The Monarchy in Canada | Queen Elizabeth 1926-2022

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I dunno. From where I stand in Ontario, this just seems like a performative waste of time. Even if I'm just getting biased ROC reporting and they're just bringing up this one virtue signaling event and downplaying all these other Bloc-proposed bills of more substance, why would they even bring this up once?

I can respect the idea of Quebec sovereignty, even in 2022, but still think that the Bloc, as it's currently setup, is past its sell-by date.

I admit that it was mostly committee work that I had in mind, and indeed some would argue that that's where the true business of Parliament, for the benefit of Canadians, gets done.

Question Period is mostly just a show. For all parties, really.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I can respect the idea of Quebec sovereignty, even in 2022, but still think that the Bloc, as it's currently setup, is past its sell-by date.

This may indeed be true, but if taxpaying Canadian voters want to elect them as their reps, who are you (or anyone else) to judge?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Even if I'm just getting biased ROC reporting and they're just bringing up this one virtue signaling event and downplaying all these other Bloc-proposed bills of more substance, why would they even bring this up once?
.

As a party perpetually in opposition that will never form a government, they have basically zero opportunity to get their own bills passed, but they do work to influence and improve bills. Like other opposition parties do as well.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Sinn Fein voters in Northern Ireland are British citizens who pay British taxes, yet they make a principled stand against the monarchy by electing MPs they know will not sit.

That's an option that the Bloc could consider I suppose. Though the was they've been operating for the past 30 years is also totally legitimate.

Do elected but non-sitting Sinn Fein MPs collect a salary from Westminster?

(I can just imagine the shit storm in the ROC if Bloc MPs opted not to sit in the House but still collected their salaries!)

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's an option that the Bloc could consider I suppose. Though the was they've been operating for the past 30 years is also totally legitimate.

Do elected but non-sitting Sinn Fein MPs collect a salary from Westminster?

(I can just imagine the shit storm in the ROC if Bloc MPs opted not to sit in the House but still collected their salaries!)

No, they don't get an MP's salary. I think the Party itself gives them a stipend of some sort.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

No, they don't get an MP's salary. I think the Party itself gives them a stipend of some sort.

Thanks for the info!

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's an option that the Bloc could consider I suppose. Though the was they've been operating for the past 30 years is also totally legitimate.

Do elected but non-sitting Sinn Fein MPs collect a salary from Westminster?

(I can just imagine the shit storm in the ROC if Bloc MPs opted not to sit in the House but still collected their salaries!)

But for 30 years they have been taking their oath to the Head of State.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But for 30 years they have been taking their oath to the Head of State.

Yes, to date all federal MPs have taken the oath/affirmation.

[Acajack]

Correct. Though now we're finding out that some of them didn't actually mean it.

Imagine that!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

No, they don't get an MP's salary. I think the Party itself gives them a stipend of some sort.

Wow, seems to me it would be much wiser (from their point of view) to milk the British taxpayer for that rather than spend their own Party funds!

I find the Bloc way to be much better -- if you want to change things, at least sit and participate.

It's a net negative for an Irish nationalist party to not sit in Westminster and take part in votes. It's the best of both worlds compared to not being there: at worst, if you don't vote on something, it's equivalent to not having taken your seat, but then you can still vote whenever appropriate. Some issues are completely transpartisan anyway -- like voting on stuff like climate change targets and measures, etc.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I dunno. From where I stand in Ontario, this just seems like a performative waste of time.

Because it is. Bloc wasted their allocation of bills on something they knew would fail merely to stir the pot.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Wow, seems to me it would be much wiser (from their point of view) to milk the British taxpayer for that rather than spend their own Party funds!

I find the Bloc way to be much better -- if you want to change things, at least sit and participate.

It's a net negative for an Irish nationalist party to not sit in Westminster and take part in votes. It's the best of both worlds compared to not being there: at worst, if you don't vote on something, it's equivalent to not having taken your seat, but then you can still vote whenever appropriate. Some issues are completely transpartisan anyway -- like voting on stuff like climate change targets and measures, etc.

Plus, decisions made in Westminster will affect life in Northern Ireland anyway, whether or not the Sinn Fein MPs are sitting in the House.

They don't effectively lessen London's power over Northern Ireland by not taking their seats.

If anything, it might even increase it because North Ireland's voices are disproportionately Unionist and pro-UK as a result.

[ssiguy]

Of course the Bloc has the right to be heard, I never said otherwise.

To me this is kind of like a condo strata. All owners {ie provinces} have the right to be heard and express their opinions. This is what the yearly strata meetings are for. Anyone can bring up anything whether it be a generally accepted viewpoint of something more outlandish. That said, if you demand a change in regulations but then don't even bother showing up for the strata meeting then don't be surprised if no one cares what you think.

To me this is like the Bloc's nebulous concept of "sovereignty association"................a divorce with bedroom privileges.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Of course the Bloc has the right to be heard, I never said otherwise.

To me this is kind of like a condo strata. All owners {ie provinces} have the right to be heard and express their opinions. This is what the yearly strata meetings are for. Anyone can bring up anything whether it be a generally accepted viewpoint of something more outlandish. That said, if you demand a change in regulations but then don't even bother showing up for the strata meeting then don't be surprised if no one cares what you think.

To me this is like the Bloc's nebulous concept of "sovereignty association"................a divorce with bedroom privileges.

More like a sexless marriage, no?

[Acajack]

The outgoing speaker of the Quebec National Assembly, whose term ends on Nov. 29, has ruled that Parti Québécois and Québec solidaire members who refuse to take an oath to King Charles will not be allowed to sit in the legislature.

The speaker is a CAQ member who did not run for re-election, and is retiring.

I do believe that the CAQ would be quite open to changing the oath, but they are quite adamant that all new members must take the current oath, and then the assembly can maybe get down to the business of changing it, among other business of course.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The outgoing speaker of the Quebec National Assembly, whose term ends on Nov. 29, has ruled that Parti Québécois and Québec solidaire members who refuse to take an oath to King Charles will not be allowed to sit in the legislature.

The speaker is a CAQ member who did not run for re-election, and is retiring.

I do believe that the CAQ would be quite open to changing the oath, but they are quite adamant that all new members must take the current oath, and then the assembly can maybe get down to the business of changing it, among other business of course.

I believe the requirement for an oath for provincial legislators and the text for said oath are contained in the 1867 constitution.

[kwoldtimer]

Complications in inverse proportion to the importance of the matter.

[lio45]

PQ and QS MPPs are as useful as Sinn Fein seats: regardless of how they vote (or not), the CAQ will have their way for the next four years. Whether the seats are vacant or occupied doesn’t change much

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

PQ and QS MPPs are as useful as Sinn Fein seats: regardless of how they vote (or not), the CAQ will have their way for the next four years. Whether the seats are vacant or occupied doesn’t change much

How's that different from BQ again?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How's that different from BQ again?

Three key differences:

1) Minority govt;
2) BQ has the balance of power;
3) BQ is actually an official party — there’s a bunch of stuff in the House that they can do, thanks to that party status.

Remove all three of those, in order to mirror Quebec federally, i.e. you now have JT or Harper in firm control of 72% of the seats, and therefore there’s pretty much nothing the BQ can do for the next four years.

Conversely, if QS/PQ had the balance of power in a minority govt situation, it would be completely different, their seats would actually be very useful in that scenario, and they’ll want to take them and be able to vote.