The slow decline of Federation?

[Eaglelord17]

So I waited a while before posting this as I was hoping there would have been a court challenge by now. Are we as a nation really allowing provinces to unilaterally amend the Constitution and not hold them accountable? In this case we aren't even requiring elected officials to swear the oath to the King, which every one who joins Canada has to swear, on top of all those who wish to serve. The concerning part is that no one seems to be willing to hold them accountable to our own laws. Why isn't there a challenge to it, even simply on the grounds that no one can act above the law?

Canada: Quebec makes oath to King optional for politicians

The bill tries to amend the constitution, which means it could be challenged in court.

www.bbc.com

 

[RangerRay]

I agree. We have seen Quebec "unilaterally amending the Constitution" a couple times before this and it was either so inconsequential or so controversial that the Trudeau government didn't think it was worth the squeeze to challenge them. And now we have Alberta's Sovereignty Act which is based on a legal fiction that provinces and "opt out" of federal laws they don't like. Again, we see Trudeau doing everything he can to avoid a fight over this. If this continues, we will start seeing more provinces making up their own rules with regards to the Constitution and it will eventually be so unsustainable that the Feds will have to bring the hammer down. When that happens, you will see national unity stretched to the breaking point, IMHO.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So I waited a while before posting this as I was hoping there would have been a court challenge by now. Are we as a nation really allowing provinces to unilaterally amend the Constitution and not hold them accountable? In this case we aren't even requiring elected officials to swear the oath to the King, which every one who joins Canada has to swear, on top of all those who wish to serve. The concerning part is that no one seems to be willing to hold them accountable to our own laws. Why isn't there a challenge to it, even simply on the grounds that no one can act above the law?

Canada: Quebec makes oath to King optional for politicians

The bill tries to amend the constitution, which means it could be challenged in court.

www.bbc.com

Because Quebec is gonna Quebec. That's the answer. They have the rest of the country hostage.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I agree. We have seen Quebec "unilaterally amending the Constitution" a couple times before this and it was either so inconsequential or so controversial that the Trudeau government didn't think it was worth the squeeze to challenge them. And now we have Alberta's Sovereignty Act which is based on a legal fiction that provinces and "opt out" of federal laws they don't like. Again, we see Trudeau doing everything he can to avoid a fight over this. If this continues, we will start seeing more provinces making up their own rules with regards to the Constitution and it will eventually be so unsustainable that the Feds will have to bring the hammer down. When that happens, you will see national unity stretched to the breaking point, IMHO.

You're right. We aren't a serious country.

 

[lenaitch]

It truly is Quebec being Quebec - again. The Bill can say it amends the Constitution, but it doesn't, because simply saying it out loud doesn't follow the amending procedure. The net impact is, beyond the main purpose of giving the finger to the federal government, any assembly members technically sit illegally.

 

[GR66]

It truly is Quebec being Quebec - again. The Bill can say it amends the Constitution, but it doesn't, because simply saying it out loud doesn't follow the amending procedure. The net impact is, beyond the main purpose of giving the finger to the federal government, any assembly members technically sit illegally.

I'm no constitutional expert, but if the highlighted portion is true could you possibly challenge any laws passed by the legislature as not being legally binding as the MNA's that passed the laws were never legally sworn in to their positions?

 

[Eaglelord17]

I'm no constitutional expert, but if the highlighted portion is true could you possibly challenge any laws passed by the legislature as not being legally binding as the MNA's that passed the laws were never legally sworn in to their positions?

Could you charge the MPPs with fraud as they aren't legally entitled to be in that position and they are collecting pay? Could there potentially be corruption related charges applied here to the legislative assembly in Quebec? I have no idea.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Because Quebec is gonna Quebec. That's the answer. They have the rest of the country hostage.

So the Quebecois still haven't gotten over being dumped and ghosted by the French King. When at least the British Monarchy for the most part is willing to listen to them.......

 

[RangerRay]

We could have given them the Acadian treatment, but that didn’t work out well for anyone.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

We could have given them the Acadian treatment, but that didn’t work out well for anyone.

The only reason they didn't get the Acadian treatment was because Wolfe caught a musket ball with his chest on the Plains of Abraham. His journal was a very clear indicator of his hatred for the French, so much so he was willing to burn every farm along the St. Lawrence should the assault on Quebec City have failed.

 

[Furniture]

The only reason they didn't get the Acadian treatment was because Wolfe caught a musket ball with his chest on the Plains of Abraham. His journal was a very clear indicator of his hatred for the French, so much so he was willing to burn every farm along the St. Lawrence should the assault on Quebec City have failed.

That would have been a sound way to disrupt the French, and make it more difficult to hold Quebec. It might be frowned upon today, but it was par for the course in that time period. During the Hundred Years War Northern France was devastated by the extensive use of chevauchee by both sides.

 

[Navy_Pete]

If the only thing holding Canada together is the British monarchy we are foxed.

They'll make some noise, make some people happy/angry, and then fundamentally change nothing of substance. They'll still do the same job, still have the Lt Gov and still whinge about how hard done they were to keep their legal system, language and culture, while everyday Quebecers are just worried about the same things as everyone else, like cost of groceries.

I'm not a monarchist, but think getting rid of them is an unecessary pain in the ass and people will want to replace the Monarch with a President or something which has it's own downsides.

 

[RangerRay]

The only reason they didn't get the Acadian treatment was because Wolfe caught a musket ball with his chest on the Plains of Abraham. His journal was a very clear indicator of his hatred for the French, so much so he was willing to burn every farm along the St. Lawrence should the assault on Quebec City have failed.

Very interesting. I had read that after the debacle in Acadia, the British thought that they would try the carrot approach should they ever conquer Quebec. That proved unpopular with the colonists to the south who were hoping to get their hands on that sweet, sweet St. Lawrence land.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Very interesting. I had read that after the debacle in Acadia, the British thought that they would try the carrot approach should they ever conquer Quebec. That proved unpopular with the colonists to the south who were hoping to get their hands on that sweet, sweet St. Lawrence land.

There were many in the Thirteen Colonies that had spent a generation fighting the French and Huron. To bring them into the fold without "Making the world England" was a first for the British Empire. A lot of those who fought the French at Carillion and Fort William Henry would have been pissed to find such favorable conditions given to the people they were sworn enemies of.

Throw in the Proclaimation if 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774....

 

[SeaKingTacco]

This is what I love about Army.ca- that threads end up in thought provoking places such as this.

 

[Good2Golf]

This is what I love about Army.ca- that threads end up in thought provoking places such as this.

Well then…I’m all for creating a “British and French - Working Together!” Morale patch. Who’s in?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Well then…I’m all for creating a “British and French - Working Together!” Morale patch.

That whole working together thing has to happen first.

 

[Good2Golf]

That whole working together thing has to happen first.

That’s part of the beauty of such a morale patch…it’s

 

[lenaitch]

I'm no constitutional expert, but if the highlighted portion is true could you possibly challenge any laws passed by the legislature as not being legally binding as the MNA's that passed the laws were never legally sworn in to their positions?

Me? No (that statement was only my opinion). I suppose somebody could try. Don't expect the federal government to do it. Whether somebody could declare a particular law illegitimate might depend on the votes. The last I read, eleven MNA members refused the traditional oath, leading to Bill 4, but that number is a little dated.

Could you charge the MPPs with fraud as they aren't legally entitled to be in that position and they are collecting pay? Could there potentially be corruption related charges applied here to the legislative assembly in Quebec? I have no idea.

Certainly not fraud. As a very (very) general statement, somebody must be deprived of something that is capable of being stolen. The defence would no doubt argue a colour or right, legitimacy (being elected by a plurality of voters) and good faith. There are a lot of parliamentary protections and immunity that might come into play as well.

Unless some group takes it on as a cause, I expect this to be completely forgotten very soon.

 

[dimsum]

Well then…I’m all for creating a “British and French - Working Together!” Morale patch. Who’s in?