Party Line Voting - Media Slams Mormon Victims

Political Theatrics: Relaxing Party Discipline
The Canadian political system is often argued to be controlled by excessive party discipline flowing from the centre of government onto elected members of Parliament. The tendency of political parties, specifically the governing party, to exert rigid discipline over its members has slowly evolved since the early 1900s and consolidated in the latter years of the 1960s under Pierre Trudeau.

The centralization of government has only strengthened this phenomenon. Under an executive-centred conception of Canadian government, we see a rise of the “Court Government”. The Prime Minister and a handful of his/her selected “courtiers” in the Prime Minister’s Office act as the ultimate decision-making body, significantly restricting the ability of Members of Parliament to dissent. This now characteristically Canadian style of party discipline emerged from the British parliamentary system and eventually evolved into an even more rigid lever of power.

https://mjps.ssmu.ca/2019/04/26/party-discipline/

Once again Quebec more equal than other provinces

In the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Accord, British Columbians rejected the proposed amendments to Canada s constitution with the highest no vote in the country (68.3%). Also in the no camp were Manitoba (61.6%) and then Alberta (60.2%). Four other provinces also turned it down and the package barely passed in Ontario.

In B.C. and Alberta, a prime reason why the Charlottetown Accord failed so miserably was fierce opposition to the proposed distinct society clause for Quebec. It was a nebulous concept with the potential to continually exempt Quebec s government from norms applicable to other provinces, including on individual rights. (It is why Pierre Trudeau opposed it). In another Charlottetown section, on the Senate, any issue involving French language and culture would have needed the approval of a majority of Francophone senators, not just a bare majorit..