To the losers go the spoils .These are certainly interesting times for constitutional norms. Alberta’s and Saskatchewan’s governments are planning to pass bills they say would essentially allow them to ignore any federal law they don’t like. They can’t do that, constitutional experts protest. Premiers Danielle Smith and Scott Moe don’t seem to care.
Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government continues to explore novel uses of the charter’s notwithstanding clause, this time to legislate (or at least threaten to) a four-year contract on CUPE-represented educational workers. That’s not the sort of thing the notwithstanding clause was meant for, constitutional experts insist. And it was never designed to be used preemptively — to shield new legislation from judicial objections, rather than respond to such objections after the fact. Premier Doug Ford doesn’t seem to care.
Meanwhile in Quebec, provincial Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette says the Coalition Avenir Québec government will introduce legislation that would make swearing allegiance to the Canadian monarch optional. Constitutional experts insist (as does common sense) that a province can’t just pass a law that overrides the Constitution, which makes the oath mandatory in no uncertain terms. Premier François Legault definitely doesn’t care.
Still in Quebec: On Wednesday, Christine Fréchette, minister of Immigration, Francization and Integration, gave an interesting answer to a perplexing question. The federal government wants to ramp up immigration to 500,000 people a year. Legault refuses to accept more than 50,000; he wants even more powers over immigration to be transferred from Ottawa, a process that began in 1991 for Quebec and no other province.
If a province currently comprising 22 per cent of the Canadian population only accepts 10 per cent of immigrants to Canada, a reporter noted, it is rapidly going to lose demographic clout in the federation — including in the House of Commons, one might naively assume.
“We’re relying on a commitment from the Canadian prime minister to ensure stable representation of Quebec in the House of Commons,” Fréchette said. “The (federal) opposition parties share this perspective. For us, it’s reassuring.”
Chris Selley: Quebec is counting on special treatment from Ottawa to pursue its xenophobic agenda — National Post
No federal party should want to be seen aiding and abetting Legault's economically damaging planapple.news
Worse, and just as pathetic, Fréchette has good reason to believe Ottawa will play ball. The Liberals have committed to not letting Quebec lose even a single seat, despite the mathematical fact that it should in the next redistribution. “Ensuring that Quebec’s number of seats in the House of Commons remains constant” is even part of the Liberals’ supply-and-confidence agreement with the New Democrats.
Well, hey, why not? Representation-by-population in Canada is already a bit of a joke: A vote in Labrador (population 26,655) is worth almost eight times what it’s worth in Edmonton-Wetaskiwin (population 209,431). The largest riding in Ontario, Brampton West, is home to 162,353 people, according to the 2021 census; the smallest, Kenora, is home to 64,261.
Besides, we all know Quebec is special. The rest at the above link.
Unity & Equalization??
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
Quebec 4 years has managed to basically dictates to the federal government what they want to have happen. Now the other provinces are deciding to go down that route. And what the feds are about to discover is that the whole Confederation concept only works if everybody agrees to it. If provinces decide that they no longer care about the precise wording of the Confederation documents and that they want to do something different the feds are going to have one hell of a time trying to stop them. And this is just going to get more and more pronounced until it comes to a confrontational point where something has to change.
I don't for a moment believe that the conservatives should they get into power will allow Quebec to have an unreasonable representation. They might make some accommodations but at the end of the day they know that if they piss off British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan and Manitoba they simply can't get enough votes to win an election. But I do believe that the provinces are going to demand more power and they're going to get it.
I don't for a moment believe that the conservatives should they get into power will allow Quebec to have an unreasonable representation. They might make some accommodations but at the end of the day they know that if they piss off British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan and Manitoba they simply can't get enough votes to win an election. But I do believe that the provinces are going to demand more power and they're going to get it.
WOW, apparently the MSM don't read or comprehend very well.These are certainly interesting times for constitutional norms. Alberta’s and Saskatchewan’s governments are planning to pass bills they say would essentially allow them to ignore any federal law they don’t like. They can’t do that, constitutional experts protest. Premiers Danielle Smith and Scott Moe don’t seem to care.
Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government continues to explore novel uses of the charter’s notwithstanding clause, this time to legislate (or at least threaten to) a four-year contract on CUPE-represented educational workers. That’s not the sort of thing the notwithstanding clause was meant for, constitutional experts insist. And it was never designed to be used preemptively — to shield new legislation from judicial objections, rather than respond to such objections after the fact. Premier Doug Ford doesn’t seem to care.
Meanwhile in Quebec, provincial Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette says the Coalition Avenir Québec government will introduce legislation that would make swearing allegiance to the Canadian monarch optional. Constitutional experts insist (as does common sense) that a province can’t just pass a law that overrides the Constitution, which makes the oath mandatory in no uncertain terms. Premier François Legault definitely doesn’t care.
Still in Quebec: On Wednesday, Christine Fréchette, minister of Immigration, Francization and Integration, gave an interesting answer to a perplexing question. The federal government wants to ramp up immigration to 500,000 people a year. Legault refuses to accept more than 50,000; he wants even more powers over immigration to be transferred from Ottawa, a process that began in 1991 for Quebec and no other province.
If a province currently comprising 22 per cent of the Canadian population only accepts 10 per cent of immigrants to Canada, a reporter noted, it is rapidly going to lose demographic clout in the federation — including in the House of Commons, one might naively assume.
“We’re relying on a commitment from the Canadian prime minister to ensure stable representation of Quebec in the House of Commons,” Fréchette said. “The (federal) opposition parties share this perspective. For us, it’s reassuring.”
Chris Selley: Quebec is counting on special treatment from Ottawa to pursue its xenophobic agenda — National Post
No federal party should want to be seen aiding and abetting Legault's economically damaging plan
Worse, and just as pathetic, Fréchette has good reason to believe Ottawa will play ball. The Liberals have committed to not letting Quebec lose even a single seat, despite the mathematical fact that it should in the next redistribution. “Ensuring that Quebec’s number of seats in the House of Commons remains constant” is even part of the Liberals’ supply-and-confidence agreement with the New Democrats.
Well, hey, why not? Representation-by-population in Canada is already a bit of a joke: A vote in Labrador (population 26,655) is worth almost eight times what it’s worth in Edmonton-Wetaskiwin (population 209,431). The largest riding in Ontario, Brampton West, is home to 162,353 people, according to the 2021 census; the smallest, Kenora, is home to 64,261.
Besides, we all know Quebec is special. The rest at the above link.
From the correspondence that I have received, what Smith & Moe are proposing is that any Federal Regulation/Law that the Feds want to impose on the Provinces, which are NOT under Federal jurisdiction, the Province can decide not to comply because the Feds have no right to impose something that is not in their mandate to impose. Does that make sense?
They are wanting to follow the Constitution whereby the Feds & the Provinces EACH have their own jurisdictions and neither should over-ride the other. I don't know what is so difficult to understand. I also am aware that for Smith anyway, it's still a work in progress so there will still be amendments/changes as the idea is being studied.
It's about time the Provinces started standing up to the Feds and I hope that this is just the beginning.