[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[ulmont]

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.

Sure.  That doesn't mean that it isn't contrary to the Crown's interest to advocate independence.

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.

It's not a risk of gaol, it's a question of if someone who has sworn allegiance to the Crown is pursuing goals which are counter to the Crown's goals.

What both of you seem to be saying is "yes, it's a conflict of interest, but the Crown clearly is aware of the issue and has waived the conflict," which I suppose is reasonable.

[Barrister]

"The Crown" is not the monarch.  It's the State.  And we will in a system where the legitimacy of the State comes from the implicit consent of the residents of the State.

As long as proper laws and procedures are followed, residents of the State are entitled to change the nature of their relationship with the State.  The State has no intrinsic goals or interests separate and apart from its citizens.

And that may be the fundamental difference between the US and the Westminster system.

[crazy canuck]

It's not a risk of gaol, it's a question of if someone who has sworn allegiance to the Crown is pursuing goals which are counter to the Crown's goals.

What both of you seem to be saying is "yes, it's a conflict of interest, but the Crown clearly is aware of the issue and has waived the conflict," which I suppose is reasonable.

I don't think it is a conflict of interest at all.  The King has a particular constitutional position.  They are doing nothing in conflict with the constitution.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I agree and I think we've seen the example of Edward VIII when, for a variety of reasons, the monarch as an individual clashed with their constitutional role - the constitutional position within the state won.

It isn't illegitimate or a conflict with the Crown as the state for elected representatives to be separatist or want a different constiutional order. That's fine as long as they act within and through that constitutional framework.

[Grey Fox]

None of their opposition to swearing allegiance to the King has anything to do with any of that. They are being idiotic babies because they somehow think that the 21st century crown is responsible for our past oppression and failure to be independent.

14 dumb MPs pushing something no one cares about. The National Assembly can, apparently, pick it's own rules on how to organize. If you can get the majority to agree change the rules. 111 other MPs have no problem understanding the rules.

God, the left is infuriating.

[crazy canuck]

Big controversy for the BC NDP.

Background is our current Premier John Horgan (who has been very popular) is battling cancer and stepped down triggering a leadership race.  One candidate emerged from the party establishment and was about to be acclaimed, when a party outsider emerged to challenge him.  She apparently signed up enough members to more than double the number of NDP members. 

The party has just decided to remove her from the race because of collaborating with third parties to encourage people to become party members.  Those third parties are environmental groups, and the outsider has a strong history of being an advocate for addressing climate change.

The irony is that the media uncovered the party establishment candidate doing the same thing with the steel workers union, who encouraged their members to sign up as NDP party members so that could vote against the outsider and her dastardly environment friendly agenda. The hypocrisy of disqualifying the outsider to ensure the victory of the insider, despite the fact they both reached out to outside organizations for help is a top story today.

The big winners here are the opposition parties.  This might be the big breakthrough moment for the Greens.  This will also give the opposition Liberals (or whatever they will be called after the name change) a boost if for no other reason than some NDP supporters may just sit the next election out.

It is fascinating to watch a party, who I thought was rock solid under Horgan, go through this kind of chaos. 

A sign that political norms are breaking down everywhere?

[Valmy]

A sign that political norms are breaking down everywhere?

Yeah. I think in the age of social media it is harder for the parties to conduct their business behind closed doors. Quietly shuffling off the outsider without thousands of party members meddling is increasingly difficult. The leadership has to do a really good job of controlling the narrative and keeping the average joes and janes on board.

[HVC]

Why do all competent and popular NDP leaders get cancer?

[crazy canuck]

Why do all competent and popular NDP leaders get cancer?

Indeed 

[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.

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

Ah. Gotcha.

[viper37]

God, the left is infuriating.

It took you that long to open your eyes?

[viper37]

The Monarchy has seen numerous nations break away from it while maintaining peaceful relations with the UK and Commonwealth.

[viper37]

The National Assembly can, apparently, pick it's own rules on how to organize.

The 1867 Constitution is pretty clear that Quebec MNLA must swear allegiance to the monarchy.
The 1982 Constitution does not mention it.

So, if the National Assembly uses a motion to change the rules, what is likely to happen is that all laws voted by this session will be challenged in court as illegal.

If however if choses the legislative way, if passes a law, only that law could be challenged and it would be heard before the next election by the Supreme Court so we would be fixed once and for all.   The CAQ tried to pass the law last session, but the Libs were opposed to it and delayed the process until it died in chambers and it wasn't seen an important issue for the other 2 leftist parties then. Now, they want their media spotlight.

[Barrister]

The National Assembly can, apparently, pick it's own rules on how to organize.

The 1867 Constitution is pretty clear that Quebec MNLA must swear allegiance to the monarchy.
The 1982 Constitution does not mention it.

So, if the National Assembly uses a motion to change the rules, what is likely to happen is that all laws voted by this session will be challenged in court as illegal.

If however if choses the legislative way, if passes a law, only that law could be challenged and it would be heard before the next election by the Supreme Court so we would be fixed once and for all.   The CAQ tried to pass the law last session, but the Libs were opposed to it and delayed the process until it died in chambers and it wasn't seen an important issue for the other 2 leftist parties then. Now, they want their media spotlight.

Constitution Act 1867 does not require Quebec MNAs to swear allegiance to the monarchy.  Frankly, it doesn't say anything about swearing allegiance at all.  What the Constitution Act does do is make clear that the monarch is the supreme executive authority for the country.

Even if it did I highly doubt the SCC would blanket strike down all bills passed by Quebec.  Citing the Manitoba Language reference (where someone tried to argue all Manitoba laws were invalid because they hadn't been passed in both French and English) the worst the courtwould do is give Quebec a chance to fix the problem.  Declaring multiple laws invalid over a technicality would be a stupid thing to do.

[Barrister]

Another article that goes into exploring what it means to be indigenous:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/mayoral-candidates-vying-indigenous-mayor-cree-metis-1.6617281

So the article looks at two current candidates to be mayor of Winnipeg, plus one former mayor, all of whom claim indigenous ancestry.

So the first guy is Kevin Klein.  He claims Metis heritage, and is a member of the Painted Feather Woodland Métis.  Painted Feather requires proof of one indigenous ancestor, but is not recognized by the Metis Nation of Ontario (or the Manitoba Metis Federation).  Those organizations require some level of connection to the overall Metis culture and community.

Second fellow is Robert-Falcon Ouellette.  He claims both Metis and Cree heritage, but is not a member of any organization.  He says he has a letter from the government stating he qualifies for Indian status, but he objects to the government being the ones who decide who is or isn't First Nations.  As a result he refuses to claim that status.

Then there's outgoing mayor Brian Bowman.  He has applied for membership in the Manitoba Metis Federation.  He said he always knew he had metis heritage, remembers engaging in some activities with his grandparents, but growing up in suburban Winnipeg was encouraged to hide that heritage.

But the story is interesting more than just talking about the potential mayor's of Canada's 7th largest city.  It becomes a discussion of what it means to be indigenous, and who gets to decide.  I just find it interesting.