the habit of doing  stuff contrary to the Charter - indeed, it's doing more of it right now!  Invoking the "notwithstanding" clause to ban women wearing hijabs from working in 'responsible' positions:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-quebec-tables-legislation-on-religious-symbols-ban-includes/

Not exactly, no.  It is banning all religious symbols from some responsible positions, certainly not just hijabs.  It is also removing the crucifix from the National Assembly.  No hijab, no kirpa, no cross, no nothing, except beards, hairs & tatoos.

I find the actual project going a tad too far for my tastes, and I wonder if the government isn't deliberatly over reaching so as to make concessions during the 2nd reading, concessions the Liberal Party and Quebec Solidaire would still not agree to, but that would make them look like the evil, despicable, anti Quebec distinct society they both truly are.

But that is beside the point.

If you guys did not want the notwithstanding clause, all you had to do was not put it there.  Or remove it today.  It's not like Quebec asked for it in exchange for signing the Constitution.  Something we have not done yet, btw.

I'm sure Trudeau would garner a lot of support in English Canada if he wanted to change the Constitution to remove that clause.  All united against the evilness of Quebec.  That would make a great rallying cry for the Globe&Mail.

It is not like Quebec has some miraculous veto right to prevent any change of the Constitution.

[viper37]

JWR released a recording of her conversation with Wernick indicating there was indeed inapropriate pressure on her.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5112044/jody-wilson-raybould-michael-wernick-secret-call-transcript/

She is really, really, really pissed at Trudeau.

[crazy canuck]

Actually, if you listen to it Wernick consistently says he only wants to explore what can be done legitimately.  My view of the former minister is significantly diminished by her act of recording that conversation.  If she was doing it with her AG hat on, there is a breach of ethics argument which could be made.

[PRC]

It is banning all religious symbols from some responsible positions, certainly not just hijabs.  It is also removing the crucifix from the National Assembly.  No hijab, no kirpa, no cross, no nothing, except beards, hairs & tatoos.

What about Turbans?

[Oexmelin]

Forbidden too.

The list of positions targeted by this bill is:

The President and Vice-Presidents of the National Assembly
The Minister of Justice
Police officers, wardens, constables.
Director of public prosecution
Officers of the court: Public prosecutors, clerks, sheriffs, judges of the peace
School principals
Commissioners of various administrative tribunals with coercive powers.

[viper37]

Police officers, wardens, constables.

The last two are a over the top.

Director of public prosecution
Officers of the court: Public prosecutors, clerks, sheriffs, judges of the peace

Unnecessary.  Judges are sufficient.

Commissioners of various administrative tribunals with coercive powers.

Not necessary for now.  Let's stick with Bouchard-Taylor + educators and see how it goes.

[viper37]

Actually, if you listen to it Wernick consistently says he only wants to explore what can be done legitimately.  My view of the former minister is significantly diminished by her act of recording that conversation.  If she was doing it with her AG hat on, there is a breach of ethics argument which could be made.

I'll admit it was very weird to record her colleague like that.

[Malthus]

If the Feds decide they should intervene in Quebec's politics, I don't see why they would shun from doing it in other provinces.  Unless you are saying there is something very special about Quebec that requires the kind of interventions the other provinces do not need?

Quebec's government is in the habit of doing  stuff contrary to the Charter - indeed, it's doing more of it right now!  Invoking the "notwithstanding" clause to ban women wearing hijabs from working in 'responsible' positions:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-quebec-tables-legislation-on-religious-symbols-ban-includes/

The Charter includes the notwithstanding clause.  But it is fashionable these days to ignore that.

And using it comes at a price, just as it was meant to, because it is a public acknowledgment that the government is deliberately breaching Charter values - something that no-one ignores these days, actually.

Hence the furor when Ford threatened to use it to get his way over legislating the size of Toronto's city council.

Look, no-one is claiming a province can't do this legally. They can. The issue is whether they should. 

[Malthus]

Not exactly, no.  It is banning all religious symbols from some responsible positions, certainly not just hijabs.  It is also removing the crucifix from the National Assembly.  No hijab, no kirpa, no cross, no nothing, except beards, hairs & tatoos.

I find the actual project going a tad too far for my tastes, and I wonder if the government isn't deliberatly over reaching so as to make concessions during the 2nd reading, concessions the Liberal Party and Quebec Solidaire would still not agree to, but that would make them look like the evil, despicable, anti Quebec distinct society they both truly are.

But that is beside the point.

If you guys did not want the notwithstanding clause, all you had to do was not put it there.  Or remove it today.  It's not like Quebec asked for it in exchange for signing the Constitution.  Something we have not done yet, btw.

I'm sure Trudeau would garner a lot of support in English Canada if he wanted to change the Constitution to remove that clause.  All united against the evilness of Quebec.  That would make a great rallying cry for the Globe&Mail.

It is not like Quebec has some miraculous veto right to prevent any change of the Constitution.

You forget it isn't only Quebec who is interested in that clause. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4438198/notwithstanding-clause-doug-ford-bill-5-toronto-city-council/

It isn't exactly a secret that the primary issue isn't kipahs or crosses ... 

[Grey Fox]

To pretend/think that using the notwithstanding clause is controversial or new is just another proof that the RoC is hypocrite & ignores Quebec.

[Malthus]

To pretend/think that using the notwithstanding clause is controversial or new is just another proof that the RoC is hypocrite & ignores Quebec.

It isn't new, use of it was always intended to be controversial - and some people will find "proof" of what they want to believe in anything.

https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201817E

The whole point was that its use was supposed to be restrained by the "unpopularity" of invoking it.

Constitutional expert Peter Hogg:

Presumably, the exercise of the power would normally attract such political opposition that it would rarely be invoked ... [T]he necessity of re-enactment every five years will force periodic reconsideration of each exercise of the override power, at intervals which (in some jurisdictions at least) will often yield a change of government. This reinforces the already powerful political safeguards against an ill-considered use of the power.

Gérard V. La Forest, then of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal and later of the Supreme Court of Canada:

My guess is that this provision will rarely be used. The political unpopularity of making declarations contrary to the Charter will militate against this.

... but of course our local Languish experts know better.