[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[garbon]

[Grey Fox]

I don't know when day 1 is but I'm buying the smallest amount possible & just enshrine it.

[Malthus]

Yay the senate has passed the cannabis legalization bill!  Boy was that ever a fun conversation to have with my 8 year old last weekend.

What makes pot different from, say, cigarettes or booze?

None of those are exactly good for 8 year olds ... unless they are Shane Macgowan. 

Anyway, here in Ontario, the current plan is to have it sold by a provincial retail monopoly, like the LCBO only for pot. Though lord knows what Ford's conservatives are going to do.

[crazy canuck]

These paragraphs from the Chief Justice's decision in the BC case really sums up the ultimate issue in the case:

[140]                      The LSBC is under a duty to protect the public interest and preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of everyone, including LGBTQ people. As the collective face of a profession bound to respect the law and the values that underpin it, it is entitled to refuse to condone practices that treat certain groups as less worthy than others.

[141]                      TWU seeks to counter this valid justification by arguing that it is beyond the statutory mandate of the LSBC to consider the effect the Covenant would have on the LGBTQ community. It argues that the public interest mandate of law societies is limited to ensuring that law students meet standards of learning and competence, and does not extend to the policies of a private institution. This ignores the broad public interest mandate the legislature has conferred on the LSBC, for reasons explored by the majority.

Broad public interest mandate, or narrow statutory mandate to accredit a school capable of producing competent lawyers? The rest of the reasons seem to flow from that.

That is certainly the one issue on which the Chief Justice and Rowe agreed with the majority.  But I think the most important part of her dissent is her strong refusal to go along with the majority's denigration of the importance of the Covenant to that religious community.  The majority minimized its importance to the point that the balancing of Charter values became a trivial exercise.

[Malthus]

These paragraphs from the Chief Justice's decision in the BC case really sums up the ultimate issue in the case:

[140]                      The LSBC is under a duty to protect the public interest and preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of everyone, including LGBTQ people. As the collective face of a profession bound to respect the law and the values that underpin it, it is entitled to refuse to condone practices that treat certain groups as less worthy than others.

[141]                      TWU seeks to counter this valid justification by arguing that it is beyond the statutory mandate of the LSBC to consider the effect the Covenant would have on the LGBTQ community. It argues that the public interest mandate of law societies is limited to ensuring that law students meet standards of learning and competence, and does not extend to the policies of a private institution. This ignores the broad public interest mandate the legislature has conferred on the LSBC, for reasons explored by the majority.

Broad public interest mandate, or narrow statutory mandate to accredit a school capable of producing competent lawyers? The rest of the reasons seem to flow from that.

That is certainly the one issue on which the Chief Justice and Rowe agreed with the majority.  But I think the most important part of her dissent is her strong refusal to go along with the majority's denigration of the importance of the Covenant to that religious community.  The majority minimized its importance to the point that the balancing of Charter values became a trivial exercise.

I agree, that was significant - the majority set the bar unrealistically high (it is difficult to follow, but they seem to be differentiating 'trivial' on the one hand and 'forced apostasy' on the other).

However, the 'broad mandate' on which they both agreed may prove more significant in the end - it again makes it much more difficult to challenge an administrator's decisions. As the dissent mentions, this cuts against the old *Roncarelli* line of cases about administrators not making decisions based on irrelevant factors -- the statutory purposes now include supporting the public interest generally, rather than simply carrying out the stated statutory functions.

This opens the door to more arbitrary decision-making.

[crazy canuck]

This opens the door to more arbitrary decision-making.

Yes, I agree.  There is some hope the comments of the dissenting judges regarding the need to refine the Dore analysis will be developed by the lower courts but, in conversations over the last few days with other members of the bar, I think we are in the minority in thinking this development is troubling.  It seems lawyers can be as uncritical as anyone if the result accords with their view of the world.

[Malthus]

This opens the door to more arbitrary decision-making.

Yes, I agree.  There is some hope the comments of the dissenting judges regarding the need to refine the Dore analysis will be developed by the lower courts but, in conversations over the last few days with other members of the bar, I think we are in the minority in thinking this development is troubling.  It seems lawyers can be as uncritical as anyone if the result accords with their view of the world.

We see this all the time - a sympathetic fact situation leading to a result with logic that will, undoubtedly, cause trouble in the future.

That so much of the result-oriented logic is directed at reaching results that accord with social liberal positions is of course great in the sense that these are usually positions I personally support ... but it is terrible for consistency and fairness in the law.

[Barrister]

10:17 doesn't have the same ring as 420, but nevertheless that's the day Canadians can legally toke up.

[Grey Fox]

A day when Canadian will be finally free of the Victorian age!

[Malthus]

10:17 doesn't have the same ring as 420, but nevertheless that's the day Canadians can legally toke up.

My prediction is that ... not much will change, at least here in Toronto. Cops have long ago basically ceased pestering people about pot, unless they were also shit disturbing.

Main impact will be if and when pot LCBO (CCBO?) stores start opening, which will probably undercut dealers. Lots of drug dealers will go out of business.

[Malthus]

A day when Canadian will be finally free of the Victorian age!

Free of the Victorian Age? You mean back to it.

Queen Victoria herself smoked pot. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11927223/Legalise-cannabis-because-Queen-Victoria-used-it-says-former-Tory-minister.html

... admittedly, to relieve menstrual cramps.

[HVC]

10:17 doesn't have the same ring as 420, but nevertheless that's the day Canadians can legally toke up.

My prediction is that ... not much will change, at least here in Toronto. Cops have long ago basically ceased pestering people about pot, unless they were also shit disturbing.

Main impact will be if and when pot LCBO (CCBO?) stores start opening, which will probably undercut dealers. Lots of drug dealers will go out of business.

Dealers will probably diversify. Some at least. Which might cause some issues in the short run

[crazy canuck]

10:17 doesn't have the same ring as 420, but nevertheless that's the day Canadians can legally toke up.

My prediction is that ... not much will change, at least here in Toronto. Cops have long ago basically ceased pestering people about pot, unless they were also shit disturbing.

Main impact will be if and when pot LCBO (CCBO?) stores start opening, which will probably undercut dealers. Lots of drug dealers will go out of business.

Yeah, the only thing that is really going to change here is the supply chain and all the regulation, tax and safety standards that come with that change - and frankly that is the whole point.

[crazy canuck]

10:17 doesn't have the same ring as 420, but nevertheless that's the day Canadians can legally toke up.

My prediction is that ... not much will change, at least here in Toronto. Cops have long ago basically ceased pestering people about pot, unless they were also shit disturbing.

Main impact will be if and when pot LCBO (CCBO?) stores start opening, which will probably undercut dealers. Lots of drug dealers will go out of business.

Dealers will probably diversify. Some at least. Which might cause some issues in the short run

The black market already supplies a wide range of illicit and deadly drugs.  This change will reduce the opportunities for that market.

[Admiral Yi]

10:17 doesn't have the same ring as 420, but nevertheless that's the day Canadians can legally toke up.

Is that the date for legalization of purchase and consumption or the date to roll out retail sales?