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.
The Constitution Act 1982 was amending act to the Constitution Act 1867. It was a BIG addition, but it was an amendment and passed as such.
Québec has tried to insert some clauses into via Bill 96 on language into the Constitution Act, 1867 but the Feds and the other provinces don't recognize that.
If you want to work for and be paid by the Crown, swear allegiance to it. If you don't want to, find another employer.
I have made this exact point to former colleagues who grumbled; public service is not compulsory, they are not swearing personal fealty to George II nor to Cecil Rhodes, but to a person symbolizing constitutional democracy.
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.
The Constitution Act 1982 was amending act to the Constitution Act 1867. It was a BIG addition, but it was an amendment and passed as such..
I hadn’t thought of the 1982 Act as an amending Act - hence my puzzlement - because it has a freestanding existence on its own. But you’re right, it also amends the 1867 Act, so that answers the question.
I’ve always been perfectly happy with the Crown as the symbol of constitutional democracy, though I don’t know much my basic happiness with a connection to things British plays into this. I suppose we as a country may well have to revisit this sometime down the road as our demographics change, though frankly the concept seems to work well in practice and there is much to be said for not messing with basic constitutional structures unless you really really have to.
... frankly the concept seems to work well in practice and there is much to be said for not messing with basic constitutional structures unless you really really have to.
Exactly. Not sure how the American system is better, for example. Both have their pros and cons.
... frankly the concept seems to work well in practice and there is much to be said for not messing with basic constitutional structures unless you really really have to.
Exactly. Not sure how the American system is better, for example. Both have their pros and cons.
Canada's constitutional monarchy is pretty much indistinguishable from a figurehead-presidency(like Ireland, Italy etc), but with more pageantry and mysticism.
One reason I don't favour a parliamentary republic for Canada.
It'd be a lotta costly paperwork and redesign for relatively little payback, in terms of providing better government or restructuring power imbalances.
On that latter note, if(as I have heard argued) the monarchy symbolizes the regime that historically perpetuated power imbalances, and should therefore be abolished, then should nations which perpetuated power imbalances in the name of a republic(Yes, I'm lookin' at you, Brother Jonathan!) switch to a monarchy?
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…
About Ontario:
That' easy once you understand the history. There are two kinds of provinces, new creations and existing-merger. Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are all new creations. Ontario and Quebec were legally created in 1867 and a good part of the BNA Act was to give Ontar and Quebec a provincial legislature from scratch. The Prairie provinces each have their eponymous Acts.
The others provinces continued under their original constituting Acts, which just meant the Legislature coninued to sit with the same ridings rules as before with the same term. Every province has the same British style colonial Legislature as currently used in St. Helena, Bermuda etc so it all comes to the same place in the end. A Provincial Constitution in Canada is just an organzing Act, it constitutes a Legislature. When Newfoundland joined Confederation the ghost of its House of Assembly was revived with the same ridings as 1933.
You can't make a Constitutioal validity claim based on provincial Constitution because provincial jurisdiction stems exclusively from s. 92 of the BNA Act. Constitutions in Canada are like India, they're very top-down.
And many of those provinces had upper chambers: (The following is from wiki)
Some Canadian provinces once possessed upper houses, but abolished them to adopt unicameral systems. Newfoundland had a Legislative Council prior to joining Canada, as did Ontario when it was Upper Canada. Newfoundland has the power to re-establish its upper house, the Legislative Council, pursuant to Term 14 (2) of the Terms of Union.[1] Manitoba had an upper chamber until it was abolished in 1876, New Brunswick's upper chamber was abolished in 1892, Prince Edward Island's upper chamber was abolished in 1893, Nova Scotia's upper chamber was abolished in 1928 and Quebec's upper chamber was abolished in 1968.[2]
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…
About Ontario:
That' easy once you understand the history. There are two kinds of provinces, new creations and existing-merger. Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are all new creations. Ontario and Quebec were legally created in 1867 and a good part of the BNA Act was to give Ontar and Quebec a provincial legislature from scratch. The Prairie provinces each have their eponymous Acts.
The others provinces continued under their original constituting Acts, which just meant the Legislature coninued to sit with the same ridings rules as before with the same term. Every province has the same British style colonial Legislature as currently used in St. Helena, Bermuda etc so it all comes to the same place in the end. A Provincial Constitution in Canada is just an organzing Act, it constitutes a Legislature. When Newfoundland joined Confederation the ghost of its House of Assembly was revived with the same ridings as 1933.
You can't make a Constitutioal validity claim based on provincial Constitution because provincial jurisdiction stems exclusively from s. 92 of the BNA Act. Constitutions in Canada are like India, they're very top-down.
Appreciate the background, but I was actually whimsically wondering how we should rename the Legislature. Maybe the Family Expansion?
Informative reading for anyone who believes that "Only with the rise of the Reform Party did Canadian conservatism get taken over by greedy capitalists and religious bigots."
When addressing his more educated followers, Manning often liked to situate his party within the tradition of various western populist movements, including Riel, the Progressives/Farmers, Social Credit(obviously ) and, with the neccessary qualifications, the CCF.
So, I HAVE actually wondered if Manning chose the label "Reform" to appeal to the more historically literate among Ontario's suburban malcontents. But I'm guessing that a lotta those people wouldn't even recognize the name, and, among those who would, some would still have a vague ancestral memory that the Orange Lodge was fighting against bad people.
I always thought the Liberals should have sued Preston Manning for brand infringement.
You mean because of the old name of the anti-Tory faction in Upper Canada?
I knew a Liberal politician in the pre-Manning days who used to refer to the Liberals as the party of reform-- he had to drop this line from speeches and presentations as the 1980s turned into the 1990s.
During my only conversation with Preston Manning (at a wedding which featured a solo by the bride's mother.... ever since then I have preferred the notion of elopement), I mentioned this to him, and I got a brief but good-humoured explanation on why he thought the name was appropriate to his movement. He was quite aware of the historic roots of the term. Sadly for lawyers, few anglophone Liberals were as aware of the historic roots.
...few anglophone Liberals were as aware of the historic roots.
I think even for most politically aware anglo Canadians, "Grit" would be about as far back as they could trace our whiggish nomenclature. Though some could probably figure out which tendency William Lyon Mackenzie was ancestral to.
Yeah, but what I meant was that most Canadians probably wouldn't know that the group before the Clear Grits was the Reformers. (And I'm guessing also wouldn't think of the "Clear" half of the name.)
That one is much more succinct and digestible. The wikipedia article, as is often the case, has a lot more information, but is meandering and, I might guess, questionable on some points of fact.
Those of us of Loyalist ancestry have noted Mr Trump's recent comments....
I'm not joking when I say that Mr. Trudeau should announce that he's planning a committee to examine the feasibility of Canada acquiring its own independent nuclear arsenal. We gave the bomb to the Yanks, we gave it to India, and as far as I know, we still have uranium kicking around somewhere.
I never thought I would live to see the day but Quebrc and Newfoundand & Labrador have renegotiated the Churvhill Falls agreement. It actually looks like a good deal now for Newfoundland.
I never thought I would live to see the day but Quebrc and Newfoundand & Labrador have renegotiated the Churvhill Falls agreement. It actually looks like a good deal now for Newfoundland.
I never really expected to see this happen either… but good news.
I never thought I would live to see the day but Quebrc and Newfoundand & Labrador have renegotiated the Churvhill Falls agreement. It actually looks like a good deal now for Newfoundland.
I never really expected to see this happen either… but good news.
I never thought the Premier of Québec would leave St. John's to cheers and applause.
François Legault was charming, affable and conceded the existing contract was a bad deal. Somebody get the licence plate on that premier.
I never thought I would live to see the day but Quebrc and Newfoundand & Labrador have renegotiated the Churvhill Falls agreement. It actually looks like a good deal now for Newfoundland.
I never really expected to see this happen either… but good news.
I never thought the Premier of Québec would leave St. John's to cheers and applause.
François Legault was charming, affable and conceded the existing contract was a bad deal. Somebody get the licence plate on that premier.
In other news, Trudeau appears to trying to recruit Carney to replace Freeland again. Why Carney would want the job right now is a mystery to me - what competent person would want to be finance minister right now when JT is clearly signaling he’s prepared to override his finance minister at the drop of a hat?
The thing is that I’m pretty sure Carney would make an excellent finance minister (PM I’m not so sure). And by all accounts Freeland has been one of the top performers in the Trudeau ministry and a possible successor as PM (if the Liberal party gets elected in the foreseeable future which at the moment is not looking so sure). Otherwise put, Carney and Freeland are not the problem.
I now see that Poilievre has been making serious hay of this. My WTF moment about this is entirely independent of hearing anything from his speeches, but in fairness in the circumstances his speeches sort of write themselves.
The thing is that I’m pretty sure Carney would make an excellent finance minister (PM I’m not so sure). And by all accounts Freeland has been one of the top performers in the Trudeau ministry and a possible successor as PM (if the Liberal party gets elected in the foreseeable future which at the moment is not looking so sure). Otherwise put, Carney and Freeland are not the problem.
Oh, sure. I was just kinda articulating vibes I get about his political prospects from here on in.
(And honestly I know next to nothing about Carney beyond that he was the big banker in Canada and the UK and changed the imagery on the pound in an interesting way.
I do also know that there's a certain archetype that occasionally incarnates itself among Liberal leadership-types, and I think I have a good idea of how Carney's hypesters are thinking his elevation would go.)
Carney is not looking to hop on to a sinking ship.
And if things keep up the way they've been going with, shall we say, cross-border issues, the economic scene in Canada is about to become a multi-directional shouting match. Prob'ly not a real fun-time for the shoe-store photo-ops.
My guess is that he would take on the challenge (to put it mildly) if the Canadian public were inclined to give him their vote. Which at the moment is not gonna happen.
My guess is that he would take on the challenge (to put it mildly) if the Canadian public were inclined to give him their vote. Which at the moment is not gonna happen.
I think it might be indicative of my exile-bred detachment from the politics of the country I have now returned to, that I'm not sure I could defend any particular predictions about the upcoming election. Perhaps in a needlessly contrarian spirit, I have been entertaining the notion that the Liberals could still hold onto a minority. But I'm open to more apocalyptic scenarios.
Comments
The Constitution Act 1982 was amending act to the Constitution Act 1867. It was a BIG addition, but it was an amendment and passed as such.
Québec has tried to insert some clauses into via Bill 96 on language into the Constitution Act, 1867 but the Feds and the other provinces don't recognize that.
I have made this exact point to former colleagues who grumbled; public service is not compulsory, they are not swearing personal fealty to George II nor to Cecil Rhodes, but to a person symbolizing constitutional democracy.
I hadn’t thought of the 1982 Act as an amending Act - hence my puzzlement - because it has a freestanding existence on its own. But you’re right, it also amends the 1867 Act, so that answers the question.
I’ve always been perfectly happy with the Crown as the symbol of constitutional democracy, though I don’t know much my basic happiness with a connection to things British plays into this. I suppose we as a country may well have to revisit this sometime down the road as our demographics change, though frankly the concept seems to work well in practice and there is much to be said for not messing with basic constitutional structures unless you really really have to.
Exactly. Not sure how the American system is better, for example. Both have their pros and cons.
Canada's constitutional monarchy is pretty much indistinguishable from a figurehead-presidency(like Ireland, Italy etc), but with more pageantry and mysticism.
It'd be a lotta costly paperwork and redesign for relatively little payback, in terms of providing better government or restructuring power imbalances.
On that latter note, if(as I have heard argued) the monarchy symbolizes the regime that historically perpetuated power imbalances, and should therefore be abolished, then should nations which perpetuated power imbalances in the name of a republic(Yes, I'm lookin' at you, Brother Jonathan!) switch to a monarchy?
About Ontario:
That' easy once you understand the history. There are two kinds of provinces, new creations and existing-merger. Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are all new creations. Ontario and Quebec were legally created in 1867 and a good part of the BNA Act was to give Ontar and Quebec a provincial legislature from scratch. The Prairie provinces each have their eponymous Acts.
The others provinces continued under their original constituting Acts, which just meant the Legislature coninued to sit with the same ridings rules as before with the same term. Every province has the same British style colonial Legislature as currently used in St. Helena, Bermuda etc so it all comes to the same place in the end. A Provincial Constitution in Canada is just an organzing Act, it constitutes a Legislature. When Newfoundland joined Confederation the ghost of its House of Assembly was revived with the same ridings as 1933.
You can't make a Constitutioal validity claim based on provincial Constitution because provincial jurisdiction stems exclusively from s. 92 of the BNA Act. Constitutions in Canada are like India, they're very top-down.
Some Canadian provinces once possessed upper houses, but abolished them to adopt unicameral systems. Newfoundland had a Legislative Council prior to joining Canada, as did Ontario when it was Upper Canada. Newfoundland has the power to re-establish its upper house, the Legislative Council, pursuant to Term 14 (2) of the Terms of Union.[1] Manitoba had an upper chamber until it was abolished in 1876, New Brunswick's upper chamber was abolished in 1892, Prince Edward Island's upper chamber was abolished in 1893, Nova Scotia's upper chamber was abolished in 1928 and Quebec's upper chamber was abolished in 1968.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abolished_upper_houses
It's rather like my Public Service office: we don't have an office geek, we are all geeks.
Appreciate the background, but I was actually whimsically wondering how we should rename the Legislature. Maybe the Family Expansion?
For the benefit of the long-suffering Purgatory hosts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Compact
Long day, weak jokes.
I think Meredith as a certain flightless seabird would more fit the typical image of the Family Compact.
Informative reading for anyone who believes that "Only with the rise of the Reform Party did Canadian conservatism get taken over by greedy capitalists and religious bigots."
You mean because of the old name of the anti-Tory faction in Upper Canada?
When addressing his more educated followers, Manning often liked to situate his party within the tradition of various western populist movements, including Riel, the Progressives/Farmers, Social Credit(obviously ) and, with the neccessary qualifications, the CCF.
So, I HAVE actually wondered if Manning chose the label "Reform" to appeal to the more historically literate among Ontario's suburban malcontents. But I'm guessing that a lotta those people wouldn't even recognize the name, and, among those who would, some would still have a vague ancestral memory that the Orange Lodge was fighting against bad people.
I knew a Liberal politician in the pre-Manning days who used to refer to the Liberals as the party of reform-- he had to drop this line from speeches and presentations as the 1980s turned into the 1990s.
During my only conversation with Preston Manning (at a wedding which featured a solo by the bride's mother.... ever since then I have preferred the notion of elopement), I mentioned this to him, and I got a brief but good-humoured explanation on why he thought the name was appropriate to his movement. He was quite aware of the historic roots of the term. Sadly for lawyers, few anglophone Liberals were as aware of the historic roots.
I think even for most politically aware anglo Canadians, "Grit" would be about as far back as they could trace our whiggish nomenclature. Though some could probably figure out which tendency William Lyon Mackenzie was ancestral to.
Yeah, but what I meant was that most Canadians probably wouldn't know that the group before the Clear Grits was the Reformers. (And I'm guessing also wouldn't think of the "Clear" half of the name.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_movement_(Upper_Canada)
I think your typo accidently linked the wrong article. "Reform movement (Upper Canada)" is where ya wanna go.
"Parti canadien" will get you to their buddies in Lower Canada.
That one is much more succinct and digestible. The wikipedia article, as is often the case, has a lot more information, but is meandering and, I might guess, questionable on some points of fact.
I'm not joking when I say that Mr. Trudeau should announce that he's planning a committee to examine the feasibility of Canada acquiring its own independent nuclear arsenal. We gave the bomb to the Yanks, we gave it to India, and as far as I know, we still have uranium kicking around somewhere.
I never really expected to see this happen either… but good news.
Right to strike, my arse. It's a "right" until the gov't decides to take it away.
I never thought the Premier of Québec would leave St. John's to cheers and applause.
François Legault was charming, affable and conceded the existing contract was a bad deal. Somebody get the licence plate on that premier.
I'm sorry, but what does your last sentence mean?
Carney's the guy who put Jane Austen on the pound note. Or something.
Because the last transatlantic chattering-class charmer did so well for the Grits.
I now see that Poilievre has been making serious hay of this. My WTF moment about this is entirely independent of hearing anything from his speeches, but in fairness in the circumstances his speeches sort of write themselves.
Oh, sure. I was just kinda articulating vibes I get about his political prospects from here on in.
(And honestly I know next to nothing about Carney beyond that he was the big banker in Canada and the UK and changed the imagery on the pound in an interesting way.
I do also know that there's a certain archetype that occasionally incarnates itself among Liberal leadership-types, and I think I have a good idea of how Carney's hypesters are thinking his elevation would go.)
And if things keep up the way they've been going with, shall we say, cross-border issues, the economic scene in Canada is about to become a multi-directional shouting match. Prob'ly not a real fun-time for the shoe-store photo-ops.
I think it might be indicative of my exile-bred detachment from the politics of the country I have now returned to, that I'm not sure I could defend any particular predictions about the upcoming election. Perhaps in a needlessly contrarian spirit, I have been entertaining the notion that the Liberals could still hold onto a minority. But I'm open to more apocalyptic scenarios.