The Canadian political system iceberg explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 мар 2024
- Everything you need to know about Canada's constitution, parliament, and system of government and politics.
SUBSCRIBE: ruclips.net/user/jjmccullough?...
FOLLOW ME:
🇨🇦Support me on Patreon! / jjmccullough
🤖Join my Discord! / discord
🇺🇸Follow me on Instagram! / jjmccullough
🇨🇦Read my latest Washington Post columns: www.washingtonpost.com/people...
🇨🇦Visit my Canada Website thecanadaguide.com
Some music by:
Craig Henderson- / @craighendersonmusic
ComradeF- / comradef ,
HASHTAGS: #canada #iceberg
Learned quite a few things JJ! That was well done!
It's a load of far right/Kremlin propaganda.
I am very convinced the "Canadian Supreme Court" is in fact the "Santa Clause Impersonation Committee"
PP is a clown.
it's not that political. There's an independant committee that choose the judges and makes a top 3 list and the PM choose the one. Not like the political nominations in USA with their clown Supreme Court, that's political.
@@saluttous”it’s not really political” said every liberal, ndp-er ever.
I think they are more Mrs. Clause impersonators.
saluttous The committee is made up of members of an established ideology, and they make sure that every person on the list shares their ideology. You are certainly correct that the US Supreme Court is political. But at least it is openly political, whereas ours pretends to be independent and non political.
25:46 This reminds me of when my country, Hungary, had a queen called Mary, whose official title was King Mary because the Hungarians were not familiar with the term "queen" at the time.
Same with her sister, King Jadwiga of Poland
Which reminds me, when a country is ruled by a king it’s a kingdom and when it’s ruled by a queen, it’s a … kingdom?? Why?
@@canuckguy0313It’s a relic of when English was a “male-as-default” language like most other Indo-European languages are
@@EnigmaticLucasid say it still mostly is
I'm not super sure but female emperors in Korea before also didn't have a feminine term.
Man I thought the American government had weird clauses. This whole video feels like oh yeah, there’s also this other branch of government but they don’t do anything.
I was thinking the same thing. Things are messed up in the USA government but things look kinda rough in our neighbors up north. It feels like Canadians have less rights based off this video i'm hearing or certain rights could be suspended with ease.
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this. Our government is definitely unstable, especially recently, but Canada just seems like a house of cards that is one constitutional crisis away from a total collapse, yet has just been really lucky so far. This video makes me feel a little bit better about our system.
Anglo-American Law is rooted in Common Law, which imagines laws coming "from below". The idea is that laws should represent customs already ingrained in the culture of the people. This makes laws intentionally very difficult to change and alter. In practice, though, they usually find work-arounds to trick the system into doing their bidding.
European Law is rooted in Civil Law, which imagines laws coming "from above". The idea here is that the National Assembly (Parliament) represents the will and voice of the people, and therefore they can easily change laws, according to the perceived will of the people at any time.
Nothing shows this more clearly than the amendment process itself. When the US Constitution is amended, they add on a note at the bottom, specifying what has changed, without touching the Constitutional text itself. The Three-Fifths Compromise is still a part of the text of the US Constitution, but the added Reconstruction Amendments say that part doesn't count anymore. But when the Constitution is amended in e.g. Sweden or Germany, they literally edit the text of the Constitution itself.
@@oldsenpai4337 the US quite literally is the only nation with rights completely protected under the law. Every other nation has easily abused caveats or no rights enshrined at all.
Yeah, the UK has this problem too. Homestly I think constitutions ought to follow Occam's razor and be as minimalistic as possible.
If I ever met JJ in person I'd tell him I appreciate how he uses 80's midi audio files in his videos.
Especially the Nintendo ones
I would present him an award for his videos.
I really wanna like this comment but it's at 69 so I'll express my agreement here.
Chiptune
Technically, they're 90's midi files.
I love the prevalence of newspaper clippings in this photo, because I think it’s a medium which shows the way in which most Canadians, for most of Canadian history, interacted with politics.
Newspapers are effectively a dead and long-lost medium now, but for many people around the world they formed the centre of how people interfaced with an often far-away capital, only ever seeing the names and faces of cabinet ministers in print.
I think it’s great that this video, in a medium through which I certainly get most of my Canadian politics news, harkens back to its old equivalent and keeps that alive for a new generation.
Thanks! I’m glad you appreciated it. I liked digging through the archives
Incidentally, I was at Shopper's Drug Mart today and I noticed a Toronto Star newspaper stand. I was curious and asked about the price. The cashier said it's $4.50. $4.50 for a single day's newspaper makes no sense today!
@@ChasmChaos Do you live in Windsor?
Before watching this I assumed that your parliamentary democracy would be similar to our parliamentary democracy here in Australia. I now know that the two are completely different. You have my heartfelt sympathy.
This is why “Westminster system” is such a useless term
Australia's system is interesting. From what I understand, it seems to be somewhat of a mix of a British parliamentary system with elements from the US Constitution.
I thought the same thing. Biggest difference to me is the Senate - in Australia Senators are elected by the voters (notwithstanding some shady preference deals that come about sometimes through some quirks of the voting process). This means that you can (and often do) end up with a Senate that does not have a majority from the same party as the majority in the House of Representatives, which is where Government is formed. So the Senate does tend to act much more as a check and balance on the power of the Prime Minister and the Government, who have to negotiate either with the Opposition or the crossbench (Senators from outside the two major parties/coalitions) to get legislation passed.
In terms of amending the Australian constitution, the process is different but nearly as difficult - you need a majority of the national population PLUS a majority of the States individual populations to vote Yes in a referendum (ie. 50%+1 of the national popular vote PLUS 4/6 of the States to have a 50%+1 Yes vote). Refer to our recent referendum on indigenous recognition in our constitution to see how difficult that bar is to pass...
I think it would be slightly useful to talk about a "Westminster parliamentary system family", in which some legacy and inheritance from the British parliament Is maintained through all of them, but each parliament has it's own unique systems and procedures.
Kurtis Conner and JJ dropping hour-long videos at the same time? I'm truly in for a Canadian evening.
Yeah no kidding. Same here friend.
i hate KC so much its unreal
Kurtis Conner feels like the diet Drew Gooden/Danny Gonzalez. I don't hate him, I just don't get the charm.
I only know Kurtis Connor for writing smug comments on Noah Samsen videos.
What a glorious day for Canada and therefore, of couse, the world.
48:09 - To note, Technically Quebec's Population is not "in decline", it is growing in population, it's just growing at a much slower rate than the rest of Canada, which has lead to their *share* of the total population to decline.
maybe they could use a few million indians
@@beansdestroyer
They'll have to learn French, LOL.
Except Alberta
Why is the Prime Minister helping Quebec by locking their voting power in place when they don't even support his party? I don't see the benefit to him to doing this.
@@greywolf7577 Quebec is the 2nd largest (in population terms) province in Canada and the Liberal party's formula to winning a majority (or plurality) is to dominate Ontario (#1 largest in population) and Quebec. If they win both, they basically don't need to win many seats outside those 2.
Speaking of the usefulness of your vids, they haven't only made me interested in Canadian politics, but also made me understand how it works in the first place. The second one is important, because it does differ from how it works in my country. Not only am I a very political person in the domestic setting, but I also enjoy learning about the politics of other countries.
Cheers from Poland - a fellow white and red country :)
Hello, another person from Poland here. This is so true, for me especially beacause Canada used to be presented to me as a "boring" nation - the land where nothing ever happens of noteworthiness. Particularly in social media (I once saw a meme like this: "If you've ever felt useless remember that there are prisons in Canada). Thankfully this is no longer the case, I find Canada fascinating and it's thanks to JJ's work :)
@@GabiMichelle0502 This. Having watched basically every single video I knew at least a bit about most iceberg entries.
There's way too much far right disinformation in this video to be useful as a learning tool
Hello Geneva brothers!
Hi from western Canada. (BC). Glad Canada is interesting to you. Perhaps you have a suggestion for English language (or properly translated) content with good insight into Polish culture/history/politics? Worth asking, very interested.
WOAH THE PRODUCTION QUALITY ON THIS IS INSANE!
J.J. is a well established RUclipsr. He knows his stuff.
Why are you yelling it
I find it funny how Canada has managed to combine the symbolic complexity uncertainty and ambiguity of the unwritten constitution of the UK, with the proceduralist/textualised rigidity of US Constitutional Law. In the UK constitutional symbols still make _some_ kind of practical sense, given they maintain a closer connection to entrenched rituals/traditions/history/political conventions, but in Canada there is an extra layer removed of abstraction, complexity, and confusion (perhaps even hollowness). Like in the UK, there is an uncodified flexible constitution that focusses on substance rather than procedure; in Canada there is a written constitution, but which still contains precepts that are unwritten/undefined/unknowable, combined with a spuriously precise and procedurally rigid form of constitutionalism/federalism that's almost impossible to amend like the US. Also compare the added layers of abstraction of: _[UK v Can]_ - the Crown v Governor-General - Cabinet v Privy Council - Crown-in-Parliament v the Governor-in-Council - (+ a textualist approach to rights that's formalistically easy to ignore e.g. notwithstanding clause declarations).
It's an extraordinarily frustrating document to anyone who studies it. I even question whether it was constitutional in the first place to even impose the amending formula in the first place that can require unanimity if the amending formula itself was not introduced by unanimity. EG imagine if the British Parliament had a bill that passed by say 55% of the MPs that said that it could only be repealed or amended by 2/3 of the MPs. That would be a blatant violation of the British legal doctrine. The Fixed Term of Parliament Act of 2011 had a 2/3 requirement for dissolving Parliament but that requirement itself could be amended by a majority vote in Parliament. It seems to have been accepted but I question whether it should have been accepted by courts at the time.
@@robertjarman3703 Yeah the British orthodoxy of Parliamentary Sovereignty has developed with time, but the non-entrenchment of legislation (all law being able to be passed/repealed by simple majority) is the closest thing to a foundational/unamendable/undisputed principle in the UK. FTPA was an interesting experiment, but ultimately despite it's intent/function, it reaffirmed that the only thing any Act can do to bind a future parliament, is to impose a time/political penalty of having to pass new repealing legislation. (Although there are other more complex forms of entrenchment, like when we were in the EU, and the interaction with ECHR/Int. Law, and Human Rights Act/'Constitutional Statutes'). If the court were to block the repeal of the FTPA without a supermajority, that would've been the most explosive form of judicial constitutional reform (and judicial usurpation of power) possible, which I doubt they were willing to expend their legal/authoritative capital on, especially for the FTPA.
Some other relevant situations of constitutional adjustment I can think of are the Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949 (1911 Act legislating for a Commons override of the Lords veto after 2 years, 1949 Act reducing that to 1 year) and the case of Jackson, which upheld that even though the 1949 Act was passed under the 1911 veto override, it was still valid (but I guess that goes the opposite direction of unbinding/loosening procedure, by empowering all future Commons). Or the first Miller case, where even though we entered the EU via treaty and legislation, and the executive has the royal prerogative to make/leave treaties, given EU Law's deep incorporation, there had to be a parliamentary vote to leave (which was also based in the principle of empowering the parliament's sovereignty, this time over the executive)
I guess with the UK constitution, it is incrementally developed as it goes along with a flexibility that allows for court analysis to be very factually specific to the relevant dispute/context/politics, but this is limited by an undisputed doctrinal foundation of parliamentary sovereignty as a constraint (+separation of powers/common law rights to an extent). Whereas the Canadian amending formula entrenches a rigid formalism, without any prior foundation - either in an undisputed unwritten principle, or through the enacting democratic (legislative) mandate reaching the level of legitimacy it sought to entrench (i.e. by the same formula). It seems to result in an unusually complex combination of constitutional uncertainty with textual/procedural rigidity, without a sense of a direction of doctrinal travel/substantive legitimacy - especially since the Canadian notion of parliamentary sovereignty is unrecognizable to english doctrine, despite Canada nominally incorporating it - making it an shaky/unstable foundation. Saying that, I've only got a cursory understanding of Canadian constitutional law and its subsequent judicial interpretation/development.
@@howmanybeansmakefive Canada has the issue of provinces in a federal structure, so by definition there must be things that the federation cannot do that the provinces can and vice versa, although there are many variations on exactly how this works. A few things related to national minorities of Catholics, back when they could be discriminated on in practice and so they wanted catholic schools to be independent, and that French and English be coequal. That was enforced via the standing of British law, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council used to be our last court of appeal. The Judicial Committee wasn't enforcing Canadian law though, they enforced British law, which was not legally much different from some British law regarding how some local council is to be organized, Westminster could have amended that law as it liked before 1931, and even after until 1982, it was simply enforcing what was already on the books and whatever Canada's parliament asked it to change. The judicial committee never questioned British law, from which it gets its own authority, it merely questioned legislation from some part of the empire that was subservient to the British law.
This would be seen to be much more democratic with some codification of powers, proportional representation in parliament, if the prime minister had more limits on their power like the caucus of the party being able to kick out the leader at will just as in the UK they can, and if the Lords and the Senate had something more inclusive done, maybe do what Jamaica does and let the crown name a number of members from the leader of the opposition and prime minister for a period lasting the life of the House of Commons. Ireland does something a bit similar. And in Canada, a specific section outlining how to bypass the Senate like 30 days for a money bill or 180 days for other bills.
This reads like something The Board from Control would write.
@@PierzStyx ah yes. i do love a good slash/oblique-line a bit too much
I think it would be hilarious to see the rest of the provinces start their own branches of Bloc that run candidates explicitly on the policy of kicking Quebec out of Canada.
This made me literally laugh out loud. Thanks for that. :D
Alberta would be the largest. The uttered hatred for the province here is everywhere
Not surprising considering Alberta think of itself as an American state not a proud Canadian province.
Call it quexit. Said this years ago.
I'm a Quebecer, and one of my biggest political fantasy is to see the whole Canada do a referendum to ask Canadians if they want to keep Quebec in Canada.
I would've loved to see this day and see the face of federal ministers seeing the results in front of them.
28:55 I was surprised to see NFKRZ in this video. Nice easter egg JJ!
Yes! I thought when did Roman ever even set foot in Canada? Can ex-pat Russians purchase memberships without leaving the comfort of their residence in Georgia or Portugal?
I was just listening to the video and I randomly turned on that frame lmao
nfkrz moving to canada confirmed??!?!!?!?
Chip D. Dipson
@@JeffTaylor-tr7mythat sounds like a question for “your friendly neighbourhood russian”
I love how our constitution imagines Canada as being glazed in amber and simply never changing. In terms of the population distribution, the changing use of languages, the super protected rights, and the religious protections of certain schools, all these demographics can shift and change to the point in the future where perhaps, French is no longer a recognizable language, Prince Edward Island could have a significantly large population, or Catholicism folds as a church, yet is still enshrined in the constitution.
Much like how the drafters could not imagine Queen Victoria dying, they cannot imagine a Canada any different from their own time.
Well put
@@JJMcCullough Do you suppose a good deal of our constitution will become antiquated within our lifetime?
Which is to say much like how the United States has clauses about the amount of slaves you can import into the country, our constitutional clauses will be just as irrelevant given a lot of the social justice clauses?
I wonder if it was just seen as in bad taste to hint at any monarch other than the current one, especially if she will have to sign off on such a document.
@@professordogwood8985 I feel like at some point, maybe maybe not in my own lifetime, there will be a big, dramatic revision of the Canadian Constitution in which a lot of the dated stuff is removed and more modern clauses are put in. It will require a generational change in which there is basically no living memory of the Meech and Charlottetown stuff, as well as a very confident and aggressive Prime Minister, who has little deference to a lot of the old clichés.
@@professordogwood8985 The US constitution has no clauses on the importation of slaves. It purely dealt with the representation of slaves in Congress and was subsequently rendered moot with the reconstruction amendments. The US does not rewrite the constitution for an amendment, it merely adds an addendum. Reading the US constitution requires you to also read every amendment made to it, including the ones the are no longer in effect like prohibition. It gives a clear and easily followable history of the document without obfuscating the original writing in a way that could cover up or change constitutional abuses with no record.
As someone who is really getting into Canadian history/politics recently, i found this very interesting and fun
Are you Canadian?
😂😂😂 fun
@@JJMcCullough no Pakistani to the core, and I will never leave my country,
@@PakBallandSami how similar is the Pakistan system of government
@@JJMcCullough well we are a democracy, I will say we are more free then Iran, but not as free us, Canada, or the eu but there still is democracy, our democracy has been cancelled many times but some how the people still have some say in the government, like the whole thing with Imran Khan we elected him, because he promised to do something about corruption and know democracy is on trial in Pakistan again, hopefully we can keep it and maybe
J.J. I want to thank you personally because I actually just aced my Citizenship exam, and although the little booklet was nice your chanel has taught me more about Canadian history and politics than anything else.
Thank you!
This is a high compliment
Itd be pretty cool to have a video on Canadian-specific political jargon like “walk in the snow” “the 905” etc
that nfkrz bit was so random but i love it
I wonder if they've ever met. If not they should.
43:34 - To note, the "lost interest"" part is because during the prorogation the Liberal Party sacked and replaced their party leader. With the new leader dumping the scheme and agreeing to allow Harper to stay in office when parliament returned.
When I was looking back at this, it was really remarkable how small the window of time for the plan to work was. Dion had one foot out the door and had already promised to resign. It was such a preposterous thing to attempt, given the circumstances.
The Liberals fell apart after Chretien. Martin did a good job, but was robbed by the quintessential Canadian political jet stream of a decade of one party in power. Liberal leadership went with Dion and Ignatieff who were horrible candidates. Liberals had to take a decade long canoue ride while Harper started his decade long ride, then Trudeau's decade long ride. Will PP get a decade?
@@JJMcCulloughwould you oppose a coalition government on principle or just in that circumstance?
@@northatlanticcommonwealth1188 It's not our tradition in Canada.
@@JJMcCulloughfinding out he was a university professor might help to explain why he did it. (And a sociology professor at that). He wanted to test the limits of the system.
Honestly, the fact that Canada has only been a fully independent country since 1982 is the biggest shock I've had today
I remember when it was finalized. It was a really big deal.
Functionally independence was achieved in 1867 and officially in 1932.
Did British Parliament ever impose any laws on Canada after that?
(Except for the severance laws)
For all intents and purposes, Canada became fully independent with the statute of Westminster of 1931. Between 1867 and 1931, Canada was domestically independent, but Canada's foreign policy was British foreign policy. That's why Canada was automatically at war with Germany in 1914 when the UK declared war with same. In 1939, Canada declared war distinctly from the UK as a sovereign nation. Canada could have had its own constitution immediately following the Statute of Westminster, but it took the five subsequent decades for Canadian federal and provincial governments to sort out an amending formula. During that time, UK parliament amended the BNA act of 1867 only upon the request of Canadian parliament.
This feels like an A.P. Canadian Government and Politics class...
I really needed a comfortable JJ video for Sunday evening night (its 9pm in Croatia) to chill after a hard week
“Chilling” by watching an hour long video about Canadian politics is awesome
This is an excellent video and should be used when getting students to understand Canada. Great job. 👍
I love your videos JJ. I especially love long form jj content where i can just plop my earbuds in and listen to you ramble about topics you are especially knowledgeable in. I also love your new animator. I know they have been around a minute but i love how the animations dont interfere with your original flow you had before. Youre the best jj keep up the good work
Ok the privy council bit is almost hilarious in how esoterically complex it is, especially in comparison to its reality in the government
I need a well needed break from writing, and lo and behold, you upload an iceberg video :D Your timing is impeccable J.J.
I like all the (at their given time) contemporary caricatures of PM's and satirical cartoons you peppered throughout this. Especially that one about the "Addition of Senators" clause, got an audible chuckle out of me... x3
I love your iceberg videos, theyre the best background audio, I'm glad I have another to rewatch!
The similarity of the Canadian System and the British one is very striking to me, both basically held together by everyone agreeing to follow past precedent and believe in various legal fictions. I guess the Westminster System is essentially a constitution created from collective hysteria on the part of our politicians.
But you guys don’t have a charter of rights
@@JJMcCullough yeah. You have a definite advantage there. Very envious.
@@davidcope5736 Parliament is the ultimate guardian of rights in the UK as opposed to the courts in the US & Canada is the main difference. I don't know if it's better to have a Charter that is routinely lawfully violated in a politically expedient way by part of the country than what the UK has, but it is an interesting thought.
@@fredleung616 The charter as described in this video doesn't seem stellar, I agree. Ultimately any greatly undemocratic regime in some dystopian future wouldn't care about what a piece of paper says they cant do, constitutions have been easily ripped up before. But in these more stable times there are still those who would use legislation to roll back rights in a less dramatic but still alarming matter, so making that process harder to do is an important safeguard in my mind.
I would say the foundation of the UK Parliament is that Parliament is sovereign, over the King, courts, (historically important) army and all other entities. Further to that, the House of Commons is supreme over the House of Lords. However, in Canada, because you have a written constitution that is supreme over Parliament, it becomes a radically different system.
I'm less than a minute in and I'm already super pumped for this video. This is going to be good!
One of your best so far, JJ! I'm a Montrealer, and it took until about level 4 before I started learning new things, but after that, I learned a bunch of new things!
I find that i always like coming here to this comments section. There's such a vibrant community around this, my favorite, channel. Hello J.J! 👋🏻
Thank you my friend! I find people respond in kind to the quality of content you offer.
This is amazing, truly the best source to learn about Canadian politics!
Great video always appreciate the long ones!
I just saw that the video was 53 minutes long and punched the air! Amazing work JJ congrats on another award winning video!
Great treat for Sunday afternoon. Thanks for the content!
This is an amazing video thank you. Im currently studying politics in Canada and there was lore I had no clue about at all!
I really appreciate JJs unbiased and clear explanation of this stuff. Never knew anything really about Canadian politics before I started watching ya.
Are you Canadian?
@@JJMcCullough nope! Texas born and raised, but always looking to expand my political literacy and understanding. I also appreciate the idea of North American Culture as a whole, rather than Canadian vs American culture. It was something I never really considered before this channel.
This was fantastic. I enjoyed all of it but the way that parts 8 and 9 expanded on/complicated earlier parts was my absolute favorite. Thank you!
Wow, this video is excellent. Editing plus the animations are superb!
I like the NFKRZ picture in the id!
This might be too fringe, but you doing a dive into the history of the territories (why they exist, and perhaps why they persist as a category) would be interesting
That’d be really cool like a little profile of each territory going over some of the history and statistics and its role and place in Canada
I think "territory" persists as a category simply out of political inertia. Changing a territory into a province is probably very difficult, and no politician cares enough about it to actually use political capital to change it.
Great vid as always! Perhaps an in depth exploration of major issues in Canadian politics in iceberg format could be interesting.
Such a useful video thanks! Looking forward to using this for our home education.
Yes let's go jj is making a iceberg list video
Perhaps the real Westminster system, was the friends we made along the way.
Sensational video! My top 1 Canadian RUclipsr. Thank you!
I found this channel some years ago by looking on google how the Canadian elections work. I found a video of you explaining the system to immigrants and learnt a lot from it.
All I can say now is that I got here just by curiosity for the politics and ended up subscribing because of the great content you produce!
5:23 Colors... COLORS?! Really?!
Colours!
Also. Enjoyed this. Thank you :)
For those Canadians paying attention - it's actually Colours!?
JJ this post today - Great work - Thank You
The statement at 48:13 that Quebec's population is in decline is incorrect, or at least misleading. Maybe you meant that it's growing at a slower rate than Canada's population, resulting in a declining percentage.
Thank you JJ! I can see your background in teaching LINC/Citizenship class coming through and I really appreciate this!
JJ, I just wanted to let you know I think your videos are very useful! Also, you’ve helped me to learn more about Canadian politics. Have a wonderful day.
Btw, I work closely with a lot of Canadians and they’ve been impressed by how familiar i am with Canada and its politics. I always tell them who taught me what I know ❤
I can’t be the only one who noticed NFKRZ being used on the sample membership card at 32:56
16:29 A video on Canadian provincial political parties would be nice. Like, how different they are from their national counterparts, what differences they exists between provincial parties in different parts of the country, do separate local parties that don't exist on a national level have a lot of influence,and what they stand for? I don't know If it would be interesting, just throwing an idea.
Provincial political parties often wield much more power in their respective provinces than the federal parties.
This is a super educational, entertaining and useful video. Awesome work JJ! This should be shown in schools. I learned a bunch, the largest thing being that the Canadian political system is even more convoluted and random than I thought.
JJ, as an American who has long been interested in Canadian civics, government, and politics, your videos have been _super_ helpful to me.
The fact that violations of fundamental civil rights can be legally allowed by the mall Santa convention saying "Yea that seems aight" is pretty dystopian as an American
This video made me realize that we, meaning the US, need to bring democracy to Canada before any other country.
Believe me you can keep your laws and political system we don't want it.
@guyl9456 you don't speak for Canada. Kindly gfy
@@ChuckADickiner He does for me. Fuck gridlocks and the political instability of the U.S. Constitution/Government.
@@ginch8300 What's the point of hate-watching JJ?
@@guyl9456Speak for yourself.
I’m sensing two awards for this beauty.
Great stuff JJ!
This is indeed an award-winning video, JJ. Excellent work!
JJ in one of your award winning videos one of these days could you please talk about how pretty much all the islands in the Hudson Bay are part of Nunavut
I just always thought it was interesting because some of the islands are like right off the coast of Ontario or Quebec or Manitoba but they’re part of Nunavut
I hearby award this video best award winning video!! ❤🎉❤
I'll put this up for best comment award!
Another award winning video JJ. I love the long form content 👍
❤ you are one of my favorite RUclipsrs and you are good at explaining Canada 🇨🇦 so thank you 🙏
Canadian political system is like a "BANANA REPUBLIC" where the government of the day is the boss without cheques and balances, and that includes the judiciary from the top down.
Level 9: Jreg's Ottawa Mayoral Election
Awesome video J.J. I really enjoyed watching it and helped me learn more about my neighbors to the north! I never realized that Canada's constitutional system was so convoluted. lol
Great vid. Reminds me on my college and university days. With updates!
Sometimes I learn things about other countries and think "Wow, that's crazy." Then I remember that I live in a country where the ruling party can totally redraw district maps any way they please in order to make it even harder for the other party to win the next time, where there are several reasonably well known political parties but good luck actually electing anyone who doesn't belong to the top two, and where the head of state is technically elected by a few hundred people who were hand-picked by their parties. And that's barely scratching the surface. Very little should seem weird to me at this point.
Honestly, if wasn't for there only being 2 parties which has lead to gridlock, I'd say the US's system is actually not at all bad and I would pick it over Canada's. I really do think that the majourity of your problems stem from the 2 party duopoly on power. After all, the founding fathers didn't write the Constitution with political parties in mind iirc.
@@electron8262 Oh, I agree that it's a pretty good system overall. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm just saying it has some very weird quirks, just like any other country. I will say, though, that the two party duopoly makes me a little crazy. I'm DEEPLY unhappy about BOTH of the big parties' presidential candidates but in a practical sense there's not a thing I can do about it. I'll vote, absolutely, and I believe it's important. But you can't stop a tsunami once it's rolling. The best you can do is decide which shelter seems the least terrible, and get under it. I just wish there at least one other truly viable candidate. =\ (Of course, the reality is that another one could be even worse than what we have now, but I feel like the more real choices we have, the better off we'll be on the whole.)
Great job! Informative and educational! Thank you! Giving you 10 out of 10! Please, keep going!
I love how the sound effect you chose for the top of the iceberg is the sound of ice rattling in a glass.
You come with the sauce again! My bud, you continue to do this and I'll be the American equal, like one of those Canadians that knows about the 'Murican poli system!
Thanks again for your time.
The governor general seems almost exactly equivalent to a president in my country (except it is elected by the parliament). It's weird for me it is not a well-known figure in Canada.
What country?
@@JJMcCullough
Israel. Btw, a bear hide like in 22:40 was stolen in 1985, never found and in 1993 was replaced by another one. Isn't it kind of controversial to show it like that?
@@user-nn8cw6nv6g I don’t understand your question
@@JJMcCullough
Isn't it highly illegal to hunt polar bears in Canada? (Hence, the display of one in a parliament like that might be controversial).
@@user-nn8cw6nv6g I believe it's allowable for the indigenous peoples in Nunavut.
Thanks J.J I’ve learnt a lot about Canadian politics and laws now but goodness that got dark and bleak pretty quick!
I love you JJ you give a very nuanced and well researched perspective on Canadian politics.
I'm curious why the Senate in Canada wasn't set up like the Senate of these United States originally (until the adoption of the 17th Amendment) as representing the Provincial governments? As for King Charles III, I thought he opted to use "Defender of Faith" rather than Anglican title?
The Senate is like the British House of Lords. Back in 1867 they really didn't fully trust democracy. Besides providing regional representation it was setup as a body of "sober second thought" that would curb the excesses of democracy. A Senator has to be at least 30 years of age and own $4,000 dollars in real-estate. That was a lot of money in 1867. The rich needed to be protected from the young and poor.
It's because when most Canadian provinces were set up as British colonies in the late 18th or early 19th centuries, they were not truly democratic. Colonial assemblies were composed of an elected house, and of a house whose members were appointed by the British-appointed governor. In the 1830s there were armed rebellions against that system, that were brutally repressed by the British army, but in the 1840s, after the coming to power of a Liberal government in the UK, who were also introducing democratic reforms in the UK, the British government began a policy of "Responsible Government", which means that the British-appointed governor and the non-elected house would not vote against what the elected house would vote for. That was the beginning of the tradition of having a symbolic upper house and head of state, while the lower house had real power, because they were elected. When Confederation occurred in 1867, people though having an upper house was still a good idea. Now most Canadian probably would prefer to abolish the Senate, and indeed, I think in all provinces the equivalent of the senate has been abolished, but at the Federal level, the Senate has persisted because the Canadian constitution is so difficult to change.
Most I've ever learned about Canada's senate
Informative. I will share with my children. Especially considering the challenges the country is facing now.
Loved the video , thanks !
28:57 is that NFKRZ?? 😂😂
Love your videos JJ including this one. But I wish you would be a bit more impartial about French language in canada. If your goal is to educate foreign and domestic audiences, there is no need to impose your personal views about French language. It was subtly done, but it was very perceptible. This is a high stakes sensitive topic in Canadian identity and people should form their own views.
Excellent overview, a useful refresher
Very much appreciate this. I have a feeling I'll return to this video in the future!
As for the Charter and Courts, Canada has long since had the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. The UK had it first, and the idea was that if Parliament including the King signed off on anything, there was no other authority which could second guess them. Why should a court, who was appointed by the king anyway and whose removal could be ordered by Parliament, have that power? Canada differs because of the federal structure and so some powers had to be out of their reach due to federalism but other than the different subjects that were in each level's jurisdiction, it was all up to the legislative body to decide what was going to happen, and judges were also named by the governor general and removal could be done by parliament to begin with (which is still true). At the time, it was seen as a pro democratic thing, especially given that the rules for naming a judge and how many judges there are anyway do not exist in the constitution, nothing to assure their independence, and so you don't want the ability of someone to just name a bunch of judges who will oppose whatever their successor does arbitrarily.
The Charter does have that section 1 but it is more refined in application, the oakes test is now used to figure out what is unconstitutional. The impairment of rights must be authorized by legislation, not by anything else, and it must be the minimum necessary to achieve a substantial public objective, and the impairment of rights can't be disproportionate to the gains intended to be won via the impairment of the right. You can't just hang a bunch of people in order to win a drug war for instance. It isn't as easy for the legislation to survive this kind of scrutiny as you imply, although it is far from never.
I also add that the notwithstanding clause does have some other limits. It must be done by the legislature and renewed at least once every 5 years, and so at least one general election will elapse. If Canada had proportional elections, more inclusive and transparent nominations within the political parties and perhaps more public interest in those votes, and if the MPs were rather more autonomous than today, the leader of the party is more responsible to their MPs as in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, and with no real threat of the prime minister that they can actually dissolve parliament just on a whim but only really when facing a lack of confidence, using such a clause would probably be much less a tool of a premier to get their way.
28:53 Hello Blazers, NFkRZ here
I heard that in his voice
@@JJMcCulloughsame here
Excellent work as always!
Well done, JJ. I learned a few things I didn’t know. 🤷♂️
Also, proportional representation is not even remotely unconstitutional JJ. It is the norm around the world for proportional representation to be organized by region, so that if say in Czechia if there is a region with say 12 seats and one party has 25% of the vote in that region, they get 3 seats in that region. This can easily be done with provinces in Canada. The overrepresentation of some provinces is a technical headache but is small enough to not be very significant. Especially if Canada had a bigger Commons to begin with, Poland with a similar population has 460 members of the Sejm, their lower house. What is 4 seats for PEI in a house that big?
Okie! I was hoping to see a comment like this so I could ask someone more informed. Cause the first thing I thought when he said proportional representation by the popular vote is impossible was “wait couldn’t we just have proportional representation based on each province’s and territory’s voting outcome?” Am I misunderstanding something about what he explained, plz elaborate for me 💝
@@smartypants261 Proportional Representation could easily be set up in Canada, J.J. seemed to dismiss PR as a practicality in Canada because it can't be tied to regional ridings since PR allows list members of a party not connected to their ridings to receive list seats in parliament, which would upset certain people, (Quebec mostly), however I doubt he's heard of Mixed-Member Proportional Representation, which allows a combination of both riding seats and list seats, while being proportional. Something like MMP could easily work in Canada, like it does in the equally federal republic of Germany, who also have to deal with their own Quebec, aka Bavaria.
@@ginch8300 Germany's list seats are allocated in a compensatory way according to the national popular vote though, even if the seats are allocated by region. Bavaria ensures it isn't shafted by having the CSU link up with the CDU allowing for list seats in Bavaria to be occupied by the CSU. This can't work in Canada because the Bloc doesn't have any party to link up with. So in the end they will lose a substantial number of seats and Québec list seats will be taken up by other parties, thereby not accurately reflecting the Québec popular vote.
@@fredleung616 The German MMP system might be a bit tricky, but we know that places like Scotland, Wales, and London do it by region effectively.
@@ginch8300 Single transferable vote will also work without lists, but it is merely one of a number of methods to use.
I Hope this video does well. It’s heartbreaking to see JJ put so much work into his videos lately, only for them to perform poorly. I regrettably accept that it won’t do that well since it’s a bit tough to market: but I really hope I’m wrong
You and me both
I would love to see the content of his RUclips channel made into books etc
@@user-rw7mu9ek9w oh for sure!
gooooooood this was the kind of content I was waiting
Great vid! I like how things can get very esoteric towards the bottom, but in some ways it doesn't matter when things are working fine enough for everyday people. There are a lot of analogues to the Australian political system, but the major difference is just how messy things are under the surface in Canadian politics, with the number of seemingly contradictory principles and laws locking things into place in roundabout ways (e.g. that unilateral ammendment that makes the minimum number of seats the amount each province had in 2019). It's like when you can't fit everything you want in the fridge so you just close the door to avoid the mess from falling all over the floor.
JJ has definitely helped me understand Candian Poltics. Ironically he helped make me a Monarchist lol.
How?
@@JJMcCullough I didn't even know Canada was a monarchy and learning about that helped thrust me into the world of Monarchism lol
@@kightsun But the monarchy does nothing in Canada.
@@JJMcCullough I believe some other Realms utilize the monarchy better, but the history that the crown represents and the unity, not only among Canadians, but much of the human race are good arguments for the throne.
@@JJMcCullough it also built Canada
I thought JJ’s testimony protecting RUclipsrs was the best. The whole Canada/Explained sub genre is monopolized by JJ’s & this may be his MBDTF G.O.A.T moment
💯 Award winning
Amazing video J.J.!
Thanks for this, this taught me a lot
21:53 A point of correction: only provinces are created by constitutional amendment. The territories are not created by constitutional amendment, only by act of Parliament, so the Yukon Act 1898 and the Nunavut Act 1999 are not acts of the Constitution. The Rupert's Land Act 1868 is part of the Constitution, because the acquisition of land by Canada is also done by constitutional amendment, as also seen in the Adjacent Territories Order 1880 (in which Canada annexed the Arctic Islands).
I'm not really sure how to phrase this, but how come catholicism is so heavily baked into canadian politics particularly in reference to the british monarchy and their supposed relationship to god, when the british monarchy is explicitly not catholic? One of the roles of the british monarch is to be the head of a the church of england, a denomination that literally exists because of a rejection of catholicism.
Catholicism is embedded because of the large Catholic French minority in Canada. The British monarch at the time, didn’t want French-Canadians to rebel like the Americans had, and so to placate them, protections for Catholicism were included in the constitution.
Learned just about the same amount of things in this video as my into to Canadian politics course, thank u JJ
Awesome video!
"The King has no power.". I've talked to some Canadians and they all told me they would 100% don't mind if protocol was ignored and the King dismissed Trudeau and called for elections. They are actually for it.
That’s because people hate Trudeau. They’d probably support a military coup as well.
@@JJMcCullough If I was Canadian I'd probably support anything to get that silly buffoon out of office. Bring it Home.
@@JJMcCulloughya, there are some fringe types trying to do a lot of bizarre coup like stuff (occupying police stations etc). There was a partly declassified report by the RCMP about “paranoid populism” that came to light because a BC law professor successfully got a hold of it via an access to information request. Would love to see you discuss it in a video
@@JJMcCulloughHell they’d probably support an American “intervention” by a Republican government.