"If there’s one thing I love, its getting caught off-guard and surprised, especially when it comes to Canadian politics, which I generally find infuriating, pedantic and riddled with pseudo-scandals. The events of the past couple weeks, instigated by the Québec justice minister and subsequently supported by the Premiers of Ontario and British Columbia with regards to the Tory ‘omnibus crime bill’ have restored my faith and hope in Canada, if for no other reason than it presents real leverage against Stephen Harper and once again places Québec in the driver’s seat with regards to social policy."

Read more at An Ironic Coup: Omnibus Bill Uniting the Opposition

Harper has used the quirks and foibles of our system to foist upon us an agenda that most of us don't want. I'm glad that this odd set-up has within it the ability to reduce the power he has been wielding. 

In my view, this is shining example of non-violent resistance to a violent agenda.

The provinces can't veto federal legislation.

They may protest it.  THey may promise to refuse to pay the costs that will be downloaded to them.  But they can't kill it by a veto, they may be able to delay/edit it through political pressure (such as a claim they won't pay downloaded costs).

You're right - they can't veto it in the purest sense of the word but if the provinces refuse to comply, especially these 3 with the largest populations, that would have the same effect. 

Seriously, what would it take to make the provinces comply if the federal government refuses to consult and/or modify the bill?

This is where it gets interesting.  The Criminal Code is Federal jurisdiction.  Therefore it would seem that the federal government has the authority to pass legislation such as they have offered.  HOwever the provinces get stuck with the bill since a prison term of 2 years less a day or shorter is in a provincial not a federal institution.  So what happens if the laws is passed but provinces refuse to paay to have it lived out?  COnstitutional experts anyone?

The feds obviously do have the authority and while BC is definitely primarily worried about the cost, that's not Quebec's main concern. They seem to be using the cost to shore up their argument that these laws are not consistent with the principles underpining their approach to justice. Presumably Ontario's position is like that of BC's.

Not only could the provinces refuse to pay to have it lived out but they could just not act on other aspects. For example, if a particular crime has a disproportionately punitve sentence, perhaps there would be a particular unofficial policy to look the other way so as to avoid the cost of longer sentences, etc.

Yes, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. 

The BC premier clearly supports it. She is just worried about the costs. She will probably just try to bargain them down or cut more social services and education.

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/11/09/tough-on-crime-bill-tough-on-budgets/

The provinces can not "veto" the bill, but the Senate can  -  see The Senate Today - Making Canada's Law

Given enough protest from both the people and the provinces the Senate has, and can be, moved against House legislation.  If the Cons ignore the public outcry on their omni bill then pressure needs to be applied to the Senate.

I have often suspected that this is the real motivation from the House of Commons (all parties btw) to abolish the Senate since it can be roused from its somnolence to provide a check to an unchecked parliament.

There is one more check, although according to wikipedia never evoked, and that is a veto by the Governor General...

but there is always a first ;-)

LB

----------------------------

His view of the necessity for a second chamber may be expressed briefly by the story told of Washington, which Sir John was fond of relating. It is said that on his return from France Jefferson called Washington to account for having agreed to a second chamber. ‘Of what use is the Senate?’ he asked, as he stood before the fire with a cup of tea in his hand, pouring the tea into his saucer as he spoke. ‘You have answered your own question,’ replied Washington. ‘What do you mean?’ ‘Why did you pour that tea into your saucer?!’ ‘To cool it,’ quoth Jefferson. ‘Even so,’ said Washington, ‘the Senate is the saucer into which we pour legislation to cool.’

     J. Pope, Memoirs of the Rt. Hon. Sir John Alexander Macdonald

     [Ottawa, 1894]

Given the reality of a Harper majority Senate and a Harper appointed Gov. Gen., I'm not holding my breath.

I share your concern RevMatt, but I always remain a pessimistic optimist. 

In the past, a Liberal appointed senate has moved against a Liberal government and one can hope that the reverse is equally true.  That movement was only achieved by the Canadian people sending a very united, loud, collective message to both Houses.

History does repeat itself but... we can choose what is repeated.

LB

-------------------

A country without a memory is a country of madmen.
       George Santayana