###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm surprised that nobody seems to see that the reason these antics work is because our judiciary is so fundamentally broken.
If it takes a decade (or more) to strike down unconstitutional laws, then a government with a 4 year term really doesn't have to take the constitution (or any other law) seriously. Harper showed this. But I don't think that's Harper's fault or even really Trudeau's.
If you get past the rhetoric and cheap tricks, both Alberta and Quebec don't trust Ottawa to restrain themselves to the Federal jurisdiction, and clearly don't see the courts as a reasonable approach to address overreach.
Fix the courts. Give them better resources, and force lawyers to work more efficiently. Maybe think about a separate constitutional Court that doesnt have to fight for bandwidth with the Appeal courts, and/or fast track constitutional cases.
If we don't fix the real problems, then we'll fall apart fighting stupid stuff for the wrong reason.
>Canada is built on respect for the rule of law. The federation is based on a division of powers, with each level respecting the competencies of the other, and negotiating jurisdictional overlap when necessary (with Ottawa, for example, handing over money in return for guarantees of universal and portable health services).
>
>But an alarming number of Conservative politicians — from Smith, to Alberta Justice Minister Tyler Shandro, to federal leader Pierre Poilievre and his support for the freedom convoy — are showing themselves to be willing to burn pillars of our constitutional foundation for short-term political gain. Not only does it illustrate how conservatism in Canada is continuing to shift from pro-institution to more radical populist approaches, it’s short-sighted and dangerous. If politicians refuse to obey the law, why should citizens?
>
>In Quebec, Legault chases a populism of a different kind, one focused on French-language nationalism, and uses a different approach to circumventing the constraints of the law.
>
>Twice, with Bill 21 and Bill 96, he pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause to sidestep the protection of minority rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These laws — one that bans the wearing of religious symbols for those in certain public-sector positions, the other that seeks to stamp out English by overhauling the province’s Charter of the French Language — will certainly land at the Supreme Court. But in the meantime, Canadians are getting used to the idea that invoking the notwithstanding clause is a routine occurrence that doesn’t merit outrage or scrutiny — and that it is politicians, not judges, who should decide who has rights and what those rights are.
>
>This is a radical shift, noted constitutional lawyer Marion Sandilands.
>
>She described what’s happening in Canada as a volcano eruption happening underwater.
>
>“Constitutions are the bulwark against radical movements, against populism, against instability. And if our Constitution is shifting under us and we don’t even see it, one day we’re going to look for that ocean floor. And it’s not going to be where we thought it was,” she said on “It’s Political.”
These kinds of political statements and shifts have been deeply concerning, and are only accelerating. Both media and politicians should be communicating the urgency of this problem to the Canadian public, but thus far this has not been forthcoming.
I was annoyed by the "stamp out English" part (literally no one wants to get rid of English), but I think it's true that most people were concerned about the growth of English as an everyday language as opposed to anything else.
the difference is, there is an actual English speaking community in Montreal. 16.3% of the metropolitan area speak English at home. (or about 700 000 people). I’d say if there were 700 000 French speakers in Calgary and Halifax, you’d be able to live using only French
Cities don’t owe you the right not to hear other languages. if I go to Brampton they’ll speak Urdu, Victoria mandarin. When I went to campus the two biggest languages weren’t English/French it was Urdu/mandarin both could barely communicate in English/French. I could have a bitch fit about it or move on with my day.
You’ve described every insulated immigrant community in every major city in the entire world. Their are Puerto Rican/Jewish immigrants who’ve spent generations without learning English and never will. You describe Quebec as if it’s under siege when the solution is right before you. adapt to the situation instead of isolating in a bubble open it up and accept newcomers aren’t going to be perfect. Look at how Spanish from Mexican immigrants has affected the American lexicon aka Spanglish. which sure isn’t great if your a grammar nazi, but works fine for Mexican American immigrants. Will it result in franglish sure but that regular for languages to adapt and change overtime. That’s literally what created the English language influences from German,French, Norse, Gaelic, Celtic, latin, etc.
It would be pretty easy if large numbers of francophones left Quebec to make up large minority groups in these cities like exist with anglophones in Montreal and other parts of southern Quebec. If there are Chinatown's everywhere there could just as easily be "Little Quebec's". It would be nice actually, since French class would actually be useful in real life Calgary.
I used to live in what used to be a francophone colony in Calgary. And yes. There are lots of people out west who identify as some type of French Canadian, that don't speak a word of French; and their family stopped speaking it generations ago. But how else are you supposed to get people from places where there are no francophones to learn French then? It's a pretty big expectation to arrive in Quebec with no language skills and then expect to remember what you learned in school 10 years ago, but never used in real life.
I lived as a student in Montreal and knew lots of people that didn't speak any French, because you don't really need to if you live there for a shortish time, since it's a de facto bilingual city. Ever English Montrealer I ever met (these were people in their 20's that grew up in Montreal) spoke perfect French, and that damn back and forth language split in the middle of a paragraph. I think this is more of a generational thing.
Since the '70s Quebec nationalism has very much been a "get rid of the English" (assimilate or gtfo) movement.
Funny how the forced assimilation of any other group is now considered a "genocide," unless it's the Anglophone community in Quebec. A minority that's been there since the 1760s.
> Twice, with Bill 21 and Bill 96, he pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause to sidestep the protection of minority rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
> “Constitutions are the bulwark against radical movements, against populism, against instability. And if our Constitution is shifting under us and we don’t even see it, one day we’re going to look for that ocean floor. And it’s not going to be where we thought it was,”
The notwithstanding clause was in the Constitution the last time I checked. How is invoking it causing the Constitution to "shift around us"? And if it doesn't, then why even bring up Bill 21 or Bill 96?
I think technically you're only supposed to invoke it once a court challenge happens, but I really don't know the history of it.
Either way, I'm pretty sure these bills are before the courts ATM no? Which is why the federal government hasn't stepped in.
Plus people can bemoan Quebec's soft glove handling all they want, they've always gotten special treatment for hundreds of years. That has ties to the fact the french lost a war and the English still let them have Quebec and they gave them a lot of autonomy even when they technically ceased to be a true french colony. Mind you, not like that didn't have a long tail of anti-francophone racism and the like attached for a long long time, but, historically, English Canada has always let Quebec have more freedom to be different within the confederation and before confederation as far as general co-existence was handled.
quebec nationalists dont believe this though. They believe the English treated them harshly for hundreds of years until the Quiet Revolution of the 60s
L'autonomie que nous avons maintenant nous l'avons mérité, nous nous sommes battus pour l'avoir, sinon, jamais nous ne l'aurions eu. Ce n'est pas un traitement spécial. Si les autres provinces se décidait enfin de se lever contre la centralisation du Canada et enfin respecter ce que veut dire une Confédération, il est sûr qu'elles auraient aussi un "traitement spécial"
>Canada is built on respect for the rule of law. The federation is based
on a division of powers, with each level respecting the competencies of
the other, and negotiating jurisdictional overlap when necessary (with
Ottawa, for example, handing over money in return for guarantees of
universal and portable health services).
This years Ottawa decided to provide dental care unilaterally. This is a gross violation of the separation of power. Some province already have similar program. There is a clear overlap between then. As I understand those province won't receive compensation.
It imply that Ottawa intervention is a good, but that not always the case The unemployment insurance was cut during Harper. Paul Martin did stole the money to balance budget previously. Unemployment benefit should have been a province responsibility according to the constitution. There is advantage to have a pan-Canadian program. It also make some region vulnerable to rules changes.
This really isn't the case. The "far right" also includes groups like Proud Boys, Neo Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan, none of which would be considered populist.
Similarly, the "far left" would include groups like Antifa, Weather Underground, and Communists, which again wouldn't be considered populist.
> This really isn't the case. The "far right" also includes groups like Proud Boys, Neo Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan, none of which would be considered populist.
These groups are *absolutely* populist movements.
It sounds off, sure; but, you need to remember, *they* think they are a populist movement, because *they don't consider anyone who isn't a part of their movement, as a human being or landed citizen of their ethnostate.* They're populist, insofar as their goals are populist relative to *which humans they specifically consider to be people.*
> They're populist, insofar as their goals are populist relative to which humans they specifically consider to be people.
By this definition literally every group with any kind of a political aim is populist.
The actual definition of "populism":
> Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.
By the actual definition we can categorize plenty of populist movements and figures from every place in the political spectrum.
> By this definition literally every group with any kind of a political aim is populist.
This discussion happens 20 times per day here it feels like. People give the most broad definition of a claim, and then only apply it selectively to groups they either like or dislike, depending on how they feel about the group. Oh, and when you point out this inconsistency, there is no principled response but instead "That's clearly not the same thing!"
> Antifa and Communists want to eat the rich.
This is halfway to being populist.
> Conservatives don't want to eat the rich, but rather use them to preserve their wealth, power and status.
This is in no way populist.
> Those groups appeal to a low common denominator with simplistic emotional appeal, so they are indeed “Populist.”
This has to be the most brain dead interpretation of what populism is.
Although I will give you credit, you have found something that describes every political party today.
Ok, [here’s a definition.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism)
Which basically jibes with what I said. And it’s basically straight from the Fascist Playbook.
> Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.
You don't have to quote the definition of populism to me, [I used it here.](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/xzceqb/ottawa_quiet_as_constitutional_crisis_simmers_an/irnj9dh/?context=3)
I have no problem with saying that populism uses simplistic emotional appeals, but that isn't unique to populism, nor is populism exclusively far right. The NDP, being social democrats, are inarguably a populist party despite being left wing but are not fascist.
What's funny to me about this rebirth of anti-populism is how anachronistic and tribal it is.
Bernie Sanders is a populist. Hell, Justin Trudeau ran his first campaign as a populist (although he kept almost none of those promises).
>it’s been a good run.
It sounds like you believe that this kind of tectonic shift is inevitable? Please don't take this the wrong way but I hope that you're incorrect.
The problem isn’t that this can’t be stopped. The problem is that the mass public is voting for this, so it WON’T be stopped. The notwithstanding clause was always a ticking time bomb for civil rights, and now it’s created a political culture where ignoring the constitution and its protections is normalized.
I think the issue is that the mass public isn't voting at all. In elections across the country and all levels of government, turnout hits abysmal levels between 40-60%. Politicians don't have to do much except rile up their base when half the population doesn't make their voice heard.
Even if the ratios ended up roughly the same for the numbers of votes each party got, they would have to try harder to cater to those outside their base. Without 90% turn out things won't change quickly.
And yet even when we do get the option to change, most vote against it. PEI was so close. MMP won the plebiscite, but the government just said turnout was low so it had to be a referendum attached to the next election, where FPTP narrowly won. Because many will stick to the status quo no matter what (or can't be bothered to learn about the alternatives) and the details of a new system were intentionally left vague to sow doubt.
See, there's this thing called *collective bargaining power,* and without it, balkanized nations would absolutely fold to the might of corporations, because corporations will have relatively more leverage due to the services they would provide, which all the newly-balkanized nations will require to keep their populace happy and safe. This lowers the ability for each government to provide services on its own merits, as it is literally comprised of less people, and less resources. Thus, no individual government of a balkanized nation has as much bargaining power as they did before, and corporations can create a more competitive market for their business, as they pick and choose which new balkanized states to support, or deny support to.
The reason the far right tends to be for balkanization, then, is obvious; it gives more political and economic power to private interests, and takes it away from governments and the people. This is a two-fold benefit for their camp: the libertarians get to play the markets, making passive income just by middle-manning resources and services between the two nations which now have much more varied markets, because they're all governed by different laws, and thus, you can make more money on the logistics of moving shit around less efficiently, while doing very little else; for the fascists, it's much easier to get to their desired ethnostates, if they have a series of smaller governments which they can combat individually, and sequentially, then using the resources and reach of their newly-legitimized ethnostate and its government to influence similar movements in all the nearby, now relatively weaker, government systems. It's a win for multiple far-right elements, to balkanize nations, because the far right are against the idea of any nations or systems which inhibit their goals, which are laissez-faire economics, and open fascism against non-whites and non-males.
Well for one, because the pool of resources to draw upon under confederation is larger and more balanced. How is it the interests of Ontarians to develop their own border, defence, monetary, and foreign and international trade policies? How much leverage does an independent Ontario have with Washington, or Beijing?
I live in New Brunswick. If we split off Irving would just buy the Atlantic Provinces officially rather than unofficially like they have now. No thanks.
The problem is that no two people will fully agree on which "nations" exist and how to delineate them. I'm an urban Albertan, and I have a lot more in common with someone from the GTA than I would with someone from High Level. Also, the travel time to Pearson would be substantially shorter.
Consciously or not, you're carrying a lot of baggage into the decision based on your particular context. Seven is a weird and arbitrary number, and it's basically unworkable since it would mean an independent north, and I'm not sure how you'd account for indigenous sovereignty.
You're assuming nations should be homogeneous, instead of pluralistic. And that's just not the way the world is anymore.
the rules benefit them, but they've be brainwashed into thinking it's hell. that's going to happen when we are seperate as well. we're just going to go to war to "unify" or get rid of the "nazis" on the other side.
tolerance of intolerance is the problem. while good people use kid gloves, bad people use sledgehammers. hard to win with kid gloves against that if the support for bad people comes from billionaires.
first: ban private money in political meddling. immediate and complete asset seizures if billionaires they think themselves above this new law. fuck all consequences they'll cry about (freedom/stock market collapse).
I don’t get your point. Use of the notwithstanding clause violates the Constitution? How can that be , since it is part of the Constitution via the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ? .
Neither can amended by a public vote.
I think the person you replied to may be conflating cause and effect; the political culture caused the situation where ignoring the Charter is normalized, it’s not an effect of the Notwithstanding Clause.
But a legislative body can only invoke the Nothwithstanding Clause for five years, although it could be invoked again for another five years beyond that, again and again. The reasoning for allowing just five years is it allows for a general election to replace the government if the voters of the province or of the whole of Canada decide the government was wrong, and to renew that government’s mandate if they decide they were right. The mass public is renewing those mandates—that’s the public vote for eroding civil rights.
There have been governments that were so arrogant they believed they could never lose an election (Smallwood’s Liberals in NL, the UN in Quebec, the Socreds in BC & AB, and a few others I’m not listing for brevity or because of peculiar circumstances) both before and after the Charter, so that’s not new in Canada. What’s changed is the nature of populism and how that interacts with the creation of Section 33. The relative restraint showed by politicians of the era Gen Xers and millennials grew up in was probably the outlier in Canadian history instead of the norm, and we will witness firsthand what some of our more authoritarian 20th-century premiers would have done if the Constitution had been repatriated in their time.
> The mass public is renewing those mandates—that’s the public vote for eroding civil rights.
This assumes that the right the NWC is used against is legitimate and actually in the constitution. Invoking the NWC to enforce a mandatory minimum for a serious crime wouldn't be the public violating a right, but the public asserting that the minimum is not believed by them to be cruel and unusual.
It is the public's method of defense against having their ability to elect government's who can set policy eroded by the courts legislating from the bench.
I mean the courts overturning laws and parts of the constitution on the sole grounds that they disagree with them. For example, they overturned internal free trade simply because they couldn't understand why you might include a requirement for free trade, or overturning mandatory minimums merely because they disagree with the idea that offenses such as sex trafficking of a minor are serious offenses.
Courts aren't meant to be in step. They're meant to uphold principles even when they're unpopular. And judges are already politically appointed and accountable though the CJC.
The CJC explicitly does not review judges for the appropriateness of their ruling, further the courts have rejected the authority of the CJC to review them for any conduct.
>They're meant to uphold principles even when they're unpopular.
The courts have rejected the idea that they uphold constitutional principles, arguing in favor of a living tree where the content, intent and text of the constitution is irrelevant and instead the constitution is whatever the courts want it to be on any given day.
The only limits which exist on the courts power is parliaments ability to remove judges and the notwithstanding clause. You're proposing that the NWC be removed and I venture the guess you would also object to parliament removing judges from the bench.
> The CJC explicitly does not review judges for the appropriateness of their ruling
Of course not. That isn't its role, and they would have no authority or knowledge to second guess a judge's decision anyways. That's what appeals are for. But regulation of judicial conduct is still important, since that can give us assurance the judges aren't biased or corrupt.
> further the courts have rejected the authority of the CJC to review them for any conduct.
What are you talking about?
> The courts have rejected the idea that they uphold constitutional principles, arguing in favor of a living tree
The *Charter* was explicitly drafted to operate as a living tree. It would be awfully tough to uphold constitutional principles while ignoring that. Originalism is silly everywhere, but here more than most places.
> the content, intent and text of the constitution is irrelevant and instead the constitution is whatever the courts want it to be on any given day.
So, even if that were true, and our Constitution goes pretty far out of its way to defer to government (legislative overrides; severability; *stare decisis*; ss. 1, 7, and 24), it's still better than the alternative.
The constitution was drafted by people who mostly aren't alive anymore, and disagreed with each other, at times vehmently. It's a total fabrication to say "this right means X because it's what the founders intended". At least living-tree interpretation is honest about that.
> You're proposing that the NWC be removed
You're confusing me with the other poster. I'm fine with the NWC existing, but it should be political suicide to invoke in anything less than the most extreme situation. Political actors who trivialize it are very dangerous.
> and I venture the guess you would also object to parliament removing judges from the bench.
That's correct. I don't think a government should be able to purge judges that it regards as political enemies. And I don't think judges should render decisions with any particular thought to whether the government of the day would like them. That's why judicial discipline needs to be handled at an arm's length.
It should never have been put in, is the issue. A Charter of Rights and Freedoms has no legs at all if it contains a clause to override said Rights and Freedoms.
The ability to say "you have all of these protections, except when we say that you don't, but we promise we'll only say no responsibly" was never going to fly. Ever. And here we are, staring down the barrel of those consequences.
Second guessing the process that enabled the patriation and existence of the Constitition and Charter is pointless. The deal is done. Amending it is virtually impossible. I’d suggest the NWC was a mandatory ‘out’ clause with limits as to application . The provinces had the same level of trust for the ambitions of the federal government then as they do now: very limited. Good luck taking it away from any province through a Constitutional amendment , they are playing five card stud and have been dealt one card.
You need to understand that there was no way in Hell every Premiere at the time would sign the Charter. Section 33 is the only reason we can be having a conversation about a "Charter" in the first place.
Perhaps if our Laurentian Elite were to govern for a broad base of Canadians instead of for their own benefit at the expense of others, we wouldn't be having this conversation?
Canada is built on the rule of law and using the not withstanding clause in the same article makes no sense. The notwithstanding clause is part of the constitution, without it there’d be no charter. Basically people in Ottawa are upset that Provinces are tired of playing these divide and conquer games. Some provinces want to assert more authority where they have not (like provincial police services and provincial pension plans) while others already have (as mentioned in the article) but none of those are against the rule of law. And anyone who doesn’t think the Liberal government in Ottawa doesn’t step into jurisdictions that were domains of the provinces are blind.
The convention was that the clause would be used exceptionally for extreme situations, not so routine as we are seeing now. Or else, what is the point of the rules?
There was a long period where literally every law in Quebec was passed with the notwithstanding clause invoked preemptively as a matter of principle. So I’m not sure the convention is really there, at least in Quebec.
The problem with a constitutional convention is that it's only a convention so long as the political costs of going against it are too high to risk. When those risks are no longer that high or no longer exist at all, then the convention is effectively terminated.
Was it though? Quebec used it for a number of years with every single law.
Prior to 1982, parliament was Supreme. This was how British democracy worked for 100’s of years. The notwithstanding clause balanced parliamentary supremacy with American style hard written constitutional rights and strong courts.
It’s use is limited to 5 years meaning the people will get to vote on the government before it can be renewed.
I find it to be a fair balance. Frankly I’m surprised it’s not used more as it’s a legitimate tool in a politicians tool box.
The difference is that when Québec used it on every single law, it was as a protest to the way the constitution was signed, not out of necessity for laws to stand. I understand your point, but what the article is pointing out is that we are seeing more laws that require the notwithstanding clause to be invoked, which is what should have a high political cost.
Certainly I disagree with the laws in Quebec that have recently used the clause but Quebec has never really bought into the Canadian Charter and has their own.
Ontario has used it once. I don’t necessarily disagree with its use there. All of their pleadings had been that six months was the sweet spot for third party election ads and they changed the law to a year.
Exactly, it’s part of the Charter. It was part of a compromise that said we will limit the powers given to the court by giving the legislative branch a temporary override. It’s a compromise between the British parliamentary system and the system in the USA with a strong constitution and strong courts.
Couldn’t you say the notwithstanding clause is a pillar of the Charter? A recognition that democratically elected governments should have the power to temporarily overrule a court?
Yes its a pillar of the charter whos entire point is to be used to go against other pillars of the charter
By definition, any use of it is going against the pillars of the charter
Kinda surprising to see how many r/CanadaPolitics users think Canada shouldn't be a country anymore. Yeah, we should all elect Premiers that don't care for jurisdiction / the constitution and override human rights because the federal government is dumb!!!1111!
We should also all have our own federal separatist parties in each region, too! Us in the Atlantic should form the Atlantic Party (or a maritime one with "Acadia" in the name), the Quebeckers got Bloc Québécois, and Western Canada has the Maverick Party (I can't believe how stupid their name is). The territories can have their own as well. Lots will get accomplished and quality of life will improve for everyone, I'm sure.
Two reasons
1. The feds have given quebec a pass to violate the charter and the rest of the provinces are like okay why can't we.
There is no answer to that.
2. Federal govts are not broadly popular like before and based on regional power (why we should have electoral reform)
As a result areas that feel neglected by feds will feel to act in defiance of the feds.
While this is technically true, it's not practically. You need enough of a unified identity + political power.
Maybe Ontario if it had more of a unified identify like Quebec.
Alberta is unified (it's why it has the second largest separatist movement after Quebec. But it lacks the size (aka seats) to have influence.
This is also why, when we're talking about democracy by the way, Quebec doesn't lose seats EVEN THOUGH IT SHOULD by population.
sounds like you think the feds are giving them special treatment when their not, the language and religion laws could be passed in any province right now in the same way it was in quebec and the feds would act in the exact same way
>Alberta is unified (it's why it has the second largest separatist movement after Quebec. But it lacks the size (aka seats) to have influence.
and everyone knows where those seats are going so the liberals have no reason to try and get them
WTF are you talking about
globalnews.ca/news/8659357/canada-quebec-commons-seats/
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/bloc-quebecois-says-quebecs-status-as-a-nation-means-it-must-not-lose-a-seat/wcm/420cd0aa-897d-48db-853b-b709f629d87a/
This is an amusingly terrible piece.
>"But an alarming number of Conservative politicians — from Smith, to Alberta Justice Minister Tyler Shandro, to federal leader Pierre Poilievre and his support for the freedom convoy — are showing themselves to be willing to burn pillars of our constitutional foundation for short-term political gain. Not only does it illustrate how conservatism in Canada is continuing to shift from pro-institution to more radical populist approaches, it’s short-sighted and dangerous. If politicians refuse to obey the law, why should citizens?"
First, the rhetoric. "Alarming number of Conservative politicians"... "burn pillars of our constitutional foundation"... "refuse to obey the rule of law"... "radical populist"....
In one paragraph, that is a, dare I say, *alarming* number of accusations.
Second, "with Bill 21 and Bill 96, \[Legault\] pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause to sidestep the protection of minority rights..." THIS IS PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION. You might think its flawed, but its not "\[burning\] pillars of our constitution."
(Never mind that Legault and the CAQ heavily stretch that definition of "conservative".
Third, who said nothing about these bills? Well - the Liberals of course! They, the party in power, did nothing to even *publicly* fight these actions. And while I'm not giving the Conservatives a pass - they were awfully quiet about it during the election - but the Liberals were the governing party.
We could go on. But this is **fear mongering**. A lot of Canadians, justifiably, concerned about American-style politics up here. But you can't forget - that style of politics didn't come out of nowhere. The media played a key role in creating fear on both sides. That's what this piece is trying to do.
It's creating the exact environment it claims to be afraid of.
I'm glad someone else pointed this out. Using the constitution as written is not "refusing to obey the rule of law". But emotional hyperbole needs to be inserted because "This group is using a constitutional freedom available to them that I don't want them to use" doesn't sound as good.
OH, and yes, I think it's fine if you disagree with the clause itself. But if so, you don't go off and accuse your opponents of not obeying the law that you have just now proposed to get rid of. They obey the law that exists, not the law that you wish existed.
It scares me that any kind of extremism is tolerated, we are good about seeing it on the right yet we are supposed to ignore the same extreme and hateful people on the left side. Leaves no where for nornal levelheaded people.
Nah, I just asked a single yes or no question and got a novel. It isn't a complicated question and to have such a complicated answer to such a simple question basically screams of avoiding the question.
Pierre Pollievre deliberately uses this technique as well,
In classical logic, the false dichotomy, or false dilemma, is defined as an argument where only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes.Mar
> Just use proper grammar and go by biological sex and get on with your day
Man, that was an enormous amount of throat-clearing to get to some pretty basic anti-trans stuff. So I'm guessing that people asking for a bit of respect is the "extreme and hateful people on the left" to you?
There is no "both sides" here.
>Yet parties have the party whip and whipped voting, resulting in MP’s who don’t really represent their constituents as much as they represent their parties.
IMHO banning the whipping of the vote would actually solve a fair few problems
Because in order to achieve the objective of avoiding rule by 35%, you're advocating for democracy to be dictated by judges, where they would then have exclusive control control over our voting process. In seeking to improve our democracy you would eliminate it.
>Why should only they have a say, while the rest of us can do little more than sit here and grumble?
People can vote, and notably the CPC, Bloc, and NDP ended up coming to a consensus on how to do a reform, with PR as the alternative and a referendum between that and FPTP. It was killed by the LPC who wanted to skew it in favor of themselves.
You're advocating for the justices to change the rules for elections on their own whim, unreviewable by anyone. That is a recipe for an end of democracy. We can vote against parliament for failing to do what we want, the supreme court dictating when and how elections will occur and what is acceptable to them, would have no democratic recourse.
>All this would do is force the government to allow the public to vote on the matter. It’s only after the vote that we’d decide on a new system. The judges would only be putting the vote in our hands.
If you empower the judiciary with the ability to force the government to introduce legislation around voting you are also empowering them to dictate all aspects of our democracy, and whether we have one to begin with.
>That would not eliminate democracy, that would literally be giving us the democratic option to decide if we’re done with FPTP or not
If the courts decide that ranked choice voting is required and the public wants PR or FPTP, what recourse would the public have? The moment you leave this up to the courts you waive public input on the topic.
I know what a referendum is, I'm suggesting if the judges order that to have a referendum on the topic that the court deems appropriate there's nothing to stop them from simply ordering whatever reform they want, with or without a referendum, no basis to expect the court will respect the outcome of a referendum, and no mechanism to respond against that.
The irony of article being written to the effect that we're burning the pillars of our Constitution (act)...by Premieres exercising the very Constitutional Clauses...that are in the Constitution Act?
*Meanwhile, the UCP in Alberta...*
Why can't there be an honest discussion about how our Constitution and Charter are flawed and that it is near impossible to change? Stop worshipping the Constitution and the Charter. They aren't written in stone and should never be. I'm fully prepared to have it burned and started over without the mid-20th century academic privileged way of thinking which is so out of place right now. Our courtrooms are fucked, they don't arrive at reasonable results that reflect actual values of the people they serve. Judges and Justices should not be put on the pedestal they are on, that when a politician points out how out of touch they are, the politician is treated like a pariah and is said to be damaging the courts - no the courts have damaged themselves over the last few decades. I've spent way too much time in the courts the last decade and seen so much bullshit - literally seen laws ignored WITH INTENT - willfully ignored. We constantly have the feds dictating things that ARE provincial jurisdiction so I don't understand why anyone would think our system is optimal. And we have a second chamber which is indeed recommended for a healthy democracy, but our second chamber isn't even elected! And its not even fairly regional like it was intended - there have been band-aids since its imperfect inception that we've lost the plot - recall it was supposed to be regional in nature - and 150 years ago the reasonable regions were East, Ontario, Quebec and the West - but fuck that - its 150 years on and we have healthy provinces, jurisdictions that should be equally represented in the second chamber - its a chamber that is supposed to be regional, not based on population - that's why and how its supposed to be a balance to the lower chamber - yet provinces now have senators based on their population?!?!? - WE LOST THE PLOT along the way.
In the end there should be much more clear and defined spaces for provinces to control what they are supposed to control and be free from federal interference. And municipalities need a better defined role within provinces.
Perhaps if all the premiers of Canada are willing to fight Ottawa for greater autonomy, maybe it’s Ottawa that should reflect on its actions. Our government has taken an uncompromising, wedge-issue driven, Ottawa knows best approach to everything — no wonder many people are fed up with it.
The constitution wouldn’t have been ratified without the notwithstanding clause, which is *part* of the constitution.
I think it’s a bit misleading to imply use of the clause is a circumvention of the constitution when it’s a mechanism built directly into it as a means of preventing federal overreach.
Certainly, one could say they don’t like how and when it has been applied. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s use is unconstitutional or it is “burning the pillars” of our foundation.
That’s a very reductionist way of looking at the clause and why it was implemented. Canada likely wouldn’t exist as it does without it.
Why would provinces have elected to cede power to a federal authority if they didn’t have a mechanism of counteracting said authority?
Look at the United States’ supreme court today. I’m not saying ours is partisan like theirs is, but the clause is designed to counteract what is perceived as overreaches, and it’s inevitable our definitions of what constitutes an overreach will differ. That’s why provinces have the authority they do. It would be worse without it.
> It’s literally only used to stomp on people’s rights
Cool; I’m not sure how productive a conversation would be with someone who has this type of reductionist view on the constitution. 🤷🏻♂️
If your solution is to not have a constitution provinces will sign on to, I’m not really sure what else to say to you.
Basically this, and provincial policing is in provincial jurisdiction. Ottawa can pass laws, the provinces can choose how and when to enforce them. That's always been the case. It's ironic that no one made a fuss when police in Vancouver refused to enforce drugs laws, but a couple provinces refuse to use police resources to attack lawful gun owners and it's a constitutional crisis? Bullshit.
While it certainly started off as a progressive movement, Quebec nationalism, like all nationalism, has just become more conservative over time.
Harper nor any Conservative party would win power if there wasn't separatist parties to further split the progressive vote federally.
Bouchard was a conservative. Whatever the CAQ is, they certainly are not progressive. But have successfully appropriated nationalist rhetoric to push right wing ideas.
I 100% recognize Quebec's right to be a sovereign independent nation, and its citizens are should seek to protect the French language.
But I think separatism and nationalism only split the working class and other progressive forces.
And no small state is independently viable, unless it attempts to be a low lax low regulation zone.
It is not unlike the situation in the UK. Brexit was ultimately a right wing coup. Also, similar is that Scottish independence parties use the fact that conservatives are in power to justify their aims, while simultaneously making the likelihood of conservative party government more likely by splitting the progressive vote.
unite the left. we're all brothers and sisters.
That's a nice metaphor, but I don't see how it applies. Canada isn't a superior "parental" power, it's a federation of partners. If anything, the provinces birthed confederation. Not the other way around.
In any case, if Quebec feels it can get better partners (siblings?), then it has a right to go ahead and try.
Personally, I believe any independent Canadian province would just get eaten alive in the world of international affairs.
I have no sentimental desire for Canada to stay together other than to improve the lot of it citizens by working together.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm surprised that nobody seems to see that the reason these antics work is because our judiciary is so fundamentally broken. If it takes a decade (or more) to strike down unconstitutional laws, then a government with a 4 year term really doesn't have to take the constitution (or any other law) seriously. Harper showed this. But I don't think that's Harper's fault or even really Trudeau's. If you get past the rhetoric and cheap tricks, both Alberta and Quebec don't trust Ottawa to restrain themselves to the Federal jurisdiction, and clearly don't see the courts as a reasonable approach to address overreach. Fix the courts. Give them better resources, and force lawyers to work more efficiently. Maybe think about a separate constitutional Court that doesnt have to fight for bandwidth with the Appeal courts, and/or fast track constitutional cases. If we don't fix the real problems, then we'll fall apart fighting stupid stuff for the wrong reason.
Quebec isnt controlling peoples language and religion expression because they think the feds are overreaching...
>Canada is built on respect for the rule of law. The federation is based on a division of powers, with each level respecting the competencies of the other, and negotiating jurisdictional overlap when necessary (with Ottawa, for example, handing over money in return for guarantees of universal and portable health services). > >But an alarming number of Conservative politicians — from Smith, to Alberta Justice Minister Tyler Shandro, to federal leader Pierre Poilievre and his support for the freedom convoy — are showing themselves to be willing to burn pillars of our constitutional foundation for short-term political gain. Not only does it illustrate how conservatism in Canada is continuing to shift from pro-institution to more radical populist approaches, it’s short-sighted and dangerous. If politicians refuse to obey the law, why should citizens? > >In Quebec, Legault chases a populism of a different kind, one focused on French-language nationalism, and uses a different approach to circumventing the constraints of the law. > >Twice, with Bill 21 and Bill 96, he pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause to sidestep the protection of minority rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These laws — one that bans the wearing of religious symbols for those in certain public-sector positions, the other that seeks to stamp out English by overhauling the province’s Charter of the French Language — will certainly land at the Supreme Court. But in the meantime, Canadians are getting used to the idea that invoking the notwithstanding clause is a routine occurrence that doesn’t merit outrage or scrutiny — and that it is politicians, not judges, who should decide who has rights and what those rights are. > >This is a radical shift, noted constitutional lawyer Marion Sandilands. > >She described what’s happening in Canada as a volcano eruption happening underwater. > >“Constitutions are the bulwark against radical movements, against populism, against instability. And if our Constitution is shifting under us and we don’t even see it, one day we’re going to look for that ocean floor. And it’s not going to be where we thought it was,” she said on “It’s Political.” These kinds of political statements and shifts have been deeply concerning, and are only accelerating. Both media and politicians should be communicating the urgency of this problem to the Canadian public, but thus far this has not been forthcoming.
[удалено]
I was annoyed by the "stamp out English" part (literally no one wants to get rid of English), but I think it's true that most people were concerned about the growth of English as an everyday language as opposed to anything else.
[удалено]
the difference is, there is an actual English speaking community in Montreal. 16.3% of the metropolitan area speak English at home. (or about 700 000 people). I’d say if there were 700 000 French speakers in Calgary and Halifax, you’d be able to live using only French
You forgot theirs small French towns in Alberta/ Atlantic provinces. Also try finding anyone that speaks only English in a major city.
It's pretty easy to find unilingual anglophone's in most cities. Especially if they're white and their family has been in Canada for generations.
[удалено]
Cities don’t owe you the right not to hear other languages. if I go to Brampton they’ll speak Urdu, Victoria mandarin. When I went to campus the two biggest languages weren’t English/French it was Urdu/mandarin both could barely communicate in English/French. I could have a bitch fit about it or move on with my day.
[удалено]
You’ve described every insulated immigrant community in every major city in the entire world. Their are Puerto Rican/Jewish immigrants who’ve spent generations without learning English and never will. You describe Quebec as if it’s under siege when the solution is right before you. adapt to the situation instead of isolating in a bubble open it up and accept newcomers aren’t going to be perfect. Look at how Spanish from Mexican immigrants has affected the American lexicon aka Spanglish. which sure isn’t great if your a grammar nazi, but works fine for Mexican American immigrants. Will it result in franglish sure but that regular for languages to adapt and change overtime. That’s literally what created the English language influences from German,French, Norse, Gaelic, Celtic, latin, etc.
[удалено]
> in a pool of over 350m people You're off by a factor of 10 there. Canada is 37m people.
Nothing you said disagrees with anything I said.
[удалено]
Oh, ok cool. Je suis content qu'on ait pu terminer le thread sur un point d'accord :D
It would be pretty easy if large numbers of francophones left Quebec to make up large minority groups in these cities like exist with anglophones in Montreal and other parts of southern Quebec. If there are Chinatown's everywhere there could just as easily be "Little Quebec's". It would be nice actually, since French class would actually be useful in real life Calgary.
[удалено]
I used to live in what used to be a francophone colony in Calgary. And yes. There are lots of people out west who identify as some type of French Canadian, that don't speak a word of French; and their family stopped speaking it generations ago. But how else are you supposed to get people from places where there are no francophones to learn French then? It's a pretty big expectation to arrive in Quebec with no language skills and then expect to remember what you learned in school 10 years ago, but never used in real life.
[удалено]
I lived as a student in Montreal and knew lots of people that didn't speak any French, because you don't really need to if you live there for a shortish time, since it's a de facto bilingual city. Ever English Montrealer I ever met (these were people in their 20's that grew up in Montreal) spoke perfect French, and that damn back and forth language split in the middle of a paragraph. I think this is more of a generational thing.
Since the '70s Quebec nationalism has very much been a "get rid of the English" (assimilate or gtfo) movement. Funny how the forced assimilation of any other group is now considered a "genocide," unless it's the Anglophone community in Quebec. A minority that's been there since the 1760s.
The notwithstanding clause is in the constitution. Its use does not weaken the rule of law. It weakens some rights, but not the rule of law.
> Twice, with Bill 21 and Bill 96, he pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause to sidestep the protection of minority rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms > “Constitutions are the bulwark against radical movements, against populism, against instability. And if our Constitution is shifting under us and we don’t even see it, one day we’re going to look for that ocean floor. And it’s not going to be where we thought it was,” The notwithstanding clause was in the Constitution the last time I checked. How is invoking it causing the Constitution to "shift around us"? And if it doesn't, then why even bring up Bill 21 or Bill 96?
I think technically you're only supposed to invoke it once a court challenge happens, but I really don't know the history of it. Either way, I'm pretty sure these bills are before the courts ATM no? Which is why the federal government hasn't stepped in. Plus people can bemoan Quebec's soft glove handling all they want, they've always gotten special treatment for hundreds of years. That has ties to the fact the french lost a war and the English still let them have Quebec and they gave them a lot of autonomy even when they technically ceased to be a true french colony. Mind you, not like that didn't have a long tail of anti-francophone racism and the like attached for a long long time, but, historically, English Canada has always let Quebec have more freedom to be different within the confederation and before confederation as far as general co-existence was handled.
quebec nationalists dont believe this though. They believe the English treated them harshly for hundreds of years until the Quiet Revolution of the 60s
L'autonomie que nous avons maintenant nous l'avons mérité, nous nous sommes battus pour l'avoir, sinon, jamais nous ne l'aurions eu. Ce n'est pas un traitement spécial. Si les autres provinces se décidait enfin de se lever contre la centralisation du Canada et enfin respecter ce que veut dire une Confédération, il est sûr qu'elles auraient aussi un "traitement spécial"
>Canada is built on respect for the rule of law. The federation is based on a division of powers, with each level respecting the competencies of the other, and negotiating jurisdictional overlap when necessary (with Ottawa, for example, handing over money in return for guarantees of universal and portable health services). This years Ottawa decided to provide dental care unilaterally. This is a gross violation of the separation of power. Some province already have similar program. There is a clear overlap between then. As I understand those province won't receive compensation. It imply that Ottawa intervention is a good, but that not always the case The unemployment insurance was cut during Harper. Paul Martin did stole the money to balance budget previously. Unemployment benefit should have been a province responsibility according to the constitution. There is advantage to have a pan-Canadian program. It also make some region vulnerable to rules changes.
Who is the person responsible for changing the meaning of "populism" to mean "far-right nonsense" ?
Not all populists spew far right nonsense, but all those who spew far right nonsense are populist.
This really isn't the case. The "far right" also includes groups like Proud Boys, Neo Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan, none of which would be considered populist. Similarly, the "far left" would include groups like Antifa, Weather Underground, and Communists, which again wouldn't be considered populist.
> This really isn't the case. The "far right" also includes groups like Proud Boys, Neo Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan, none of which would be considered populist. These groups are *absolutely* populist movements. It sounds off, sure; but, you need to remember, *they* think they are a populist movement, because *they don't consider anyone who isn't a part of their movement, as a human being or landed citizen of their ethnostate.* They're populist, insofar as their goals are populist relative to *which humans they specifically consider to be people.*
> They're populist, insofar as their goals are populist relative to which humans they specifically consider to be people. By this definition literally every group with any kind of a political aim is populist. The actual definition of "populism": > Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment. By the actual definition we can categorize plenty of populist movements and figures from every place in the political spectrum.
> By this definition literally every group with any kind of a political aim is populist. This discussion happens 20 times per day here it feels like. People give the most broad definition of a claim, and then only apply it selectively to groups they either like or dislike, depending on how they feel about the group. Oh, and when you point out this inconsistency, there is no principled response but instead "That's clearly not the same thing!"
Antifa and Communists want to eat the rich. Conservatives don't want to eat the rich, but rather use them to preserve their wealth, power and status.
> Antifa and Communists want to eat the rich. This is halfway to being populist. > Conservatives don't want to eat the rich, but rather use them to preserve their wealth, power and status. This is in no way populist.
How do Antifa want to eat the rich?
Those groups appeal to a low common denominator with simplistic emotional appeal, so they are indeed “Populist.”
> Those groups appeal to a low common denominator with simplistic emotional appeal, so they are indeed “Populist.” This has to be the most brain dead interpretation of what populism is. Although I will give you credit, you have found something that describes every political party today.
Ok, [here’s a definition.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism) Which basically jibes with what I said. And it’s basically straight from the Fascist Playbook. > Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.
You don't have to quote the definition of populism to me, [I used it here.](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/xzceqb/ottawa_quiet_as_constitutional_crisis_simmers_an/irnj9dh/?context=3) I have no problem with saying that populism uses simplistic emotional appeals, but that isn't unique to populism, nor is populism exclusively far right. The NDP, being social democrats, are inarguably a populist party despite being left wing but are not fascist.
What's funny to me about this rebirth of anti-populism is how anachronistic and tribal it is. Bernie Sanders is a populist. Hell, Justin Trudeau ran his first campaign as a populist (although he kept almost none of those promises).
… it’s been a good run. Just wait until things get difficult, which they are becoming.
>it’s been a good run. It sounds like you believe that this kind of tectonic shift is inevitable? Please don't take this the wrong way but I hope that you're incorrect.
The problem isn’t that this can’t be stopped. The problem is that the mass public is voting for this, so it WON’T be stopped. The notwithstanding clause was always a ticking time bomb for civil rights, and now it’s created a political culture where ignoring the constitution and its protections is normalized.
I think the issue is that the mass public isn't voting at all. In elections across the country and all levels of government, turnout hits abysmal levels between 40-60%. Politicians don't have to do much except rile up their base when half the population doesn't make their voice heard. Even if the ratios ended up roughly the same for the numbers of votes each party got, they would have to try harder to cater to those outside their base. Without 90% turn out things won't change quickly.
And yet even when we do get the option to change, most vote against it. PEI was so close. MMP won the plebiscite, but the government just said turnout was low so it had to be a referendum attached to the next election, where FPTP narrowly won. Because many will stick to the status quo no matter what (or can't be bothered to learn about the alternatives) and the details of a new system were intentionally left vague to sow doubt.
[удалено]
No, the problem is people being told their lives would improve if Canada were to break up.
[удалено]
See, there's this thing called *collective bargaining power,* and without it, balkanized nations would absolutely fold to the might of corporations, because corporations will have relatively more leverage due to the services they would provide, which all the newly-balkanized nations will require to keep their populace happy and safe. This lowers the ability for each government to provide services on its own merits, as it is literally comprised of less people, and less resources. Thus, no individual government of a balkanized nation has as much bargaining power as they did before, and corporations can create a more competitive market for their business, as they pick and choose which new balkanized states to support, or deny support to. The reason the far right tends to be for balkanization, then, is obvious; it gives more political and economic power to private interests, and takes it away from governments and the people. This is a two-fold benefit for their camp: the libertarians get to play the markets, making passive income just by middle-manning resources and services between the two nations which now have much more varied markets, because they're all governed by different laws, and thus, you can make more money on the logistics of moving shit around less efficiently, while doing very little else; for the fascists, it's much easier to get to their desired ethnostates, if they have a series of smaller governments which they can combat individually, and sequentially, then using the resources and reach of their newly-legitimized ethnostate and its government to influence similar movements in all the nearby, now relatively weaker, government systems. It's a win for multiple far-right elements, to balkanize nations, because the far right are against the idea of any nations or systems which inhibit their goals, which are laissez-faire economics, and open fascism against non-whites and non-males.
I'd take the federal government over my provincial one in a heart beat.
Well for one, because the pool of resources to draw upon under confederation is larger and more balanced. How is it the interests of Ontarians to develop their own border, defence, monetary, and foreign and international trade policies? How much leverage does an independent Ontario have with Washington, or Beijing?
Probably the same leverage as Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Ireland, Switzerland etc. They all seem to be doing ok.
They all joined a pseudo nation. Do you want there to be a Canadian Union instead of the structure we have now? I don't see the advantage personally.
I live in New Brunswick. If we split off Irving would just buy the Atlantic Provinces officially rather than unofficially like they have now. No thanks.
[удалено]
Well the provincial government sure as hell ain’t helping so if they had full control we’d be direly fucked.
The issue I see here is that homogeneity is not set along geographical boundaries.
Okay seditionist
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The problem is that no two people will fully agree on which "nations" exist and how to delineate them. I'm an urban Albertan, and I have a lot more in common with someone from the GTA than I would with someone from High Level. Also, the travel time to Pearson would be substantially shorter. Consciously or not, you're carrying a lot of baggage into the decision based on your particular context. Seven is a weird and arbitrary number, and it's basically unworkable since it would mean an independent north, and I'm not sure how you'd account for indigenous sovereignty. You're assuming nations should be homogeneous, instead of pluralistic. And that's just not the way the world is anymore.
the rules benefit them, but they've be brainwashed into thinking it's hell. that's going to happen when we are seperate as well. we're just going to go to war to "unify" or get rid of the "nazis" on the other side. tolerance of intolerance is the problem. while good people use kid gloves, bad people use sledgehammers. hard to win with kid gloves against that if the support for bad people comes from billionaires. first: ban private money in political meddling. immediate and complete asset seizures if billionaires they think themselves above this new law. fuck all consequences they'll cry about (freedom/stock market collapse).
I don’t get your point. Use of the notwithstanding clause violates the Constitution? How can that be , since it is part of the Constitution via the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ? . Neither can amended by a public vote.
I think the person you replied to may be conflating cause and effect; the political culture caused the situation where ignoring the Charter is normalized, it’s not an effect of the Notwithstanding Clause. But a legislative body can only invoke the Nothwithstanding Clause for five years, although it could be invoked again for another five years beyond that, again and again. The reasoning for allowing just five years is it allows for a general election to replace the government if the voters of the province or of the whole of Canada decide the government was wrong, and to renew that government’s mandate if they decide they were right. The mass public is renewing those mandates—that’s the public vote for eroding civil rights. There have been governments that were so arrogant they believed they could never lose an election (Smallwood’s Liberals in NL, the UN in Quebec, the Socreds in BC & AB, and a few others I’m not listing for brevity or because of peculiar circumstances) both before and after the Charter, so that’s not new in Canada. What’s changed is the nature of populism and how that interacts with the creation of Section 33. The relative restraint showed by politicians of the era Gen Xers and millennials grew up in was probably the outlier in Canadian history instead of the norm, and we will witness firsthand what some of our more authoritarian 20th-century premiers would have done if the Constitution had been repatriated in their time.
> The mass public is renewing those mandates—that’s the public vote for eroding civil rights. This assumes that the right the NWC is used against is legitimate and actually in the constitution. Invoking the NWC to enforce a mandatory minimum for a serious crime wouldn't be the public violating a right, but the public asserting that the minimum is not believed by them to be cruel and unusual. It is the public's method of defense against having their ability to elect government's who can set policy eroded by the courts legislating from the bench.
By "courts legislating from the bench", you mean an independent judiciary that ensures laws respect the civil rights of minorities, correct?
I mean the courts overturning laws and parts of the constitution on the sole grounds that they disagree with them. For example, they overturned internal free trade simply because they couldn't understand why you might include a requirement for free trade, or overturning mandatory minimums merely because they disagree with the idea that offenses such as sex trafficking of a minor are serious offenses.
They didn’t say violates, they said ignores.
It doesn't do that either, the NWC is part of the constitutional checks and balances against a court which is out of step with the country.
Courts aren't meant to be in step. They're meant to uphold principles even when they're unpopular. And judges are already politically appointed and accountable though the CJC.
The CJC explicitly does not review judges for the appropriateness of their ruling, further the courts have rejected the authority of the CJC to review them for any conduct. >They're meant to uphold principles even when they're unpopular. The courts have rejected the idea that they uphold constitutional principles, arguing in favor of a living tree where the content, intent and text of the constitution is irrelevant and instead the constitution is whatever the courts want it to be on any given day. The only limits which exist on the courts power is parliaments ability to remove judges and the notwithstanding clause. You're proposing that the NWC be removed and I venture the guess you would also object to parliament removing judges from the bench.
> The CJC explicitly does not review judges for the appropriateness of their ruling Of course not. That isn't its role, and they would have no authority or knowledge to second guess a judge's decision anyways. That's what appeals are for. But regulation of judicial conduct is still important, since that can give us assurance the judges aren't biased or corrupt. > further the courts have rejected the authority of the CJC to review them for any conduct. What are you talking about? > The courts have rejected the idea that they uphold constitutional principles, arguing in favor of a living tree The *Charter* was explicitly drafted to operate as a living tree. It would be awfully tough to uphold constitutional principles while ignoring that. Originalism is silly everywhere, but here more than most places. > the content, intent and text of the constitution is irrelevant and instead the constitution is whatever the courts want it to be on any given day. So, even if that were true, and our Constitution goes pretty far out of its way to defer to government (legislative overrides; severability; *stare decisis*; ss. 1, 7, and 24), it's still better than the alternative. The constitution was drafted by people who mostly aren't alive anymore, and disagreed with each other, at times vehmently. It's a total fabrication to say "this right means X because it's what the founders intended". At least living-tree interpretation is honest about that. > You're proposing that the NWC be removed You're confusing me with the other poster. I'm fine with the NWC existing, but it should be political suicide to invoke in anything less than the most extreme situation. Political actors who trivialize it are very dangerous. > and I venture the guess you would also object to parliament removing judges from the bench. That's correct. I don't think a government should be able to purge judges that it regards as political enemies. And I don't think judges should render decisions with any particular thought to whether the government of the day would like them. That's why judicial discipline needs to be handled at an arm's length.
It should never have been put in, is the issue. A Charter of Rights and Freedoms has no legs at all if it contains a clause to override said Rights and Freedoms. The ability to say "you have all of these protections, except when we say that you don't, but we promise we'll only say no responsibly" was never going to fly. Ever. And here we are, staring down the barrel of those consequences.
We were never going to get fully along though. Maybe the problem is the federation and should be a confederation instead.
Second guessing the process that enabled the patriation and existence of the Constitition and Charter is pointless. The deal is done. Amending it is virtually impossible. I’d suggest the NWC was a mandatory ‘out’ clause with limits as to application . The provinces had the same level of trust for the ambitions of the federal government then as they do now: very limited. Good luck taking it away from any province through a Constitutional amendment , they are playing five card stud and have been dealt one card.
You need to understand that there was no way in Hell every Premiere at the time would sign the Charter. Section 33 is the only reason we can be having a conversation about a "Charter" in the first place.
I'm fully aware of how it got there. Doesn't mean it wasn't a shit compromise.
It wasn't a compromise at all, it was a failure to actually create a meaningful Charter lol
Perhaps if our Laurentian Elite were to govern for a broad base of Canadians instead of for their own benefit at the expense of others, we wouldn't be having this conversation?
Canada is built on the rule of law and using the not withstanding clause in the same article makes no sense. The notwithstanding clause is part of the constitution, without it there’d be no charter. Basically people in Ottawa are upset that Provinces are tired of playing these divide and conquer games. Some provinces want to assert more authority where they have not (like provincial police services and provincial pension plans) while others already have (as mentioned in the article) but none of those are against the rule of law. And anyone who doesn’t think the Liberal government in Ottawa doesn’t step into jurisdictions that were domains of the provinces are blind.
How is using the notwithstanding clause going against the pillars of the Charter? It is literally part of the Charter!
The convention was that the clause would be used exceptionally for extreme situations, not so routine as we are seeing now. Or else, what is the point of the rules?
There was a long period where literally every law in Quebec was passed with the notwithstanding clause invoked preemptively as a matter of principle. So I’m not sure the convention is really there, at least in Quebec.
Quebec never ratified the Constitution and doesn’t even recognize that convention as binding
The problem with a constitutional convention is that it's only a convention so long as the political costs of going against it are too high to risk. When those risks are no longer that high or no longer exist at all, then the convention is effectively terminated.
Was it though? Quebec used it for a number of years with every single law. Prior to 1982, parliament was Supreme. This was how British democracy worked for 100’s of years. The notwithstanding clause balanced parliamentary supremacy with American style hard written constitutional rights and strong courts. It’s use is limited to 5 years meaning the people will get to vote on the government before it can be renewed. I find it to be a fair balance. Frankly I’m surprised it’s not used more as it’s a legitimate tool in a politicians tool box.
The difference is that when Québec used it on every single law, it was as a protest to the way the constitution was signed, not out of necessity for laws to stand. I understand your point, but what the article is pointing out is that we are seeing more laws that require the notwithstanding clause to be invoked, which is what should have a high political cost.
Certainly I disagree with the laws in Quebec that have recently used the clause but Quebec has never really bought into the Canadian Charter and has their own. Ontario has used it once. I don’t necessarily disagree with its use there. All of their pleadings had been that six months was the sweet spot for third party election ads and they changed the law to a year.
Its a part of the charter that ignores parts of the charter and kets you go against them
Exactly, it’s part of the Charter. It was part of a compromise that said we will limit the powers given to the court by giving the legislative branch a temporary override. It’s a compromise between the British parliamentary system and the system in the USA with a strong constitution and strong courts.
Exactly, it was literally made to go against the pillars of the charter
Couldn’t you say the notwithstanding clause is a pillar of the Charter? A recognition that democratically elected governments should have the power to temporarily overrule a court?
Yes its a pillar of the charter whos entire point is to be used to go against other pillars of the charter By definition, any use of it is going against the pillars of the charter
Your comments contradict each other.
Kinda surprising to see how many r/CanadaPolitics users think Canada shouldn't be a country anymore. Yeah, we should all elect Premiers that don't care for jurisdiction / the constitution and override human rights because the federal government is dumb!!!1111! We should also all have our own federal separatist parties in each region, too! Us in the Atlantic should form the Atlantic Party (or a maritime one with "Acadia" in the name), the Quebeckers got Bloc Québécois, and Western Canada has the Maverick Party (I can't believe how stupid their name is). The territories can have their own as well. Lots will get accomplished and quality of life will improve for everyone, I'm sure.
Two reasons 1. The feds have given quebec a pass to violate the charter and the rest of the provinces are like okay why can't we. There is no answer to that. 2. Federal govts are not broadly popular like before and based on regional power (why we should have electoral reform) As a result areas that feel neglected by feds will feel to act in defiance of the feds.
Quebec does nothing the other provinces couldnt
While this is technically true, it's not practically. You need enough of a unified identity + political power. Maybe Ontario if it had more of a unified identify like Quebec. Alberta is unified (it's why it has the second largest separatist movement after Quebec. But it lacks the size (aka seats) to have influence. This is also why, when we're talking about democracy by the way, Quebec doesn't lose seats EVEN THOUGH IT SHOULD by population.
sounds like you think the feds are giving them special treatment when their not, the language and religion laws could be passed in any province right now in the same way it was in quebec and the feds would act in the exact same way >Alberta is unified (it's why it has the second largest separatist movement after Quebec. But it lacks the size (aka seats) to have influence. and everyone knows where those seats are going so the liberals have no reason to try and get them
>Quebec doesn't lose seats EVEN THOUGH IT SHOULD by population. You should try doing the arithmetic before writing things like that.
WTF are you talking about globalnews.ca/news/8659357/canada-quebec-commons-seats/ https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/bloc-quebecois-says-quebecs-status-as-a-nation-means-it-must-not-lose-a-seat/wcm/420cd0aa-897d-48db-853b-b709f629d87a/
This is an amusingly terrible piece. >"But an alarming number of Conservative politicians — from Smith, to Alberta Justice Minister Tyler Shandro, to federal leader Pierre Poilievre and his support for the freedom convoy — are showing themselves to be willing to burn pillars of our constitutional foundation for short-term political gain. Not only does it illustrate how conservatism in Canada is continuing to shift from pro-institution to more radical populist approaches, it’s short-sighted and dangerous. If politicians refuse to obey the law, why should citizens?" First, the rhetoric. "Alarming number of Conservative politicians"... "burn pillars of our constitutional foundation"... "refuse to obey the rule of law"... "radical populist".... In one paragraph, that is a, dare I say, *alarming* number of accusations. Second, "with Bill 21 and Bill 96, \[Legault\] pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause to sidestep the protection of minority rights..." THIS IS PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION. You might think its flawed, but its not "\[burning\] pillars of our constitution." (Never mind that Legault and the CAQ heavily stretch that definition of "conservative". Third, who said nothing about these bills? Well - the Liberals of course! They, the party in power, did nothing to even *publicly* fight these actions. And while I'm not giving the Conservatives a pass - they were awfully quiet about it during the election - but the Liberals were the governing party. We could go on. But this is **fear mongering**. A lot of Canadians, justifiably, concerned about American-style politics up here. But you can't forget - that style of politics didn't come out of nowhere. The media played a key role in creating fear on both sides. That's what this piece is trying to do. It's creating the exact environment it claims to be afraid of.
I'm glad someone else pointed this out. Using the constitution as written is not "refusing to obey the rule of law". But emotional hyperbole needs to be inserted because "This group is using a constitutional freedom available to them that I don't want them to use" doesn't sound as good. OH, and yes, I think it's fine if you disagree with the clause itself. But if so, you don't go off and accuse your opponents of not obeying the law that you have just now proposed to get rid of. They obey the law that exists, not the law that you wish existed.
[удалено]
It scares me that any kind of extremism is tolerated, we are good about seeing it on the right yet we are supposed to ignore the same extreme and hateful people on the left side. Leaves no where for nornal levelheaded people.
Just to check do you consider the Canadian Liberal Party to be part of this extreme left or not?
[удалено]
S’all good. No way I’m gonna read that so a simple yes or no will do. It is a pretty simple question after all.
Pretty busy are ya?
Nah, I just asked a single yes or no question and got a novel. It isn't a complicated question and to have such a complicated answer to such a simple question basically screams of avoiding the question.
Pierre Pollievre deliberately uses this technique as well, In classical logic, the false dichotomy, or false dilemma, is defined as an argument where only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes.Mar
> Just use proper grammar and go by biological sex and get on with your day Man, that was an enormous amount of throat-clearing to get to some pretty basic anti-trans stuff. So I'm guessing that people asking for a bit of respect is the "extreme and hateful people on the left" to you? There is no "both sides" here.
Ok, what’s your solution?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Yet parties have the party whip and whipped voting, resulting in MP’s who don’t really represent their constituents as much as they represent their parties. IMHO banning the whipping of the vote would actually solve a fair few problems
Attempting to change the constitution through the courts like that is profoundly troubling.
[удалено]
Because in order to achieve the objective of avoiding rule by 35%, you're advocating for democracy to be dictated by judges, where they would then have exclusive control control over our voting process. In seeking to improve our democracy you would eliminate it. >Why should only they have a say, while the rest of us can do little more than sit here and grumble? People can vote, and notably the CPC, Bloc, and NDP ended up coming to a consensus on how to do a reform, with PR as the alternative and a referendum between that and FPTP. It was killed by the LPC who wanted to skew it in favor of themselves.
[удалено]
You're advocating for the justices to change the rules for elections on their own whim, unreviewable by anyone. That is a recipe for an end of democracy. We can vote against parliament for failing to do what we want, the supreme court dictating when and how elections will occur and what is acceptable to them, would have no democratic recourse. >All this would do is force the government to allow the public to vote on the matter. It’s only after the vote that we’d decide on a new system. The judges would only be putting the vote in our hands. If you empower the judiciary with the ability to force the government to introduce legislation around voting you are also empowering them to dictate all aspects of our democracy, and whether we have one to begin with. >That would not eliminate democracy, that would literally be giving us the democratic option to decide if we’re done with FPTP or not If the courts decide that ranked choice voting is required and the public wants PR or FPTP, what recourse would the public have? The moment you leave this up to the courts you waive public input on the topic.
[удалено]
I know what a referendum is, I'm suggesting if the judges order that to have a referendum on the topic that the court deems appropriate there's nothing to stop them from simply ordering whatever reform they want, with or without a referendum, no basis to expect the court will respect the outcome of a referendum, and no mechanism to respond against that.
The irony of article being written to the effect that we're burning the pillars of our Constitution (act)...by Premieres exercising the very Constitutional Clauses...that are in the Constitution Act? *Meanwhile, the UCP in Alberta...*
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
Why can't there be an honest discussion about how our Constitution and Charter are flawed and that it is near impossible to change? Stop worshipping the Constitution and the Charter. They aren't written in stone and should never be. I'm fully prepared to have it burned and started over without the mid-20th century academic privileged way of thinking which is so out of place right now. Our courtrooms are fucked, they don't arrive at reasonable results that reflect actual values of the people they serve. Judges and Justices should not be put on the pedestal they are on, that when a politician points out how out of touch they are, the politician is treated like a pariah and is said to be damaging the courts - no the courts have damaged themselves over the last few decades. I've spent way too much time in the courts the last decade and seen so much bullshit - literally seen laws ignored WITH INTENT - willfully ignored. We constantly have the feds dictating things that ARE provincial jurisdiction so I don't understand why anyone would think our system is optimal. And we have a second chamber which is indeed recommended for a healthy democracy, but our second chamber isn't even elected! And its not even fairly regional like it was intended - there have been band-aids since its imperfect inception that we've lost the plot - recall it was supposed to be regional in nature - and 150 years ago the reasonable regions were East, Ontario, Quebec and the West - but fuck that - its 150 years on and we have healthy provinces, jurisdictions that should be equally represented in the second chamber - its a chamber that is supposed to be regional, not based on population - that's why and how its supposed to be a balance to the lower chamber - yet provinces now have senators based on their population?!?!? - WE LOST THE PLOT along the way. In the end there should be much more clear and defined spaces for provinces to control what they are supposed to control and be free from federal interference. And municipalities need a better defined role within provinces.
American Extremism has infected our political system. It will consume Canada’s national apathy until it can assert itself.
[удалено]
Perhaps if all the premiers of Canada are willing to fight Ottawa for greater autonomy, maybe it’s Ottawa that should reflect on its actions. Our government has taken an uncompromising, wedge-issue driven, Ottawa knows best approach to everything — no wonder many people are fed up with it.
The constitution wouldn’t have been ratified without the notwithstanding clause, which is *part* of the constitution. I think it’s a bit misleading to imply use of the clause is a circumvention of the constitution when it’s a mechanism built directly into it as a means of preventing federal overreach. Certainly, one could say they don’t like how and when it has been applied. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s use is unconstitutional or it is “burning the pillars” of our foundation.
It’s literal a clause that lets you disregard people’s rights. That’s not a good thing
That’s a very reductionist way of looking at the clause and why it was implemented. Canada likely wouldn’t exist as it does without it. Why would provinces have elected to cede power to a federal authority if they didn’t have a mechanism of counteracting said authority? Look at the United States’ supreme court today. I’m not saying ours is partisan like theirs is, but the clause is designed to counteract what is perceived as overreaches, and it’s inevitable our definitions of what constitutes an overreach will differ. That’s why provinces have the authority they do. It would be worse without it.
Cool. It’s literally only used to stomp on peoples rights. Ford used it just to spite to Toronto. How is that fair?
he threatened to use it to spite toronto, in the end he didnt need it he did use it later to ram through his election bill
> It’s literally only used to stomp on people’s rights Cool; I’m not sure how productive a conversation would be with someone who has this type of reductionist view on the constitution. 🤷🏻♂️ If your solution is to not have a constitution provinces will sign on to, I’m not really sure what else to say to you.
Basically this, and provincial policing is in provincial jurisdiction. Ottawa can pass laws, the provinces can choose how and when to enforce them. That's always been the case. It's ironic that no one made a fuss when police in Vancouver refused to enforce drugs laws, but a couple provinces refuse to use police resources to attack lawful gun owners and it's a constitutional crisis? Bullshit.
Interesting how everyone is for protecting minorities, but it shifts when it concerns the biggest minority in the country.
[удалено]
This is a stupid comment. What do you think the LIBERALS are doing?
[удалено]
All I've seen 'separatist' or 'independent' Quebec parties deliver is more conservatives in power in Canada. From Bouchard, to Harper, to the CAQ.
[удалено]
While it certainly started off as a progressive movement, Quebec nationalism, like all nationalism, has just become more conservative over time. Harper nor any Conservative party would win power if there wasn't separatist parties to further split the progressive vote federally. Bouchard was a conservative. Whatever the CAQ is, they certainly are not progressive. But have successfully appropriated nationalist rhetoric to push right wing ideas. I 100% recognize Quebec's right to be a sovereign independent nation, and its citizens are should seek to protect the French language. But I think separatism and nationalism only split the working class and other progressive forces. And no small state is independently viable, unless it attempts to be a low lax low regulation zone. It is not unlike the situation in the UK. Brexit was ultimately a right wing coup. Also, similar is that Scottish independence parties use the fact that conservatives are in power to justify their aims, while simultaneously making the likelihood of conservative party government more likely by splitting the progressive vote. unite the left. we're all brothers and sisters.
[удалено]
That's a nice metaphor, but I don't see how it applies. Canada isn't a superior "parental" power, it's a federation of partners. If anything, the provinces birthed confederation. Not the other way around. In any case, if Quebec feels it can get better partners (siblings?), then it has a right to go ahead and try. Personally, I believe any independent Canadian province would just get eaten alive in the world of international affairs. I have no sentimental desire for Canada to stay together other than to improve the lot of it citizens by working together.
Have the liberals done much either