[shockedcanadian]

We don't need changes to protections, we need enforcement of protections. The lac there of are impacting our social well being, economic activity and foreign investment

[Lemmy]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

We don't need changes to protections, we need enforcement of protections. The lac there of are impacting our social well being, economic activity and foreign investment

Huh?

[BeaverFever]

Lemmy Lemmy:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

We don't need changes to protections, we need enforcement of protections. The lac there of are impacting our social well being, economic activity and foreign investment

Huh?

What don't you understand? There's a French lake that's causing social and economic problems and scaring away foreigners.

[JaredMilne]

...Exactly which "traditional constitution" is John Robson talking about?

The one that gave the federal government the explicit power to reserve and strike down provincial legislation?

The one that gave the federal government a very broad mandate to legislate in the name of "peace, order and good government"?

The one that allows the federal government to appoint a Senate full of unelected wealthy elites to provide a "sober second thought" on legislation passed by MPs and extensively rewrite it?

The one that gave the federal government all the powers not explicitly outlined for the provinces?

The one that gave the federal government the power to unilaterally control the lives of Indigenous peoples in all kinds of ways, from controlling their access to food to forcing them into residential schools?

The one that contained various subtle recognitions of Quebec's distinct place in Canada?

The one that enabled the federal government to protect Canadian industry behind a tariff wall?

The one that enabled the federal government to build a public railroad with huge public subsidies?

The one that provided various provisions for French in the House of Commons and other places?

The one that did not contain any inherent bill of rights, despite being passed nearly a century after the American one?

That traditional constitution?

A few commentators seem to have fallen in love with the idea that Canada was somehow a classical liberal paradise with limited government and vast personal freedom, and that only started to lose its way once some sort of elite decided to impose all kinds of programs, restrictions and spending out of nowhere in the 1960s.

Of course, if you actually sit down and look at the Canadian constitution, as well as the actions of leaders like John A. Macdonald and Wilfrid Laurier, you'll see that government action has always been an important part of Canadian life. Our constitution was not designed to keep government out of the way, or even to hold it in check all that much-it was designed to ensure that a dispersed population living over an extremely large territory could govern itself and live together effectively.

Things like the decline of Parliament had less to do with the Constitution and more with many MPs deciding to act as cheerleaders for their leaders rather than representing their constituents-something that Conservative governments have been as complicit in as Liberal ones. Rights were routinely infringed by governments before the 1960s, most particularly the rights of everyone from blacks to Germans to First Nations to the Japanese to the Chinese to Ukrainians to Francophones. The demonization of certain types of speech is just part of a much larger trend in the Western world, and is hardly limited to Canada. The perception of today's politicians as weak and incompetent is hardly limited to Canada either...and we had mediocrities like Alexander Mackenzie and buffoons like Arthur Meighen running governments in the "good old days" too.

TL;DR: John Robson, by and large, is full of it.

[Hmmmm]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

BUT...The problem is, our current spineless, useless, corrupt, brainless wave of politicians[BF]

... or the brainless electorate that empowers them?

[shockedcanadian]

Ontario Wynne OPP

[Hmmmm]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Ontario Wynne OPP

Orkney Bloggs BLT

[Freakinoldguy]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

I'm more than for a total rewrite of our Constitution in the vein of what occurred in Japan and Germany after WW2. We need to modernize our laws to fit the age.

BUT...
The problem is, our current spineless, useless, corrupt, brainless wave of politicians is what got us into this mess in the first place. I don't know that I'd trust anyone in this age to actually write us a new GOOD constitution. If anything they'd wind up shafting everyone even worse.

You're right. The politicians may have gotten us into this mess but by abrogating their power to an unelected, appointed body like the Supreme Court ensures we'll never get our Constitution changed.

Does anyone seriously think the law profession especially the Supreme Court is going to give back the Golden Goose that was handed to them in 1982?

So, unless we get to start voting for the Supreme Court Justices we'll have no real say in the running of this country since they remain the sole arbitrator of what is "constitutional".

Talk about Oligarchy's.

[Lemmy]

Elected judges is the worst idea ever.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Elected judges is the worst idea ever.

What FOG keeps forgetting (or denying) is that he's in the 1/3 conservative minority. He'd never be happy with the judges that were elected on a national basis, with Quebec and Ontario dominating the vote. Hell, Harper tried to appoint right wingers, and they turned moderate on him as soon as they were appointed.

[Lemmy]

Maybe they didn't "turn" anything. Maybe they just did their job to the best of their ability, like they promised.

[andyt]

Well, Harper would have gone by their judicial record. For some reason they made more moderate judgements when they hit the Supremes. Maybe it was peer pressure and having to much more thoroughly justify your ruling.

[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

Well, Harper would have gone by their judicial record. For some reason they made more moderate judgements when they hit the Supremes. Maybe it was peer pressure and having to much more thoroughly justify your ruling.

Maybe he just nominated the best available for the job.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Elected judges is the worst idea ever.

Selecting judges from the small pool of politically connected lawyers who all know each other isn't such a hot idea, either.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Selecting judges from the small pool of politically connected lawyers who all know each other isn't such a hot idea, either.

Got a third solution?