[Canada] Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland resigns from Trudeau's cabinet News Article

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/finance-minister-chrystia-freeland-resigns-from-trudeau-s-cabinet-1.7411380

85 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

Canada has a FPTP (First Past the Post) but what happens is because in many ridings there can be 5+ candidates, the vote gets split. It will serve the Conservatives in places like Quebec and Atlantic Canada where they often underperform. Poilievre could notch north of 200 MPs. If he breaks 208 he holds the record and right now it's within striking distance. I tend to be right leaning, so I'm not pressed, but poor leadership in both the NDP and Liberal caucuses has eviscerated those parties. Will be interesting.

4

u/Derp2638 20d ago

Don’t you need like 172 supporting you to have a government that is governed by a specific PM ?

8

u/richardhammondshead 20d ago

A baby majority is anything above 170. Committee assignments and official party status are meted out by seats won. It would mean all committees dominated by Conservatives and more money flowing to the Conservatives.

6

u/Derp2638 20d ago

Just hit up a quick google and the first projection I saw was 220 for the Conservatives in Canada.

What would the equivalent for that in the US be ? All 3 branches + a majority in the senate ?

7

u/feb914 20d ago

Equivalent to filibuster proof majority in house of representatives and Senate.

Note that Canada also has Senate but they're not elected and thus can only delay or offer improvements, but usually they have to yield to the House.

3

u/richardhammondshead 20d ago

The Prime Minister sets the head of the RCMP, can appoint all supreme court justices and since the Senate is more perfunctory than anything else, he would have no opposition. Canada has no enshrined abortion rights, for instance. He could ban it with a simple vote. He would have all committees stacked with his people. Pierre isn't evil, but having those super majorities create problems for opposition parties. NDP and Liberals could lose party status, and that would damage the Canadian political situation.

3

u/e00s 20d ago

Our abortion rights are enshrined by the Charter even if not explicitly. There is explicit jurisprudence dealing with the issue. A Conservative abortion ban would be DOA.

5

u/richardhammondshead 20d ago

If you're referencing R vs. Morgentaler, it's been established that it didn't enshrine. I'm not coming down on either side of the debate, but stating that outright majorities have major drawbacks.

1

u/Big_Muffin42 20d ago

Healthcare being the authority of the provinces would have a big impact on any potential ban.

It won’t happen. That legislation would be DOA with legislation. People won’t support it

0

u/e00s 20d ago

Right, but if they criminalized it (which won’t happen), that would supersede any provincial healthcare jurisdiction.

1

u/Big_Muffin42 20d ago

No.

While the federal government could exert its influence through funding, an outright ban would overstep its jurisdiction as health care falls under the oversight of the provinces.

Not to mention the section 7 constitution challenges.

We actually have a sort of reverse situation now, where NB has denied funding for private abortion clinics. Yet, the federal government has been unable to legislate anything to change this. This is despite JT pressuring NB repeatedly to remove this law

0

u/e00s 19d ago

Sorry, but you’re just wrong. The federal government has the exclusive power to enact criminal laws. This power is not limited to criminalizing things that the federal government would otherwise be entitled to regulate. This is why, in Morgentaler, the old criminal law regarding abortion had to be overturned on the basis of the Charter rather than on the basis that provincial jurisdiction trumped federal jurisdiction when it came to healthcare.

You are right that that the federal government generally has no power to pass non-criminal regulations in relation to healthcare.

1

u/Big_Muffin42 19d ago

If your scenario was true, then the government would have simply passed a law making NB law essentially null. But it hasn’t. And this has been one of the most outspoken governments on rights like this.

There are limits on what laws they can and can’t pass, especially When it comes to provincial authority

1

u/e00s 19d ago

I’m a lawyer and, while constitutional law is not my area of practice, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

The federal criminal law jurisdiction is restricted to criminal law. You can’t just slap the label “criminal” on a law repealing a provincial funding decision and expect the courts to respect that.

The federal government does actually have the power to disallow provincial legislation. It’s in section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867. But it hasn’t been used since the 1940s. Keep in mind, this is just a power to disallow, not a power to require a province to do something. It couldn’t be used to compel NB to fund abortions, since that takes more than just disallowing an NB law.

→ More replies