[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Beeb: is there any money or other tangible benefit that comes with Indian status?

Tax exemption from any income when you live on a reservation.  Tax exemption from any alcohol and tobaco products bought on any reservations.

[Barrister]

Beeb: is there any money or other tangible benefit that comes with Indian status?

Tax exemption from any income when you live on a reservation.  Tax exemption from any alcohol and tobaco products bought on any reservations.

Tax exemption from income EARNED on reserve.  Where you live doesn't matter.

[crazy canuck]

Beeb: is there any money or other tangible benefit that comes with Indian status?

Tax exemption from any income when you live on a reservation.  Tax exemption from any alcohol and tobaco products bought on any reservations.

Tax exemption from income EARNED on reserve.  Where you live doesn't matter.

You beat me to it

[Barrister]

So people going through now-Premiere Danielle Smith's paid social media account found her saying various vaguely pro-Russian things about the war in Ukraine: that Ukraine must be neutral, why shouldn't Russian-speaking areas be allowed to join Russia, and that Ukraine must give up its nuclear weapons (which they did 20 years ago).

Probably pretty unwise in a province with 10% of voters having Ukrainian heritage - including many in her rural base (probably more than 10%).

So unlike her comment about the unvaccinated being the 'most discriminated against group in her lifetime', to this she gives a 100% no holds-barred apology.  She uses the word "apology" for starters.  She condemns Russian agression, fully supports Ukraine, says her earlier comments were because she was ill-informed, and that her opinion has "drastically evolved".

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/danielle-smith-apology-ukraine-remarks-1.6621165

So I mean that's good.  I hate the line of thought that any apology is a form of weakness, so I'll accept the apology and move on.

Maybe I'll vote for her yet (I mean - I did vote for her in 2015).  Support for Ukraine is probably the one issue I would be a 100% single-issue voter on.

But that, together with her various vax-cautious statements, goes to show you what her media diet has been like...

[PRC]

Right-wing Twitter is up in arms because she caved to the "woke mob".

Don't vote for her.

[Barrister]

Right-wing Twitter is up in arms because she caved to the "woke mob".

Don't vote for her.

I don't give a fuck what "Right-wing Twitter" says though.  And I'm more likely to vote UCP if she stands up to "Right-wing Twitter".

I mean if you're placing bets out there I'd probably bet on me voting UCP.  Literally every vote I've made since 1993 has been for a right-wing party, so voting NDP... would be a big step.

But I'm open to that option these days, where I don't think I've ever even considered it in the past.

[Rex Francorum]

So, the elected members of two parties in Québec do not want to swear an oath to Charles III. I wonder how it will turn out.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/parti-quebec-quebec-solidaire-mna-oath-1.6621389

A rule at the National Assembly will be put to the test if two provincial parties go through with plans to not swear allegiance to King Charles III, Canada's monarch.

Eleven Québec Solidaire (QS) and the three Parti Québécois (PQ) MNAs said they will only swear an oath to the people of Quebec during their respective swearing-in ceremonies this week.

But the swearing-in — including the oath to serve the King — is required to sit as an MNA, calling their eligibility to serve in the National Assembly into question.

Plamondon, speaking with Radio-Canada's Tout un matin Wednesday, said he was very happy to see QS would also choose not to swearing allegiance to the King.

In 2018, QS skirted the rule by swearing the royal oath in private, an action MNA Sol Zanetti has said made him feel dirty.

On Tuesday evening, QS co-spokesperson Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois wrote to all parties, asking to discuss solutions. Plamondon suggested a motion be passed eliminating the oath to the Crown.

"If some parties show that they don't have good faith and they don't want to come to a negotiated agreement, that would be deplorable, but I don't think that's the case," Plamondon said. "I hope that everyone will accept at least to discuss the most efficient way and structure to arrive at the result."

He says his party will keep weighing its options between now and Nov. 29 when the National Assembly resumes.

In response to the debate, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters Wednesday that the National Assembly has the right to decide how it wants to organize its swearing-in process.

"It would take a bill, but for that it takes sitting MNAs to vote on bills," he said. "There are surely rules that regulate how those oaths are taken. I'm not a constitutional expert, but I know the National Assembly will continue to do its job responsibly."

Trudeau said there are no plans to change the oath at the federal level for the House of Commons.

[Barrister]

So, the elected members of two parties in Québec do not want to swear an oath to Charles III. I wonder how it will turn out.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/parti-quebec-quebec-solidaire-mna-oath-1.6621389

So you of course know the argument: it's not a personal oath to King Chuck, but an oath to the Crown being the system of government of Canada and Quebec.

But this is hardly a new question.  On one hand you have Sinn Fein MPs from Northern Ireland who refuse to take the oath and refuse to take their seats.  But BQ MPs in Parliament (and even QS and PQ MNAs in Quebec) have long taken the oath.  Heck even avowed Republicans in the UK have taken the oath.

But how does this play in Quebec politics today?

[Sheilbh]

But this is hardly a new question.  On one hand you have Sinn Fein MPs from Northern Ireland who refuse to take the oath and refuse to take their seats.  But BQ MPs in Parliament (and even QS and PQ MNAs in Quebec) have long taken the oath.  Heck even avowed Republicans in the UK have taken the oath.

Yeah.

Although there's been different strategies, a few MPs visibly cross their fingers when taking it. Tony Benn used to preface it with a statement - normally something like "as an avowed republican I take the oath required of me by law under sufferance to ensure my constituents are represented", which is a model a few MPs have followed.

Dennis Skinner just used to take the piss on the first read-through and then have to do it properly. So he'd say, for example, "I solemnly swear that I will bear true and faithful allegiance to the Queen when she pays her income tax".

[Barrister]

Yeah I don't see the conflict in swearing allegiance to the Crown - for as long as the Crown exists - and then working to abolish the monarchy legally, or to work to ensure independence from Canada.

[ulmont]

Yeah I don't see the conflict in swearing allegiance to the Crown - for as long as the Crown exists - and then working to abolish the monarchy legally, or to work to ensure independence from Canada.

That seems a pretty obvious conflict of interest between personal goals and Crown goals.

[Barrister]

Yeah I don't see the conflict in swearing allegiance to the Crown - for as long as the Crown exists - and then working to abolish the monarchy legally, or to work to ensure independence from Canada.

That seems a pretty obvious conflict of interest between personal goals and Crown goals.

It is the law of this land that Quebec is free to pursue independence.  The Monarchy has seen numerous nations break away from it while maintaining peaceful relations with the UK and Commonwealth.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah I don't see the conflict in swearing allegiance to the Crown - for as long as the Crown exists - and then working to abolish the monarchy legally, or to work to ensure independence from Canada.

That seems a pretty obvious conflict of interest between personal goals and Crown goals.

Under our constitution individuals can have whatever personal lawful goals they wish.  And as BB has already pointed out, the goal of independence is a lawful goal.

No risk of gaol.

[HVC]

If they pledged to the queen and not the king then they're hypocrits. If they never pledged before then I think they're dumb, but whatever. I'm sure there's legal recourse to pledge to something else. Maybe the Habs.

[Valmy]

If they pledged to the queen and not the king then they're hypocrits. If they never pledged before then I think they're dumb, but whatever. I'm sure there's legal recourse to pledge to something else. Maybe the Habs.

The true kings of Canada!