[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Surely you'd go back to Charlottetown, rather than Meech?

And EEE is where it is at people!

Nah, I'm with Malthus. We don't need another layer of government. If we elect Senators, and especially if they try to be effective, that's twice the amount of bullshit needed to govern the country. It's not necessary.

[Neil]

Quebec has been talking about it for 30 years now.  But then, it was just Quebec whining.  Now that they see the truth after everyone else, Canadians suddenly ask for change.

I think any outrage generated in Quebec was because of the thought that someone else might be getting a slice of money.  It's not for nothing that Quebec is said to be the most corrupt of all the provinces.

[crazy canuck]

And EEE is where it is at people!

[Neil]

Is it, is it really?

Yeah.  The whole Senate might steal some millions of dollars.  Quebec given free reign would steal billions.

[Neil]

Quebec has been talking about it for 30 years now.  But then, it was just Quebec whining.  Now that they see the truth after everyone else, Canadians suddenly ask for change.

Thats Bullshit.  The Reform party was talking about Senate reform for just as long.  Triple E was one of the reasons I didnt support them.  Another level of Federal government?  - no thanks.

Then bring back Meech.  That was a good accord for the provinces, and it limited the Feds power by granting provinces a veto right.

It's probably not a good thing to move backwards like that.

[Neil]

Surely you'd go back to Charlottetown, rather than Meech?

And EEE is where it is at people!

I'd rather have a hereditary House of Lords than a EEE senate.

[Barrister]

Surely you'd go back to Charlottetown, rather than Meech?

And EEE is where it is at people!

Nah, I'm with Malthus. We don't need another layer of government. If we elect Senators, and especially if they try to be effective, that's twice the amount of bullshit needed to govern the country. It's not necessary.

It's not "another layer of government".  House of Commons and Senate are all a part of Parliament.  It's merely a second house.

I think an EEE senate would be an important balancing mechanism.

[Jacob]

I think an EEE senate would be an important balancing mechanism.

How so?

[Neil]

Distinct society = moon and stars.  Interesting point of view.  Nothing has really changed in Canada since 1990.  Bilinguism is stagnating, french is receding, but all is ok
The rest of the agreement concerns every provinces, so I doubt it's "asking moon and star". Especially since 7 provinces all signed it in the first place.

Harper already said that Quebec was somehow distinct.

[Neil]

It's not "another layer of government".  House of Commons and Senate are all a part of Parliament.  It's merely a second house.

I think an EEE senate would be an important balancing mechanism.

I don't think that another balancing mechanism is a good idea.  They already have the lawyers with their Charter in there.  If you can get rid of the Charter, I might be more supportive of the idea.  Still, EEE doesn't seem to be very effective for the US.

[Barrister]

It's not "another layer of government".  House of Commons and Senate are all a part of Parliament.  It's merely a second house.

I think an EEE senate would be an important balancing mechanism.

I don't think that another balancing mechanism is a good idea.  They already have the lawyers with their Charter in there.  If you can get rid of the Charter, I might be more supportive of the idea.  Still, EEE doesn't seem to be very effective for the US.

If scrapping the Charter wasn't political suicide I'd be behind that in a second.

[Jacob]

If scrapping the Charter wasn't political suicide I'd be behind that in a second.

What's your objection to the Charter?

[Barrister]

If scrapping the Charter wasn't political suicide I'd be behind that in a second.

What's your objection to the Charter?

Pretty much Neil's complaint - it takes power away from elected officials and into the hands of unelected judges.

Plus, it's not as if we were living in some sort of dictatorship pre-1982, or that a written Charter of Rights helped to protect civil liberties in the Soviet Union.  For good and bad, protecting civil liberties means promoting those values amongst all of our citizens.

[Jacob]

Pretty much Neil's complaint - it takes power away from elected officials and into the hands of unelected judges.

Plus, it's not as if we were living in some sort of dictatorship pre-1982, or that a written Charter of Rights helped to protect civil liberties in the Soviet Union.  For good and bad, protecting civil liberties means promoting those values amongst all of our citizens.

Are there any practical outcomes you object to because of this, or is this primarily a theoretical objection?

Also, if we elected judges would you then be in favour of the charter?

[Barrister]

Pretty much Neil's complaint - it takes power away from elected officials and into the hands of unelected judges.

Plus, it's not as if we were living in some sort of dictatorship pre-1982, or that a written Charter of Rights helped to protect civil liberties in the Soviet Union.  For good and bad, protecting civil liberties means promoting those values amongst all of our citizens.

Are there any practical outcomes you object to because of this, or is this primarily a theoretical objection?

Also, if we elected judges would you then be in favour of the charter?

Almost every time a judge throws out my case because the accused was playing games in the phone room and the judge decides that police should have just sat there mute for hours, and so finds a s. 10(b) breach.

Evidence should be excluded if it is unreliable, and all otherwise reliable evidence should be admitted.

I think it also leads to a cheapening of political debate.  The US is now having a really interesting political movement towards gay marriage, which is great to see I think because it shows that it is the will of the people.  That debate was short-circuited in Canada.

But as I said I am interested in politics because of realistic policies.  Abolishing the Charter is about as likely as replacing Oh Canada as our national anthem with Maple Leaf Forever (another pet political peeve of mine).