Correction: Canada is not a democracy. Canada is a Potemkin democracy, and that is not a democracy because it is only a façade. Canada has mostly been a Laurentian dictatorship, and since 2015 is a more and more overt Laurentian dictatorship.
It is a bit astonishing that (after having a front row seat to a modern war for 3.5 years and untold meetings with Ukrainians at all levels in the military and government) even hawkish nations like Poland, the Baltic countries and Denmark have not benefited from the expertise of Ukraine to deploy more cost effective anti-drone defenses. I am sure they are working on it but perhaps they should consider speeding things up a bit.
Our Supreme Court may or may not be politicized (I rather think not), but it definitely reflects our class structure -- a class structure that our betters keep denying. As my constitutional law professor pointed out many years ago. Supreme Court judges do not read the Toronto Sun or even the Toronto Star; they read the Globe and Mail. It is even worse with the francophone judges: they do not read le Journal de Montreal, they read Le Devoir. They have no idea what those other publications are on about.
They also undergo sensitivity training. I remember Freedom of Information request, around 2005, to disclose the materials being used. The request was denied.
As a result, it is no surprise that the judges have little idea, and are often surprised, by middle and working class Canadians.
I was around when the Charter was first put forward by Pierre Trudeau. There was fear among legal and political circles about what an activist court might do with it. In particular, many pointed to the United States, where the Warren Court was taking significant social actions (whether good or bad actions are a separate matter). No. no, we were told, we have a Parliamentary government tradition, and the supremacy of Parliament would be respected. And so it was, for the first decade or two. But no longer.
The situation is not improved by law school professors who spend their time inventing new rights to protect, but who never consider that past extensions might have been a mistake and should be reversed. Always expanding, never contracting.
The Notwithstanding Clause is an essential element of the bargain struck in 1982. Without it, there would have been no Charter. And the Clause is no bad thing. It allows different provinces to craft their own set of rules, independent from any "national" consensus. After all, that is the very essence of a confederation rather than a unitary state. Various provinces can try out different approaches. People who are uncomfortable with any given province's rules, are free to move to another province whose approach they prefer. They are free to move, the Notwithstanding Clause cannot be applied to mobility rights.
With respect Jen and Matt, for people labelling Sean Fraser as "Laurentian Consensus ilk". you should be more self-conscious of your Ottawa-bubble-talk, which is on full display with your hyperbole of "flirting with a full-blown constitutional crisis". Yeah sure, the integrity of our country is about to implode because of some misguided factum that no ordinary citizen has ever heard about - you know better than that.
Sean Fraser's suggestion that the courts rule that Section 33 cannot be re-invoked is a non-starter, but I would object to your accusation that wariness of Section 33 comes from support for "technocracy". The advantage of the Charter is not that it is supposed to allow unelected persons to over-rule the elected legislature, the advantage of the Charter is that it is supposed to allow unelected persons to over-rule the elected legislature *temporarily*. There simply are some political situations where the majority will is not quite or not yet on the side of the minority, even if that is where public opinion is going to be headed in the long-term. Think same-sex marriage, for example - the courts took the lead on an issue where the public will was inevitably going to come onside, but they hurried along the outcomes faster.
If there were no Section 33, we would still have fulsome democracy: in the long run, bad judges with bad decisions will get replaced with appointments from governments who revise their opinions on which judicial character types to appoint.
Again, you are not very observant of reality; as a professional theoretical academician you do OK, because you are unable neither smell nor see a full-blown constitutional crisis coming. There are several red flags waving right on the open, however professional theoretical academician typically have problems with acknowledging reality, which for them is too pedestrian an item.
So if a bunch of Conservative and Bloc Quebecois MPs say there is a "full-blown constitutional crisis coming", they're totally experts on the Constitution of Canada, right? Oh yeah, they shouldn't be subject to the *least* skepticism of their claims, they're totally truthworthy!
For all the talk of Trudeau's fiscal irresponsibility, the federal debt to GDP ratio trended DOWN almost every year of his tenure except for 2020. He was an austerity PM. The post-pandemic economic malaise was certainly caused by the sharp spending cuts of 2021. Compare to the US which is still running a massive fiscal deficit and has a booming economy.
A shrinking federal debt to GDP ratio means that more of the burden of economic growth falls on the private sector. That means higher mortgage/household debt or higher business debt to generate the dollars that support growth. And that's exactly what Canada has seen for the past 20 years. Federal debt to GDP has fallen while household debt has skyrocketed. This is partly the reason for Canada's low business investment and tepid wages. Government has been sucking money out of the private sector to extinguish the federal debt for 20 years.
In order to rebalance the household debt burden back to where it was in 2006, the federal government needs to spend about a trillion more dollars than planned. That's approximately an annual $150 B deficit over ten years. That will raise business demand and wages, spur business investment, and fix a lot of our infrastructure deficit.
I think Carney has the right idea, but it remains to be seen if he (and the Finance Ministry) has the balls to slay the sacred balanced budget cow, or if he's just another big talker like Trudeau.
Jeeeezzzzz....... I do like the "Ignorant Opinions" because it has a great sense of humour. However the comment promotes pixie dust accounting and pixie dust economics.
Re:Quebec's C-21. It occurs to me that the Liberals put themselves in yet another trap of their making thanks to yet more Trudeau negligence. Quebec voted to make oaths to the king optional in 2022, even though this is likely unconstitutional. The longer the Liberals never push back on it, the more they risk making it quasi-constitututional because the other option is very bad (imagine if the PQ wins a majority next year, and none of their MNAs swear an oath, and then they go on to pass budgets and bills. I doubt the Supreme Court would then be willing to invalidate an entire government sessions worth of laws years later because the government legislator votes can't count).
Then insert some tortured lawyer logic that if something unconstitutional like that is allowed to stand, then other (supposedly) unconstitutional things become constitutional if it's kept in place long enough via notwithstanding.
Is it truly the appropriate role of the federal government to declare that Quebec's action here is unconstitutional? Sean Fraser's factum is under fire precisely because it is going a little too far in making partial suggestions to the judiciary - is he weighing in on too few legal matters, then?
Sean Fraser being Attorney General is not his fault, that rests with big brains Carney who put him there.
Correction: Canada is not a democracy. Canada is a Potemkin democracy, and that is not a democracy because it is only a façade. Canada has mostly been a Laurentian dictatorship, and since 2015 is a more and more overt Laurentian dictatorship.
It is a bit astonishing that (after having a front row seat to a modern war for 3.5 years and untold meetings with Ukrainians at all levels in the military and government) even hawkish nations like Poland, the Baltic countries and Denmark have not benefited from the expertise of Ukraine to deploy more cost effective anti-drone defenses. I am sure they are working on it but perhaps they should consider speeding things up a bit.
Our Supreme Court may or may not be politicized (I rather think not), but it definitely reflects our class structure -- a class structure that our betters keep denying. As my constitutional law professor pointed out many years ago. Supreme Court judges do not read the Toronto Sun or even the Toronto Star; they read the Globe and Mail. It is even worse with the francophone judges: they do not read le Journal de Montreal, they read Le Devoir. They have no idea what those other publications are on about.
They also undergo sensitivity training. I remember Freedom of Information request, around 2005, to disclose the materials being used. The request was denied.
As a result, it is no surprise that the judges have little idea, and are often surprised, by middle and working class Canadians.
I was around when the Charter was first put forward by Pierre Trudeau. There was fear among legal and political circles about what an activist court might do with it. In particular, many pointed to the United States, where the Warren Court was taking significant social actions (whether good or bad actions are a separate matter). No. no, we were told, we have a Parliamentary government tradition, and the supremacy of Parliament would be respected. And so it was, for the first decade or two. But no longer.
The situation is not improved by law school professors who spend their time inventing new rights to protect, but who never consider that past extensions might have been a mistake and should be reversed. Always expanding, never contracting.
The Notwithstanding Clause is an essential element of the bargain struck in 1982. Without it, there would have been no Charter. And the Clause is no bad thing. It allows different provinces to craft their own set of rules, independent from any "national" consensus. After all, that is the very essence of a confederation rather than a unitary state. Various provinces can try out different approaches. People who are uncomfortable with any given province's rules, are free to move to another province whose approach they prefer. They are free to move, the Notwithstanding Clause cannot be applied to mobility rights.
Good luck hanging in there subsidy-free. It’s going to get harder as the Zombies lurch around for more
With respect Jen and Matt, for people labelling Sean Fraser as "Laurentian Consensus ilk". you should be more self-conscious of your Ottawa-bubble-talk, which is on full display with your hyperbole of "flirting with a full-blown constitutional crisis". Yeah sure, the integrity of our country is about to implode because of some misguided factum that no ordinary citizen has ever heard about - you know better than that.
Sean Fraser's suggestion that the courts rule that Section 33 cannot be re-invoked is a non-starter, but I would object to your accusation that wariness of Section 33 comes from support for "technocracy". The advantage of the Charter is not that it is supposed to allow unelected persons to over-rule the elected legislature, the advantage of the Charter is that it is supposed to allow unelected persons to over-rule the elected legislature *temporarily*. There simply are some political situations where the majority will is not quite or not yet on the side of the minority, even if that is where public opinion is going to be headed in the long-term. Think same-sex marriage, for example - the courts took the lead on an issue where the public will was inevitably going to come onside, but they hurried along the outcomes faster.
If there were no Section 33, we would still have fulsome democracy: in the long run, bad judges with bad decisions will get replaced with appointments from governments who revise their opinions on which judicial character types to appoint.
Again, you are not very observant of reality; as a professional theoretical academician you do OK, because you are unable neither smell nor see a full-blown constitutional crisis coming. There are several red flags waving right on the open, however professional theoretical academician typically have problems with acknowledging reality, which for them is too pedestrian an item.
So if a bunch of Conservative and Bloc Quebecois MPs say there is a "full-blown constitutional crisis coming", they're totally experts on the Constitution of Canada, right? Oh yeah, they shouldn't be subject to the *least* skepticism of their claims, they're totally truthworthy!
For all the talk of Trudeau's fiscal irresponsibility, the federal debt to GDP ratio trended DOWN almost every year of his tenure except for 2020. He was an austerity PM. The post-pandemic economic malaise was certainly caused by the sharp spending cuts of 2021. Compare to the US which is still running a massive fiscal deficit and has a booming economy.
A shrinking federal debt to GDP ratio means that more of the burden of economic growth falls on the private sector. That means higher mortgage/household debt or higher business debt to generate the dollars that support growth. And that's exactly what Canada has seen for the past 20 years. Federal debt to GDP has fallen while household debt has skyrocketed. This is partly the reason for Canada's low business investment and tepid wages. Government has been sucking money out of the private sector to extinguish the federal debt for 20 years.
In order to rebalance the household debt burden back to where it was in 2006, the federal government needs to spend about a trillion more dollars than planned. That's approximately an annual $150 B deficit over ten years. That will raise business demand and wages, spur business investment, and fix a lot of our infrastructure deficit.
I think Carney has the right idea, but it remains to be seen if he (and the Finance Ministry) has the balls to slay the sacred balanced budget cow, or if he's just another big talker like Trudeau.
Jeeeezzzzz....... I do like the "Ignorant Opinions" because it has a great sense of humour. However the comment promotes pixie dust accounting and pixie dust economics.
Re:Quebec's C-21. It occurs to me that the Liberals put themselves in yet another trap of their making thanks to yet more Trudeau negligence. Quebec voted to make oaths to the king optional in 2022, even though this is likely unconstitutional. The longer the Liberals never push back on it, the more they risk making it quasi-constitututional because the other option is very bad (imagine if the PQ wins a majority next year, and none of their MNAs swear an oath, and then they go on to pass budgets and bills. I doubt the Supreme Court would then be willing to invalidate an entire government sessions worth of laws years later because the government legislator votes can't count).
Then insert some tortured lawyer logic that if something unconstitutional like that is allowed to stand, then other (supposedly) unconstitutional things become constitutional if it's kept in place long enough via notwithstanding.
Is it truly the appropriate role of the federal government to declare that Quebec's action here is unconstitutional? Sean Fraser's factum is under fire precisely because it is going a little too far in making partial suggestions to the judiciary - is he weighing in on too few legal matters, then?