[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

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.

I agree with you.  This is why I like things to be written clearly so there are no ambiguities.

And I still prefer an equal elected Senate to this, despite the risk of populism.  Just make the elections at fixed date, outside of the normal federal election cycle, and have them all run as independents with a fixed government budget.

[crazy canuck]

The Soviet Union had one of the best constitutions on paper.  Precise drafting does not help if a system lacks the necessary norms and traditions

[Barrister]

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.

So my point is kind of different.

I think Trudeau's appointments have been about the same as prior governments in terms of partisanship.  That is - Trudeau appoints mostly Liberals, but also some "worthy" people.  It's about the same as Harper, or Chretien, or Mulroney.

My concern though is that he doesn't appoint them as Liberals, but as independents (even though they are mostly former Liberals).

In the past it was always understood the Senate lacked any real legitimacy.  If the Senate ever did try to oppose the elected government of the day they were very careful to pick their battles.

I'm concerned these independent Liberals might feel they are more legitimate because they're "independent".

[Barrister]

Canadian, but not political...

Peavey Mart is shutting down.

I love the odd time I go to Peavey Mart.  It's a rural-only store (although with locations in Leduc and Sherwood Park are pretty suburban).  It's kind of like a smaller Canadian Tire in that it sells a little bit of everything - but you could also get animal feed or saddles.  I went a few times to get really rugged blue jeans, but also some camping / outdoor cooking stuff.  Of course had a good selection of hunting gear.

I had hoped they were just going into a bankruptcy / restructuring, but no, they're closing all 90 locations.

[Grey Fox]

Oh that's sad. I love those kind of stores. Quebec also doesn't many of them left, afaik.

[Sheilbh]

The Soviet Union had one of the best constitutions on paper.  Precise drafting does not help if a system lacks the necessary norms and traditions

I agree with what you've been saying and even the most precise drafting does not remove ambiguity in a political context. It's the most high-pressure, high stakes legal environment so there will be immense pressure and creativity on the part of lawyers, judges and advocates.

But I suppose norms and traditions change over time - and in this thread I've said before that my observation would be that there seem to be norms in Canadian politics that basically look quite American. Which makes sense given your proximity and their size. I think that's also starting to happen here - we renamed the House of Lords as the Supreme Court and there is some evidence their role has shifted and I think public understanding definitely has. I see routine references to them overturning laws (which they're not and they can't) or the "balance of powers"/"checks and balances" in the British system, admittedly this could just be following Montesquieu in misunderstanding it - but I think it's exposure to American political culture. Our system is defined more than anything else by the fusion of powers. I've said before but I often think the most important fact in 21st century Britain is that America speaks English

On the norms and traditions point though I also wonder about the impact of history wars/culture wars. I broadly agree with Linda Colley that the British constitution and those norms and traditions are embedded in, and possibly only make sense, through a shared Whig history - there is a narrative cohesion to them in the Whig version of British history. I often wonder if that constitutionalism is sustainable once the Whig history has gone - and I think it's particularly strong in the British case because we don't have a codified but I feel it is possibly true of all constitutional orders once that founding moment is demythologised/delegitimised. I don't know but I wonder if that challenge to the ideological basis of a constitutionl order is inevitably so strong that it requires a re-writing (and it might not necessarily be something more "progressive" - for example can't help but wonder about India where the secular/Congress narrative of liberation is under sustained attack, or look at Russia and the post-90s order).

[crazy canuck]

I have no issue with norms and traditions changing over time.  But as I think you agree, that is a very different thing from saying that they can be replaced by crafty drafting.

[Barrister]

I wanted to mention the UK, but felt like it was maybe tangential.

Yes - their entire constitution is just norms.  Now the one key difference in the UK is the monarch.  If a sitting government just violated every possible norm the monarch would always have the ability to dissolve Parliament and order elections.  (Or if you want to get even more crazy - dissolve Parliament and rule by decree).

Either way though you're now into full-blown constitutional crisis.

Fundamentally though - clever drafting can help but only gets you so far.  In just a couple of recent examples - what if the SCC just "reads down" the Notwithstanding clause?  CC mentioned this before. 

This sort of thing has happened before.  I still maintain one of the worst pieces of Charter litigation was one of the first - Andrews v BC Law Society.  The Applicant was a British subject who wanted to become a lawyer.  The Law Society said no - the legislation was limited to Canadian citizens only.  Andrews sued under the Charter (which was then fairly new) claiming his equality rights were violated.  Problem is equality rights in the Charter as written don't mention citizenship.  Andrews wasn't being discriminated against because of his racial, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or disability.

So the court just read in citizenship as an "analogous ground".  Which on the one hand seemed fair - why shouldn't a Canadian permanent resident be able to be a lawyer?  But it then set the precedent for "the Charter means what we say it means".

The other is the US - Trump saying the 14th Amendment doesn't grant "birthright citizenship", despite it being the pretty plain and ordinary reading of that amendment.

Fundamentally - if enough people are willing to game the system to get the outcome they want, it doesn't matter how clear and unambiguous written words are.

[crazy canuck]

The report on foreign interference illuminates the incompetence of the Trudeau government.

Justice Hogue's report details multiple failures to communicate information to parliamentarians affected by foreign interference or to act on intelligence as it was collected. The most public example of this involved Conservative MP Michael Chong. He and his family were targeted by a Chinese consular official in 2021, but the intelligence was not acted on and he was not informed for more than two years.

The change in the government's approach to the case came after The Globe and Mail reported on the incident based on leaks of classified information in May, 2023. After the report, the official was expelled from Canada.

The failures came even as watchdogs were raising the alarm on the need to brief parliamentarians on foreign interference. Since 2018, NSICOP has been recommending that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and its partners create a plan to brief all parliamentarians on foreign interference.

In the wake of that recommendation, and a second one in 2019, Justice Hogue said CSIS began working on a plan to hold protective security briefings (PSBs). "But unfortunately, and for no good reason, these PSBs were not delivered until June 2024," her report finds.

The report details four false starts in which memos asking Mr. Trudeau to approve the briefings never reached him. Still, she said CSIS began briefing MPs in high-priority ridings at risk of foreign interference in 2021. She said the Prime Minister and his officials agreed parliamentarians should receive briefings on the issue only after NSICOP's 2024 spring report.

[Sheilbh]

On the British example - I suppose that is possible. But the other side is our norms include a monarch who did exactly that and parliament's response. This is what I mean when I say I think the constitution isn't just those theoretical possibilities - but the Whig history underpinning/interpreting it. It is both the monarch's theoretical powers and parliamentary sovereignty.

But I agree I mean that's why I always think legal constitutionalism is just political constitutionalism in a gown

What I think matters, fundamentally, is a constitutional "culture". Looking at extreme examples CC mentioned the (fantastically enlightened) Soviet constitution - but the culture around it was of not "living in truth" as Havel would put it. Another extreme example which I always think about is Weimar which again seems a very admirable constitution - but one that the institutions were not willing to protect (for example in response to an attempted coup) and one that was not believed in or perceived as legitimate by everyone from judges, military figures, to most political parties (basically everyone but the SPD).

In a way the US cult of the constitution may be helpful as long as it focuses arguments on what that text means - the worrying question might perhaps be what would come next without that?

[Barrister]

On the British example - I suppose that is possible. But the other side is our norms include a monarch who did exactly that and parliament's response. This is what I mean when I say I think the constitution isn't just those theoretical possibilities - but the Whig history underpinning/interpreting it. It is both the monarch's theoretical powers and parliamentary sovereignty.

Well I did say the monarch dissolving Parliament and ruling by decree was "crazy".

But the point is the only thing preventing it is centuries of custom and precedent.  The thing is - if the monarch was popular enough, and Parliament unpopular enough - it's not impossible.

But I agree I mean that's why I always think legal constitutionalism is just political constitutionalism in a gown

On this you and I agree completely. 

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/singh-liberal-tariff-relief-1.7443908

NDP will consider supporting the Liberals on a program of tariff relief.

Singh just never leans, does he...


I ask without knowing the answer - providing tariff relief to Canadian industries pretty much just makes Trump's predictions about tariffs true, doesn't it?  That it will in fact be Canadians paying the tariffs, not US consumers?

Might it be that the Trump tariffs are just something we have to take (and retaliate)?

[Grey Fox]

They are inevitable. We should start talks to join the EU.

Freeing ourselves from the American fascists will be hard enough. We should not doing it alone.

[viper37]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/singh-liberal-tariff-relief-1.7443908

NDP will consider supporting the Liberals on a program of tariff relief.

Singh just never leans, does he...


I ask without knowing the answer - providing tariff relief to Canadian industries pretty much just makes Trump's predictions about tariffs true, doesn't it?  That it will in fact be Canadians paying the tariffs, not US consumers?

Might it be that the Trump tariffs are just something we have to take (and retaliate)?

Tariffs on Canadian products means our products are more expensive to the US consumers.

Price elasticity comes into play, not immediately, but over some time.

Also, we will retaliate, so everything we buy from the US will cost us more.  Inflation will hit us hard.

What will happen is, gradually, Americans will turn to cheaper options than Canada since there are tariffs on our products and not others (or less on others).  They will buy Russian or Iran oil.  Currently, US refineries are configured for Canadian crude oil, but as it costs them more to import, they will shift to other, less costly sources.  Like Venezuela, maybe, since it's an ally of Russia.

Other products will come from elsewhere over time.  If our electricity costs too much (or if we cut it), they will resume fracking with Federal State incentives and restarted natural gas power plants.  Or (re)develop nuclear power generation.

If our steel costs too much, maybe there is some steel available elsewhere that is less costly, with less than 25% tariffs.  Maybe the Chinese have already found a way to avoid some of the tariffs, for example.

As it happens, we lose a lot of business volume, our shops reduce employment, and we enter a recession.  Until we can find new markets.  It will take time to bounce back, a lot of time.

Our commerce has always been north-south, it's never been east-west, due to geography.  It's always been much cheaper to put everything on a boat and float it up or down the rivers or the ocean than have it cross the mountains and the huge plains to reach one ocean or another.  It's been like that since the first European colonies and it won't change with a pipeline or two, subsidized or not.  Commerce flows like water, to the path of least resistance.

[viper37]

They are inevitable. We should start talks to join the EU.

Freeing ourselves from the American fascists will be hard enough. We should not doing it alone.

Not a bad idea at this point.

We should also seek allies in non Republican States.