On a completely different note, in the BC election, the Conservative candidates in my riding and the ridings surrounding me are ducking interviews and pretty consistently skipping all-candidates forums. I don't know whether they are extremely confident or extremely arrogant. Either way, it doesn't seem to me to be a great look.
On the other hand, given how little attention people seem to pay to provincial elections, perhaps they're simply being efficient with their time.
Does anyone happen to know why the BC United Party suddenly became so unelectable? I don't follow BC politics that closely anymore, and only found out about their collapse and merger into the Conservatives about a month ago.
Since the 1940's BC has had room for two parties, the CCF/NDP and the Free Enterprise Party, variously the original Liberal/Conservative Coalition, Social Credit, the revived BC Liberals/United and the revived Conservatives. They are all substantially the same party. What we just saw was really a leadership race in disguise.
Yeah, I know about the various right-wing realignments in BC political history. But, eg. Social Credit is regarded as having destroyed itself by foisting Bill Vander Zalm on the public. So, by the same token, what is the reason right-wingers in BC couldn't have just continued on under the BC United banner?
The Lululemon guy is putting up a third anti-NDP sign on his property after the previous two were vandalized.
Whatever his actual intentions in this tit-for-tat, I assume he at least recognizes that this could aid in fostering an image of the NDP as the party of street vandalism.
(I remember a while back, Lululemon caused some controversy by decorating one of their yoga-bags with Ayn Rand quotes.)
Some apparent inconsistency in the narratives, specifically about whether India's diplomats were expelled or recalled.
Jagmeet Singh has called for banning the RSS in Canada. Not sure what the Conservatives are saying, but the grassroots on YouTube are blaming the whole thing on Trudeau and Singh's supposed ethnic politicking.
I don't want to think what the next Commonwealth Heads of Govermment meeting will look like.
I'm thinking of India/Pakistan 1971 and Tanzania/Uganda 1979 as moments where two Commonwealth nations were in armed conflict with one another, thus making Commonwealth Conferences taking place at those times(if any there were) awkward for the officials involved.
Not sure if there have been any conflicts involving players on both sides as high-profile as Canada and India are. And the fact that the accusations this time around involve terrorism and street violence just makes it all the more sordid.
Everybody needs to take a breather on 'foreign influence'. Canada has strong source limits and spending limits in elections. You can't buy an MP, the max donation is $1750. Spending limits are $135,000. (Depending on riding population) At most that is 1.3% of a campaign. I can't say what foreign actors thought they were buying but in reality they bought a few pizzas for campaign office workers.
The rules and audits prevent this sort of thing getting too far out of hand.
Everybody needs to take a breather on 'foreign influence'. Canada has strong source limits and spending limits in elections. You can't buy an MP, the max donation is $1750. Spending limits are $135,000. (Depending on riding population) At most that is 1.3% of a campaign. I can't say what foreign actors thought they were buying but in reality they bought a few pizzas for campaign office workers.
The rules and audits prevent this sort of thing getting too far out of hand.
Yeah, my main concern as far this financial-interference is more that laws might have been broken by high-ranking public officials, which should not be tolerated, even if just on principle. Rather than that it had any significant effect on electoral outcomes.
Back to Canada's bloodier version of MI6 vs. the Boston fenians:
While I do not doubt that credible evidence of Indian wrongdoing may exist and is being withheld from the public over legitimate concerns about national security...
The lacuna of publically available evidence is a PR bonanza for Modi and company.
Everybody needs to take a breather on 'foreign influence'. Canada has strong source limits and spending limits in elections. You can't buy an MP, the max donation is $1750. Spending limits are $135,000. (Depending on riding population) At most that is 1.3% of a campaign. I can't say what foreign actors thought they were buying but in reality they bought a few pizzas for campaign office workers.
The rules and audits prevent this sort of thing getting too far out of hand.
Everybody needs to take a breather on 'foreign influence'. Canada has strong source limits and spending limits in elections. You can't buy an MP, the max donation is $1750. Spending limits are $135,000. (Depending on riding population) At most that is 1.3% of a campaign. I can't say what foreign actors thought they were buying but in reality they bought a few pizzas for campaign office workers.
The rules and audits prevent this sort of thing getting too far out of hand.
"I have the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians and/or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada who are engaged, or at high risk of, or for whom there is clear intelligence around foreign interference," he [Trudeau] said.
If there is nothing there other than some minimal donations, I'd call that a lie.
I've never before participated in a Canadian election in which the outcome has not been clear by midnight. It could be at least a week before we know the results of the BC provincial election. CBC live (and ongoing) coverage. My hope, at this point, is for an NDP-Green coalition. Living in the unknown is a strange feeling.
Took a walk down Rideau today, and saw a big ad from the National Police Federation on a bus-shelter...
Political Tensions Rising
- Feeling Unsafe?
Bring Back the RCMP
to the Hill
Over a photo of a car which appears to have been vandalized by unseen and thus ideologically ambiguous miscreants.
Yeah, no. Think I'll pass. Partly, because the political tensions by the Hill these days are along the lines of a solitary dude yelling into a bullhorn.
If there were MPs or Senators involved in this mess, they should be fired and charged with treason.
Canadian law on treason is limited and pretty specific (with a whiff of the 17th century) involving maiming or imprisoning Her (sic) Majesty and levying war against Canada, or overthrowing provincial or federal governments. Unless something more comes out in testimony -- and it might-- I wonder if we're not restricted to political punishment, i.e., losing their seats either at the next election or through a motion of expulsion from Parliament.
In Ireland, cutting people in the streets (viz., ignoring them, not knifing them!) is still a widely-practised punishment, and IMHO has something to be said for it. Little hurts a politician more than being ignored.
Yukon could choose to amend its Municipal Act.
In 2022, Quebec passed legislation ending elected officials’ required oath to King Charles. At the time, the provincial lawmaker Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois called it “a relic from the past”.
I think this is more anti-colonialist than republican. Though I'd be interested to know how far the abjuring parties think the refusals should go.
Because, if Canada is to function as a constitutional monarchy, somebody, somewhere along the chain of governance has to formally proclaim loyalty to the Crown.
Yukon could choose to amend its Municipal Act.
In 2022, Quebec passed legislation ending elected officials’ required oath to King Charles. At the time, the provincial lawmaker Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois called it “a relic from the past”.
Yeah, but the government of Quebec is still headed by a Lieutenant Governor, who serves at the pleasure of the Governor-General, who represents the King. So the question of whether individual MNAs swear an oath to the monarchy is pretty academic.
Now, in fairness, Nadeau-Dubois is probably someone who advocates for sweeping away the entire monarchial apparatus. But I do wonder if most of these other oath-refusers are prepared to be as consistent with their position.
It would also require me to take Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois seriously, which I do not.
Apart from their quixotic commitment to independence, I think QS is probably the Quebec provincial party closest to my views. At least now that the PQ seems to have degenerated permanently into donut-shop ethno-nationalism.
Quebec Solidaire is a previous iteration of the Quebec NDP that was cut off for saying seperatist things.
That is why their party colour is orange.
Thanks. Not sure if I remembered that they were an iteration of the old provincial NDP. That would be the guys who had suspected-asphyxiationist Paul Rose as a candidate in the early 90s, I think.
FWIW, having seen the, shall we say, fervour of Korean nationalists up close for over two decades, I consider the current Quebec variety to be a buncha milquetoast posers.
Constitutional nerds (who else comes here?) might note that the National Assembly Act reads: The National Assembly and the Lieutenant-Governor form the Parliament of Québec. The Parliament of Québec assumes all the powers conferred on the Legislature of Québec.
This is a de-monarchizing and perhaps more coherent version of the previous National Assembly Act of 1968, which informed us that the National Assembly is composed of Her Majesty the Queen and the National Assembly. The LG remains the representative of the Governor General who stands in the place of King Charles III. A now-deceased BQ member of my acquaintance described the Oath as an awkwardly-worded pledge to the constitutional order and he could swear it with intellectual honesty.
Your friendly purgatory hosts read every post in Purg. And may I say, I enjoy this thread! I might have to google quite a lot to work out the whos and the wheres but I have learned so much!
Rene Levesque and Jacques Parizeau took the oath; everybody else can too.
I feel this Yukon stand is part of the persistent myth that "our treaty is with the Monarch not the government" which misrepresents everything about constiutional monarchy.
Rene Levesque and Jacques Parizeau took the oath; everybody else can too.
Well, Parizeau used to muse about keeping the monarch as the head of state in an independent Quebec. So he likely wasn't overly bothered by having to swear the oath personally.
I feel this Yukon stand is part of the persistent myth that "our treaty is with the Monarch not the government" which misrepresents everything about constiutional monarchy.
There's a Canadian lawyer(name unmentioned, in case I'm misstating his views, though I don't think I am) who has used that particular legal myth to try and advance indigenous land claims. Apparently, he wrote to the Queen herself asking for intervention in one case.
I don't believe he has had success with any of these arguments.
Constitutional nerds (who else comes here?) might note that the National Assembly Act reads: The National Assembly and the Lieutenant-Governor form the Parliament of Québec. The Parliament of Québec assumes all the powers conferred on the Legislature of Québec.
This is a de-monarchizing and perhaps more coherent version of the previous National Assembly Act of 1968, which informed us that the National Assembly is composed of Her Majesty the Queen and the National Assembly. The LG remains the representative of the Governor General who stands in the place of King Charles III. A now-deceased BQ member of my acquaintance described the Oath as an awkwardly-worded pledge to the constitutional order and he could swear it with intellectual honesty.
So, IOW someone reading the National Assembly Act in isolation could assume that Quebec was a republic, led by someone with the title Lieutenant Governor?
(Not that I'd really care either way, since I have no idea how provinces generally word these things, just asking for clarification.)
Yes and no. It's that way because the Federal Government maintains a veto over provincial legilsation through the powers of Reservation and Disallowance and the Lieutenant Governor is paid and appointed by the Federal Goverment. Provinces don't have a direct relationship with the monarchy, they have a relationship with the Govermment of Canada.
It's been academic for decades really but there you go.
Provinces don't have much in the way of a constitution they can amend themselves, most of the consequential things are in the BNA/Constitution Act, especially the roles of LG, provincial powers and Reservation and Disallowance.
They can title their legislature however they please but that's really trivial.
I believe that the province of British Columbia is the only one with a written constitution as such (nerds may find the text at https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96066_01) although the province's basic constitution is in the terms of union of the colonies of BC and Vancouver Island, and the federal Constitution Act. It seems that the BC Constitution has amplified the powers of the LG, but that is perhaps for someone desperate for a thesis topic to explore.
SPK is correct in that provinces may word things as they wish, and so I am anxiously waiting for Manitoba's Duma, Prince Edward Island's Local People's Congress, and New Brunswick's Grand Hural.
I didn’t know about the BC Constitution Act. It explicitly says that it’s subject to the (federal) Constitution Act 1867 and amending acts (as well it should be) but oddly no explicit mention of the Constitution Act 1982 (which includes the Charter). I suspect it’s implicit somehow but I have no idea how exactly…
In other news Trudeau seems to have decided to follow Doug Ford’s lead in trying to buy voters’ votes with our own money. Sigh.
Comments
Yeah, I know about the various right-wing realignments in BC political history. But, eg. Social Credit is regarded as having destroyed itself by foisting Bill Vander Zalm on the public. So, by the same token, what is the reason right-wingers in BC couldn't have just continued on under the BC United banner?
Whatever his actual intentions in this tit-for-tat, I assume he at least recognizes that this could aid in fostering an image of the NDP as the party of street vandalism.
(I remember a while back, Lululemon caused some controversy by decorating one of their yoga-bags with Ayn Rand quotes.)
Some apparent inconsistency in the narratives, specifically about whether India's diplomats were expelled or recalled.
Jagmeet Singh has called for banning the RSS in Canada. Not sure what the Conservatives are saying, but the grassroots on YouTube are blaming the whole thing on Trudeau and Singh's supposed ethnic politicking.
I'm thinking of India/Pakistan 1971 and Tanzania/Uganda 1979 as moments where two Commonwealth nations were in armed conflict with one another, thus making Commonwealth Conferences taking place at those times(if any there were) awkward for the officials involved.
Not sure if there have been any conflicts involving players on both sides as high-profile as Canada and India are. And the fact that the accusations this time around involve terrorism and street violence just makes it all the more sordid.
Trudeau may take Jagmeet line and target Hindus in Canada for political survival
Not the polar opposite of inflammatory, in any case.
While the Eyes are, culturally speaking, more-or-less Anglo-Saxon, it's interesting to see them actually described that way in a news article.
Apparently, "Pakistan and its deep state" are also involved, working through a high-profile Muslim-Canadian group.
[it’s times like this when I miss the old Ship’s selection of emoticons…]
Are you refering to the accusations against India?
The rules and audits prevent this sort of thing getting too far out of hand.
Yeah, my main concern as far this financial-interference is more that laws might have been broken by high-ranking public officials, which should not be tolerated, even if just on principle. Rather than that it had any significant effect on electoral outcomes.
While I do not doubt that credible evidence of Indian wrongdoing may exist and is being withheld from the public over legitimate concerns about national security...
The lacuna of publically available evidence is a PR bonanza for Modi and company.
If that's the case, Trudeau is lying.
How so?
If there is nothing there other than some minimal donations, I'd call that a lie.
From the CBC:
https://cbc.ca/news/politics/christy-clark-justin-trudeau-step-down-1.7357740[/url]
OTOH that would be worth 10 seats in BC for the NDP.
Over a photo of a car which appears to have been vandalized by unseen and thus ideologically ambiguous miscreants.
Yeah, no. Think I'll pass. Partly, because the political tensions by the Hill these days are along the lines of a solitary dude yelling into a bullhorn.
Canadian law on treason is limited and pretty specific (with a whiff of the 17th century) involving maiming or imprisoning Her (sic) Majesty and levying war against Canada, or overthrowing provincial or federal governments. Unless something more comes out in testimony -- and it might-- I wonder if we're not restricted to political punishment, i.e., losing their seats either at the next election or through a motion of expulsion from Parliament.
In Ireland, cutting people in the streets (viz., ignoring them, not knifing them!) is still a widely-practised punishment, and IMHO has something to be said for it. Little hurts a politician more than being ignored.
To quote Tom Lehrer: From this moment, satire is dead.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/20/canada-yukon-town-council-king-charles-oath
Fire them all.
In 2022, Quebec passed legislation ending elected officials’ required oath to King Charles. At the time, the provincial lawmaker Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois called it “a relic from the past”.
I think this is more anti-colonialist than republican. Though I'd be interested to know how far the abjuring parties think the refusals should go.
Because, if Canada is to function as a constitutional monarchy, somebody, somewhere along the chain of governance has to formally proclaim loyalty to the Crown.
Yeah, but the government of Quebec is still headed by a Lieutenant Governor, who serves at the pleasure of the Governor-General, who represents the King. So the question of whether individual MNAs swear an oath to the monarchy is pretty academic.
Now, in fairness, Nadeau-Dubois is probably someone who advocates for sweeping away the entire monarchial apparatus. But I do wonder if most of these other oath-refusers are prepared to be as consistent with their position.
Apart from their quixotic commitment to independence, I think QS is probably the Quebec provincial party closest to my views. At least now that the PQ seems to have degenerated permanently into donut-shop ethno-nationalism.
That is why their party colour is orange.
Thanks. Not sure if I remembered that they were an iteration of the old provincial NDP. That would be the guys who had suspected-asphyxiationist Paul Rose as a candidate in the early 90s, I think.
FWIW, having seen the, shall we say, fervour of Korean nationalists up close for over two decades, I consider the current Quebec variety to be a buncha milquetoast posers.
This is a de-monarchizing and perhaps more coherent version of the previous National Assembly Act of 1968, which informed us that the National Assembly is composed of Her Majesty the Queen and the National Assembly. The LG remains the representative of the Governor General who stands in the place of King Charles III. A now-deceased BQ member of my acquaintance described the Oath as an awkwardly-worded pledge to the constitutional order and he could swear it with intellectual honesty.
Your friendly purgatory hosts read every post in Purg. And may I say, I enjoy this thread! I might have to google quite a lot to work out the whos and the wheres but I have learned so much!
I feel this Yukon stand is part of the persistent myth that "our treaty is with the Monarch not the government" which misrepresents everything about constiutional monarchy.
Well, Parizeau used to muse about keeping the monarch as the head of state in an independent Quebec. So he likely wasn't overly bothered by having to swear the oath personally.
There's a Canadian lawyer(name unmentioned, in case I'm misstating his views, though I don't think I am) who has used that particular legal myth to try and advance indigenous land claims. Apparently, he wrote to the Queen herself asking for intervention in one case.
I don't believe he has had success with any of these arguments.
So, IOW someone reading the National Assembly Act in isolation could assume that Quebec was a republic, led by someone with the title Lieutenant Governor?
(Not that I'd really care either way, since I have no idea how provinces generally word these things, just asking for clarification.)
It's been academic for decades really but there you go.
Provinces don't have much in the way of a constitution they can amend themselves, most of the consequential things are in the BNA/Constitution Act, especially the roles of LG, provincial powers and Reservation and Disallowance.
They can title their legislature however they please but that's really trivial.
SPK is correct in that provinces may word things as they wish, and so I am anxiously waiting for Manitoba's Duma, Prince Edward Island's Local People's Congress, and New Brunswick's Grand Hural.
I didn’t know about the BC Constitution Act. It explicitly says that it’s subject to the (federal) Constitution Act 1867 and amending acts (as well it should be) but oddly no explicit mention of the Constitution Act 1982 (which includes the Charter). I suspect it’s implicit somehow but I have no idea how exactly…
In other news Trudeau seems to have decided to follow Doug Ford’s lead in trying to buy voters’ votes with our own money. Sigh.