Soverignty Acts

[jazz]

How ridiculous is this! What a country!

The senate seats are apportioned by the constitution, not elections, so we would have to open that baby up to get a change. So basically never happening.

[Hamloc]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-some-of-canadas-premiers-appear-to-be-losing-their-minds/

opinion
Some of Canada’s premiers appear to be losing their minds
The Editorial Board

The recent actions of some of Canada’s provincial premiers bring to mind a scene from Woody Allen’s 1971 comedy Bananas, in which the newly installed dictator of a Latin American country greets his cheering compatriots for the first time.

“Hear me,” he commands. “I am your new president. From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish. In addition to that, all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside, so we can check.”

“Power has driven him mad,” says an observer.

We are not saying that Canada’s duly elected premiers are tinpot dictators. But we are saying that some of them have gone off the democratic deep end in the pursuit of their political agendas.

The latest example is Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. Her government this week tabled its promised deliverance from the iron chains of federalism, the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act, and it’s as loony as anticipated.

The bill proposes, after the simple passage of a resolution in the legislature, to give cabinet the power to unilaterally amend legislation via orders in council. Cabinet can do so if it’s been decided that a federal law is unconstitutional, or even just “harmful,” without first testing the constitutionality of the law in question in court, and without defining the word “harmful.”

Cabinet can also order provincial bodies not to enforce specific federal policies or laws. It verges on insanity.

By all accounts, the Smith government had a difficult time on Tuesday explaining the workings of its law during a confused and chaotic press conference. That’s to be expected of a bill whose incoherent goal is to usurp the constitutional powers of the federal government, and to neuter the provincial legislature along the way.

In Ontario, Premier Doug Ford has gone mad with power in his plan to build 1.5-million homes over 10 years. This month he reversed himself on a promise not to allow development in the province’s Greenbelt – a vow he had repeated like a mantra for years. And his government has neutered the municipal councils of Toronto and Ottawa, by allowing the mayors to adopt pro-housing bylaws with only one-third of the vote.

Mr. Ford also has made a regular habit of resorting to the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to get what he wants. This fall he tried to use it to essentially strip an education workers’ union of its right to strike. He backed down in the face of a general strike, a predictable outcome that Mr. Ford somehow failed to imagine might be the result.

On to Quebec Premier François Legault, whose Coalition Avenir Québec government in 2019 unashamedly enacted an unconstitutional law, Bill 21, that prohibits some public employees from wearing religious symbols or garb at work. Mr. Legault calls it a defence of Quebec’s secular culture; a Quebec Superior Court judge called it a cruel violation of Charter freedoms in a 2021 ruling, but he had to let it stand because the law is shielded from restraint and tolerance by the notwithstanding clause.

What the premiers of Alberta, Ontario and Quebec share is their predilection for populism. All three focus on a base of voters that they portray as the victim of an uncaring enemy. In Quebec, it’s the federal government and immigrants that are the peril. In Ontario, it’s “elites” in big cities. In Alberta, it’s Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Their populism is exacerbated by Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system, which allows parties to target voters in particular ridings, often divided along rural-urban lines, to win enough seats to control a legislature with as little as a third of the popular vote. Carving up voters this way is something all parties at all levels do.

But the blame for the worst consequences of the rise in polarization in Canada falls on premiers who, in the name of their allegedly aggrieved voters, are quick to undermine democratic voting principles, pass incoherent laws, break key promises and gorge on the notwithstanding clause.

Political leaders always have options when facing big challenges. But instead of working within the norms and conventions that form the foundation of our democracy, too often lately there are premiers who like to make people wear their underpants over their trousers for the entertainment of their base.

Now I am not a fan of Premier Legault in Quebec but he got re-elected in 2022 with 41% of the popular vote, looks like lots of people in Quebec support his policies. Doug Ford got re-elected in Ontario with 40.8% of the popular vote in 2022, voter turnout certainly wasn’t impressive but he still won a handy majority. Danielle Smith faces the electorate in May of 2023. As for Justin Trudeau, in 2021 he got 32% of the popular vote, who does it look like is more in tune with the electorate? Lol!

[tweety]

A country runs on more than representation by MPs.

You forgot PEI which has 4 MPs for 150,000 people

Here is the distribution of Senate seats. See any problem

[ATTACH]11516[/ATTACH]

Yes, your understanding of pretty much anything.

[jazz]

Yes, your understanding of pretty much anything.

Oh pls enlighten us why PEI with a pop of 150k people is entitled to 4 senate seats vs Ab with a pop of 4.4m who gets 6.

This ought to be good.

[tweety]

For the benefit of those whose computer skills are so poor that they are unable to click on the green link:

The article says that everything you, and tweety and Notley are saying is wrong. Everything within the bill is constitutional according to a list of legal experts.

Take the carbon tax, that was constitutionally found to be the decision of Federal. The only thing that will change is instead of the province initiating the challenge, Alberta will say no we won't, take the extraordinary power it has given itself to the cabinet, and then Parliament will initiate the court challenge who will find the laws are the decision of Federation, and back to square one. Carbon tax back on.

I said it was really good showboat politics and crappy legislation - not unconstitutional. Although until it goes to court, every act is likely to be constitutional.

Take your guns away, another example. Do you really think the Province of Alberta will be able to tell the Police not to follow Federal Law (which crime is federal not provincial legislation) ? How long would a constitutional challenge take to happen for that one?

The Act may not be a constitutionally wrong, just anything it tries to do. The Act is pure politics, and given the "oh woe is us beat down by Ottawa" mentality in Alberta, it means votes.

[tweety]

The senate seats are apportioned by the constitution, not elections, so we would have to open that baby up to get a change. So basically never happening.

So you agree 100% with Jagmeet Singh and the NDP.

80% of the Senators are independent - especially when Justin Trudeau as party leader in 2014 kicked out all 32 liberal Senators. There are however still 15 staunch Conservative Senators, so yes, keep whining nothing is fair.

[Guest]

so answer the question about MP's comparing PEI to Ab.?

[jazz]

So you agree 100% with Jagmeet Singh and the NDP.

80% of the Senators are independent - especially when Justin Trudeau as party leader in 2014 kicked out all 32 liberal Senators. There are however still 15 staunch Conservative Senators, so yes, keep whining nothing is fair.

There are no independent senators. Everybody knows that.

And the carbon tax isn’t constitutional either as Quebec just got a break on theirs yesterday so unequal taxation violates the document.

Just admit you are a Marxist. At least that we can understand. We have a couple of them on this site.

Let’s put tweety’s civics lesson to bed. Trudeau violated several articles of the constitution during covid. Unequal taxation is the core challenge to the carbon tax and after what Quebec just did it will be challenged again. And lastly smiths SA used a reference case from the SCC in 1990 which ruled the provinces are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. Quebec has had a sovereignty act on the books for 20yrs.

[tweety]

so answer the question about MP's comparing PEI to Ab.?

So you're worried about the absolute power that PEI holds over Canada?

[tweety]

There are no independent senators. Everybody knows that.

And the carbon tax isn’t constitutional either as Quebec just got a break on theirs yesterday so unequal taxation violates the document.

Just admit you are a Marxist. At least that we can understand. We have a couple of them on this site.

Prove that it isn't constitutional.

[jazz]

Prove that it isn't constitutional.

SO mask off moment eh. If unfairness is enshrined in the constitution, like the senate and equalization clearly are, then its all good.

You just went ahead and justified the Alberta Sovereignty Act. Thank you.

[tweety]

SO mask off moment eh. If unfairness is enshrined in the constitution, like the senate and equalization clearly are, then its all good.

You just went ahead and justified the Alberta Sovereignty Act. Thank you.

Prove it isn't constitutional. Your post is meaningless without actual proof. Like most of them

Prove reduction of carbon emission costs for Quebec to be less are not constitutional.

[blackpowder]

The gorilla in the room is representation by area or region.
Sooner or later it's mentioned and the conversation ends.
It won't easily be changed ever.
So the hypothetical debate is, do you see a problem.
The supporters of status quo do not.
Majority rule is balanced enough with Senate as is. City states eventually becoming the ruling class.
Something the designers of the Westminster system didn't envision. They lived on a small island nation with subservient colonies to rule.
That mindset of subservience to a distant power to me explains a lot about our culture and system today.
I myself do see a problem. But I know it will never be addressed. And I recognize that the majority of the population have no problems with it either.
I would rather be governed by peers than distant experts on my life. So I support any jurisdictional attempt to remind Ottawa of their place as our citizen law makers not our rulers.
Thought about that way, I congratulate Quebec. And request the same for the West.

[tweety]

The gorilla in the room is representation by area or region.
Sooner or later it's mentioned and the conversation ends.
It won't easily be changed ever.
So the hypothetical debate is, do you see a problem.
The supporters of status quo do not.
Majority rule is balanced enough with Senate as is. City states eventually becoming the ruling class.
Something the designers of the Westminster system didn't envision. They lived on a small island nation with subservient colonies to rule.
That mindset of subservience to a distant power to me explains a lot about our culture and system today.
I myself do see a problem. But I know it will never be addressed. And I recognize that the majority of the population have no problems with it either.
I would rather be governed by peers than distant experts on my life. So I support any jurisdictional attempt to remind Ottawa of their place as our citizen law makers not our rulers.
Thought about that way, I congratulate Quebec. And request the same for the West.

But isn't that the fundamental problem of a large Federation? No one feels fully represented - even though in the true spirit of democracy - they are. You can bet people living in parts of Ontario feel they aren't represented either.

[tweety]

The gorilla in the room is representation by area or region.
Sooner or later it's mentioned and the conversation ends.
It won't easily be changed ever.
So the hypothetical debate is, do you see a problem.
The supporters of status quo do not.
Majority rule is balanced enough with Senate as is. City states eventually becoming the ruling class.
Something the designers of the Westminster system didn't envision. They lived on a small island nation with subservient colonies to rule.
That mindset of subservience to a distant power to me explains a lot about our culture and system today.
I myself do see a problem. But I know it will never be addressed. And I recognize that the majority of the population have no problems with it either.
I would rather be governed by peers than distant experts on my life. So I support any jurisdictional attempt to remind Ottawa of their place as our citizen law makers not our rulers.
Thought about that way, I congratulate Quebec. And request the same for the West.

I struggle with the comment of ruler vs lawmaker. Right now we have a large representation of Liberal and NDP MP's together making the decisions. Fair enough, they were democratically elected. If the Liberals want to do anything, they can't. They need the support of others. Isn't this seemingly the best democracy can get?

How do you feel ruled?

I am sure many in Alberta are feeling they are ruled now.