[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Hey CC, do they really call the Vancouver Art Gallery, the VAG?

Yep

But generally it's pronounced "the vagg" (hard g) rather than "the vadje" (soft g, like the diminutive for vagina).

[crazy canuck]

Only artsy people like Jacob do.  Me and the rest of the Plebs just call it the Art Gallery.

[Jacob]

Only artsy people like Jacob do.  Me and the rest of the Plebs just call it the Art Gallery.

I don't talk about it that much to be honest. When I do, I normally use "the Vancouver Art Gallery" actually. I don't go there enough or discuss it to presume the familiarity if an acronym, but there are enough art galleries in my life that "the art gallery" is too imprecise for default use.

[viper37]

What about Harper's and Oliver's intervention in the provincial Ontarian election?  Bad? Good? Don't care?

[crazy canuck]

I havent heard anything about it.

[crazy canuck]

I have sent off a number of letters expressing my extreme displeasure over the government's attack on the Chief Justice and I have called my MP just to make sure he got the point.

I expect a number of MPs are receiving similar such calls and letters.  We shall see how the government responds.   

[Grey Fox]

Rich people

[crazy canuck]

Rich people

Yeah, only the rich should worry about silly things like the Constitutional integrety of the country.

[Barrister]

You know CC - I don't exactly know what Harper thought he'd accomplish by his comments, but I am not offended in the slightest by them.  They do in fact appear to be true.

[Grey Fox]

Rich people

Yeah, only the rich should worry about silly things like the Constitutional integrety of the country.

or actually expect the government to respond to anything people say.

[Jacob]

You know CC - I don't exactly know what Harper thought he'd accomplish by his comments, but I am not offended in the slightest by them.  They do in fact appear to be true.

You believe that the Chief Justice acted inappropriately?

[crazy canuck]

You know CC - I don't exactly know what Harper thought he'd accomplish by his comments, but I am not offended in the slightest by them.  They do in fact appear to be true.

Really?  The press release said the Chief Justice phoned while that case was before the court.  That is simply a lie.  In fact the Chief Justice was consulted in the normal course while the selection process was under way.  Further, if the government really believed this was an issue it should have been brought to the attention of the Court at the hearing.  You will know enough about administrative law (or at least the Justice Minister should) to know the decision maker must decide the question of bias in the first instance.  No, this is pure politics.

This attack is clearly directed at the Conservative's Reform base who will think nothing of this attack and may even be cheering it on.  I can tell you if it continues they will have lost me forever.  They should think long and hard about what they are doing.  Their Reformer base will not get them elected. They need people like me to vote for them.

[crazy canuck]

Speaks for itself

This statement is made by eleven former presidents of the Canadian Bar Association: L. Yves Fortier of Montreal; Thomas G. Heintzman of Toronto; Simon V. Potter of Montreal; Susan McGrath of Iroquois Falls; D. Kevin Carroll of Barrie; Bernard Amyot of Montreal; Paul Fraser of Victoria; Daphne Dumont of Charlottetown; Guy Joubert of Winnipeg; Rod Snow of Whitehorse; and William Johnson of Regina.

The recent comments by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, claiming that the Chief Justice of Canada attempted an inappropriate conversation with him, demonstrate a disrespect by the executive branch for the judicial branch of our constitutional democracy, and for the Chief Justice of Canada as the most senior member of the Canadian judiciary. This is so despite the fact that the discussion in question involved a possible new appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, a topic well within guidelines for appropriate conversations between prime ministers and chief justices.

The judicial branch is one of the three independent components of Canada's constitutional democracy, the other two being the legislative and the executive branches. Our system can operate effectively only if each component is respectful and courteous in its relations with the others. The courtesy and respect that these relationships require are particularly important for the judicial branch because it must ultimately judge the constitutionality of the conduct of the other two branches and, yet, at the same time, must on a day-to-day administrative level have dialogue with them. Furthermore, the judicial branch, and judges generally, do not have the ability to defend themselves if those very relationships are used as grounds for attack.

The events in April to July 2013 demonstrate the usual and respectful relationship between the judicial branch and the other two branches of government. In April 2013, the Chief Justice, quite properly and according to long-standing tradition, provided her input to the appropriate parliamentary committee about proposed new appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada. In July, she provided her input to the Canadian government. These discussions occurred well before the nomination of Justice Marc Nadon. They were perfectly in line with the sort of courteous discussions which have historically occurred and which Canadians would expect to occur between the judiciary and the executive with respect to judicial appointments.

In contrast, the recent statements by the Prime Minister were made nine months after the conversations in question occurred, long after the Prime Minister could have dealt with any aspect of those discussions if there had been any good-faith reason to do so. The Prime Minister's statements were made only after the government had been a litigant in appeals before the Supreme Canada, leaving the impression that the statements were aimed at the Court as a reaction to the result of the decisions in those appeals -- conduct in which no respectful private litigant should engage.

As recent press reports demonstrate, these circumstances leave us concerned that the Prime Minister's statements may intimidate or harm the ability of the Supreme Court of Canada to render justice objectively and fairly -- even when the government of Canada chooses to be a litigant before it. In addition, the statement threatens to lead to abandonment of the fruitful and necessary respectful relationships between the Supreme Court of Canada and the two other branches of government and a refusal by the Court, and all courts, to have any dealings with the other two branches for fear of retribution to which the judicial branch cannot in any seemly fashion respond fully.

As former presidents of the Canadian Bar Association, we ask the Prime Minister to remedy this situation in a way which will demonstrate to our judiciary and to Canadians at large that he respects the independence of our courts and will treat with due courtesy the Chief Justice of Canada.

[Malthus]

Looks like Harper's going off the rails. He has always been a dictatorial bastard, of course, but now it is like he's lost his sense of reality.

OTOH - Prime Minister Trudeau? One gets the sense he'd be out of his depth leading a medium-sized business, let alone the country.

The NDP? Not likely.

[crazy canuck]

Looks like Harper's going off the rails. He has always been a dictatorial bastard, of course, but now it is like he's lost his sense of reality.

OTOH - Prime Minister Trudeau? One gets the sense he'd be out of his depth leading a medium-sized business, let alone the country.

The NDP? Not likely.

Yes, this epic screw up by the Conservatives causes signficant problems.  One can only hope they recognize their folly before it is too late.