If you were PM, what would you do?

[g_bambino]

The prime minister who has a majority does indeed control how parliament works, as we've seen from all the complaints from the opposition about the Tories running roughshod over them. The Senate is made up of trained seals. And the law is whatever the PM decides he wants it to be. The only brake on his power, really, is how willing his party is to go along with him. He can rewrite laws or override the constitutions if he desires.

You evidently don't know what you're talking about.

The law is whatever parliament decides it should be. Of course, if a prime minister has a majority in the House of Commons, he can get almost any bill put through that chamber; but, there is nothing legal that a prime minister can do to force a senator to vote one way or another, even one he named for appointment. Further, the constitution limits what bills can be passed and what the executive can and cannot do; the prime minister has no control - either through parliament or Cabinet - over the provincial legislatures or governments, for example. The prime minister also cannot override the constitution or even try to have the federal parliament amend much of it without some level of provincial participation; any that tries to do so will find himself quickly blocked by the Supreme Court, or, if he persists, turfed by the governor general.

[g_bambino]

Gbambino will be along shortly to school you on this. Good idea to pay attention when he does.

I didn't know my arrival would be so predictable...

[g_bambino]

The French were tolerated, yes... Nevertheless, the population of Canada in 1911 was about seven million people. Four million of those people were British, two million French. Of the 1 million others, half were German (though interestingly, we hear very little about the contribution of Germans to Canadian history, as opposed to say Ukrainians or Chinese).

Sounds quite multicultural.

The overwhelmingly dominant culture, and the only one the mainstream paid the slightest attention to, was British.

I'll ask again: what is British culture?

[jbg]

Overwhelming? You mean like the 40% that's overwhelmed our Parliament at the moment? Don't forget this really only represents about 25% of the electorate. An overwhelming majority of a population is an entirely different thing and when it comes to basically committing an entire nation to starting a war, 25% doesn't even come close.

O.K., you win.

What % of Canadians support giving a blank check to people such as the band leader of Attawapiskat, or Ahenekaw?

[guyser]

O.K., you win.

What % of Canadians support giving a blank check to people such as the band leader of Attawapiskat, or Ahenekaw?

Not a serious question since so many things come into play.

If the govt settled the land claims then no one would, but they havent and thus the mess we have.

[guyser]

I didn't know my arrival would be so predictable...

On matter such as this, very predictable , and appreciated.

Heres hoping he has an open mind.

[cybercoma]

O.K., you win.

What % of Canadians support giving a blank check to people such as the band leader of Attawapiskat, or Ahenekaw?

It doesn't matter.

[Scotty]

You evidently don't know what you're talking about.

Sure, and then you go on to say I'm right.

the law is whatever parliament decides it should be. Of course, if a prime minister has a majority in the House of Commons, he can get almost any bill put through that chamber;

Which is WHAT I JUST SAID.

but, there is nothing legal that a prime minister can do to force a senator to vote one way or another,

I didn't say there was. Nevertheless, senators generally do vote how their party wants them to.

In fact, what I said was that the only real brake on his power is what his party is willing to go along with.

. The prime minister also cannot override the constitution o

But he can use the override clause on most of the Charter if he so desires.

I didn't say he had ABSOLUTE power, just that he can do just about anything he wants to. Certainly all the proposals I made above could be carried out by a prime minister if he wished to.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Scotty

[Michael Hardner]

The French were tolerated, yes, if you call that accommodation then I'll go along with it.

They were allowed freedom of religion, guaranteed equal representation in early Canada, given the right to Catholic education. Later, they were guaranteed language rights as well.

Nevertheless,

the population of Canada in 1911 was about seven million people. Four million of those people were British, two million French. Of the 1 million others, half were German (though interestingly, we hear very little about the contribution of Germans to Canadian history, as opposed to say Ukrainians or Chinese). English Canada made very little cultural or political accommodation even to the French, never mind the Germans or anyone else. As for the French, they pretty much did their own thing. Even by 1941 90% of Canada's population was either British or French. When your numbers are that high you just don't 'accommodate' third parties.

You forgot the Irish, but ok.

There was no multiculturalism. You learned to speak English, and the ways of British society or you were ignored entirely by the government, the media, and couldn't fill out forms or even vote.

There was no multiculturalism by today's standards, but there was tolerance and acceptance of two cultures living together in one nation.

[Scotty]

Leaving aside the Chinese, Ukranian, and other immigrants that came to what was to become Canada before it was Canada, define "British culture".

Pretty easy to leave them aside since there WERE no Chinese or Ukrainian immigrants here before it was Canada.

The first census mention of Chinese is in 1881, when there were about 4300.

The first census count of Ukrainians doesn't appear until 1901 (5682)

Define British culture of 1867? To what end?

Edited January 16, 2012 by Scotty

[Michael Hardner]

I also left out first nations who were rewarded for their loyalty to the crown and given consideration, although again you can't use today's yardstick there.

[Scotty]

I live in the Maillardville section of Coquitlam BC.......At one point, Maillardville was the largest French community west of Manitoba......Also, here in Greater Vancouver and in Victoria, there are large Chinese communities that can trace their establishment prior to Confederation.

Did you have a point? 20% of Quebec is made of of Anglophones and the province and greater Quebec society treats them like unwanted, uninvited guests.

[guyser]

Pretty easy to leave them aside since there WERE no Chinese or Ukrainian immigrants here before it was Canada.

In 1858 the Chinese made up significant portions of BC due to the gold rush and most towns in BC had significant chinese immigrants.

Canada became a country in 1867.

1858...1867...1858...1867.....

Edited January 16, 2012 by guyser

[cybercoma]

In 1858 the Chinese made up significant portions of BC due to the gold rush and most towns in BC had significant chinese immigrants.

Canada became a country in 1867.

1858...1867...1858...1867.....

And let's not forget the cosmopolitan nature of Louisbourg (Cape Breton) before Confederation.

[g_bambino]

I didn't say there was.

You said senators are "trained seals", which is a synonym for "no obstacle to the prime minister".

I will concede, though, that a prime minister determined to get legislation through parliament but finds himself thwarted by the Senate can try to get around that obstacle by recommending the Queen appoint four or eight new senators, as Mulroney did when trying to get the GST implemented. However, those extra senators could, potentially, vote against the government's bill, nonetheless!

But he can use the override clause on most of the Charter if he so desires.

Yes, the notwithstanding clause exists to maintain the supremacy of parliament. However, the Charter is just one part of the constitution; a small one, in the context of the whole set of documents and conventions.

I didn't say he had ABSOLUTE power, just that he can do just about anything he wants to.

Yes, that was clear. But it's still wrong.

[ed.: +]

Edited January 16, 2012 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Define British culture of 1867? To what end?

To see if it is understood correctly, since that will have bearing on whether or not Canada was a multi- or monocultural place during the 19th century (pretending, of course, that the French, Chinese, Ukranians, and others simply weren't here).

[cybercoma]

There's also a chance of a Prime Minister doing something so insanely stupid that his/her party fractures and some of their own MPs vote against a bill.

[guyser]

And let's not forget the cosmopolitan nature of Louisbourg (Cape Breton) before Confederation.

Good point!

[Guest Derek L]

Pretty easy to leave them aside since there WERE no Chinese or Ukrainian immigrants here before it was Canada.

The first census mention of Chinese is in 1881, when there were about 4300.

The first census count of Ukrainians doesn't appear until 1901 (5682)

Define British culture of 1867? To what end?

Bullshit......Victoria's Chinatown was founded in the late 1850s........

Did you have a point? 20% of Quebec is made of of Anglophones and the province and greater Quebec society treats them like unwanted, uninvited guests.

Yeah, my point was to call bullshit on your assertion that the two “western provinces” were namely British during the first half of the 20th century.

[prairiechickin]

And let's not forget the cosmopolitan nature of Louisbourg (Cape Breton) before Confederation.

Well before Confederation, that is back in the days of French occupation before the Seven Year's War. I'm not sure how many of them stuck around afterwards, since by 1867 it was overwhelmingly Scottish, and still is today.

[Smallc]

Earlier, I said I'd increase military spending. For me, that would involve 3 more combat ships for the navy, 2 more submarines (a new fleet of 6), 2 landing helicopter docks, more maritime helicopters (assuming the ones we ordered some day become airworthy), 4 JSS, an extra combat squadron of jets (either F-35, or Typhoon, to make 72 combat jets), 3 moreC-130j and 1 - 2 more C-17s (we may get that last one, I've heard, but we'll see). A bit specific, maybe, but I'm a numbers guy.

Also, I'd institute a transportation infrastructure program, and commit the federal government to spending the equivalent of the gas tax on it ever year (Manitoba spends double what it collects in gas taxes now, because it didn't spend enough for so long). I'd put a focus on things like the Trans Canada highway, major trade routes, and improved rail in the Toronto Ottawa Montreal corridor.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Smallc

[Scotty]

In 1858 the Chinese made up significant portions of BC due to the gold rush and most towns in BC had significant chinese immigrants.

Canada became a country in 1867.

1858...1867...1858...1867.....

I can only go from what the census says, and in 1871 there was no mention of Chinese. The first numbers appear in the 1881 census, and the number given is 4,383 Chinese in Canada.

[Scotty]

Bullshit......Victoria's Chinatown was founded in the late 1850s........

Perhaps, but if so their numbers were so small they weren't noticed by the census, and they certainly weren't an influential part of our culture.

Yeah, my point was to call bullshit on your assertion that the two “western provinces” were namely British during the first half of the 20th century.

In 1909, Ross and McLaren, in search of workers, recruited a contingent of 110 French Canadian mill workers from Quebec. With the arrival of a second contingent in June 1910, Maillardville was born. Named for Father Edmond Maillard, a young Oblate from France, it became the largest Francophone centre west of Manitoba.[2]

I suppose that's a pretty low bar, a few hundred Francophones. But since I never made any claim about the 'western provinces', I'm kind of confused again about why you stuck this in here. I didn't say there were no francophones out west. I said that Canada's culture was a British culture for most of its history. A few hundred, or even a few thousand francophones doesn't counter that.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Scotty

[Guest Derek L]

Perhaps, but if so their numbers were so small they weren't noticed by the census, and they certainly weren't an influential part of our culture.

So Victoria and Vancouver’s early respective Chinatowns were built by the “British” to attract further “British”………Perhaps we’re all misunderstanding you though……….Since Hong Kong was a British colony, are all things Chinese actually “British”?

As for their influence, during the later part of the 19th century, the ethnic Chinese community made up roughly one third of the population of the Province……….But, according to you, they were actually “British“?

Yes, I suppose any visitors or residents to British Columbia’s lower mainland would agree, that their population and culture has had zero impact on the make up of the city.

I suppose that's a pretty low bar, a few hundred Francophones. But since I never made any claim about the 'western provinces', I'm kind of confused again about why you stuck this in here. I didn't say there were no francophones out west. I said that Canada's culture was a British culture for most of its history. A few hundred, or even a few thousand francophones doesn't counter that.

More of your made up facts?

The two western provinces don't have large minorities of French speakers living there. Nor is there a deliberate societal move to marginalize them as there is in Quebec.

Another shift of the British football goalposts?

[jbg]

Not a serious question since so many things come into play.

Oh I meant it as a very serious question which goes to the essence of FN policy.