[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

There is a difference between being welcoming and being Liberal.

Yes those two are not synonyms

[viper37]

Do the Feds actually do anything for integration?

Partly, for refugees mostly, as in provinding financial resources and helping them settle.

[Jacob]

So apparently the convoy organizers were receiving up-to-date intel from sympathizers within the Ontario Provincial Police, Ottawa Police, the RCMP, and even CSIS. That's less than ideal: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-marazzo-pat-king-emergencies-act-1.6637766

Also from the same article, this golden nugget:

Mackenzie and his followers have scoffed at the suggestion that their group [Diagolon] is some sort of American-style militia organization. They claim they're simply trolling gullible media outlets.

"We're not violent extremists, we just pretend to be to troll gullible people for the lols." Personally I don't find that very compelling. I wonder how well it will hold up in a court of law?

[crazy canuck]

We won't know.  This is not a court of law, and more importantly that group has not been charged with anything.  I am not sure why they are even a witness at this inquiry.

[viper37]

Last summer, the Commissioner to the official language had cited immigration has the main cause for French decline all accross Canada.

So, naturally, the Liberal party, distressed as they were by the decline of French in Canada, wants to increase immigration even more, while doing nothing to adress any other issues, either for French decline, or other problems affecting all Canadians.  But, hey, let's bring in more Liberal voters.

[HVC]

They could be addressing labour shortages across Canada, or yoy know, trying to persecute French speakers. Both are equal possibilities

[ulmont]

Can you guys explain the "notwithstanding" clause again?  What was the point of having a constitution if the government can just ignore it by crossing their fingers behind their back when passing a law, and why was it considered a good enough idea to pass it?

[crazy canuck]

Can you guys explain the "notwithstanding" clause again?  What was the point of having a constitution if the government can just ignore it by crossing their fingers behind their back when passing a law, and why was it considered a good enough idea to pass it?

Our constitution is based on parliamentary supremacy. We do not have an American model of government. The only way the charter was going to become law is to preserve parliamentary supremacy through the notwithstanding clause.

The way it works in practice is that it is rarely used because politicians are wary of paying the political price for invoking it. That is WAD.

[ulmont]

Our constitution is based on parliamentary supremacy.

Ok.  So in your model, where did the parliamentary supremacy come from?  Is it that the people gave all legislative power to parliament, or did the Crown grant parliamentary supremacy, or some other model?

[Jacob]

Ok.  So in your model, where did the parliamentary supremacy come from?  Is it that the people gave all legislative power to parliament, or did the Crown grant parliamentary supremacy, or some other model?

Parliament is supreme because it represents the will of the people, and because the UK had a slight case of civil war and regicide to establish it.

Basically Parliament usurped the diving right of kings.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. - it's also about entrenching rights and who has that power.

With parliamentary sovereignty, no parliament has the right to bind a future parliament. I think you can probably say, especially in the last 100 years, that it's about popular sovereignty because the democratic bits have become the bits that really matter.

On a purely practical level to get a constitution you need agreement on it. Given how regionally different Canadian politics is, I imagine that some form of pressure valve was required to get support from across the country and in different provinces?

[crazy canuck]

Yeah. - it's also about entrenching rights and who has that power.

With parliamentary sovereignty, no parliament has the right to bind a future parliament. I think you can probably say, especially in the last 100 years, that it's about popular sovereignty because the democratic bits have become the bits that really matter.

On a purely practical level to get a constitution you need agreement on it. Given how regionally different Canadian politics is, I imagine that some form of pressure valve was required to get support from across the country and in different provinces?

Yes, that is exactly it.  The Federal Government didn't want it in. It was the provinces that required it.  That might also have something to do with the fact that it is the Feds who make the judicial appointments to the courts with the authority to rule on constitutional matters.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah that seems like quite an important protection especially if you've got regions that have very strong political traditions that are unlikely to form a goverment nationally - like say Quebec, or even the NDP in BC.

How are judges appointed? Is it particularly politicised?

[crazy canuck]

Yeah that seems like quite an important protection especially if you've got regions that have very strong political traditions that are unlikely to form a goverment nationally - like say Quebec, or even the NDP in BC.

How are judges appointed? Is it particularly politicised?

It's not politicized in the sense of Conservative vs. Liberal - but more of a region vs. Fed axis.  No province wanted to give up its own Legislative supremacy to the Supreme Court of Canada.  As a further point of context, at the same time the Charter was brought in, the ability to appeal from the SCC to the Privy Council in the UK was also abolished and so, for the first time, the SCC became the highest court.

[viper37]

They could be addressing labour shortages across Canada, or yoy know, trying to persecute French speakers. Both are equal possibilities

They are immigrants, you know, not slaves?

They need housing, services (hospitals, doctors, nurses, schools, restaurants, etc), they consume as much as they bring, so they are only a temporary solution to a worker's shortage.  Then they age, they retire, they need elderly care just like the rest of us.