News   Nov 01, 2024
Toronto’s Bike Lane Feud at an All-Time High
 1.9K     13 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Bayview Village Resubmission More Than Doubles Height Near Bessarion Station
 2.3K     3 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Drone Flight Captures Cladding Progress at Menkes' Maison 77 Clarendon
 709     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

I think there is a problem when fundamental law (foundation documents, like the Constitution) starts to wander into the much more granular substantive law. In the most basic and broadest sense, a constitution sets out what accrues to a person simply for being; substantive law sets out what you can't do.

Where do you stop?

Fundamental law is the law that governs all other law and, of necessity, should be difficult to change; otherwise it is at the whim of power.
 
lenaitch said:
I think there is a problem when fundamental law (foundation documents, like the Constitution) starts to wander into the much more granular substantive law. In the most basic and broadest sense, a constitution sets out what accrues to a person simply for being; substantive law sets out what you can't do.

Where do you stop?
Click to expand...

That was my point.
 
kEiThZ said:
And yet despite the US having a clear majority in favour of access to abortion, they are moving to reduce those rights.

I don't think the risk is as low as people think in Canada. What is stopping any government from weaponizing the courts, the way that Republicans did in the US? We don't require any parliamentary consultation at all for judicial appointments. And a fixed retirement age of 75, gives any scheming government plenty of runway to remake the courts. The only difference between Canada and the US, is that we don't have an institution designed to enable minoritarian rule, as they do with their Senate. But in theory, if we got a sufficiently motivated party that managed to hold on to power for 10-15 years, they could start down the same path the Americans went.

That said, this also shows important democracy is. The Americans have been particularly apathetic about their voting for a while. And they've been less likely to prioritize rights issues when they vote. And so they are where they are. I don't expect we'll see that level of apathy in Canada, and there would probably be a swift backlash against any government that attempts to substantially roll back rights. Instead, I think the real risk is simply rolling back the offering of such services in the first place. See New Brunswick for example.
Click to expand...

Not in the context of the abortion issue, but there are already (relatively mild) attempts to stack the provincial courts under the current Ontario government.

AoD
 
I didn't want to start a new thread for this article, so I'll place it here, as it is about the need for greater federal funding in the post-secondary/research space.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...urge-ottawa-to-increase-scholarships-for-top/ (not currently paywalled)

The article notes a push from Canadian professors to obtain greater funding of scholarships for graduate/doctoral students.
The current regime, for those who receive the scholarship is $17,500 for Masters students or $21,000 or $35,000 for doctoral students.

Post-Docs are currently at 45k

The immediate push to get funding above the poverty line (or something north of 22k using that federal determinant) for those Masters students. Someone will have to explain to me how 23k is above the poverty line..... I question this calculation......but I digress

The argument is straight-forward, that we're beginning to see too many students flowing south for better offers of support in the U.S., sometimes as high as 50k.

Apparently, the numbers above have been frozen for 19 years. Another point of explanation, why are such things not automatically indexed to inflation, saving the need for periodic re-sets?

Simple indexing using the Bank of Canada's Inflation calculator would have put that Masters support number at $25,274 today.
While the Doctoral numbers would be $30,238 and $50,548 respectively.
Post-Docs would be $64,990
 
Federal Liberal advertisements, claiming that the Conservatives will end abortion, have starting appearing on YouTube.
 
A new gun control bill is set to be unveiled in Ottawa sometime this week, possibly as early as today.

This will replace the bill that died on the order paper with the last election.


Most gun control advocates agree the last bill was fairly weak, and the general vibe put out the by the government is that this new iteration will be somewhat tougher; though they are mum on the details as yet.
 
DirectionNorth said:
Federal Liberal advertisements, claiming that the Conservatives will end abortion, have starting appearing on YouTube.
Click to expand...
The Cons do seem to walk into these troubles. The challenge is to become the Con leader you must appeal to the grievance-wrought nutbars and evangelical cons, but to become PM you must appeal to the mass of centrist, normal Canadians, including, by god, the Francophones! The last one who could do it was Harper, and he benefited from a disorganized Liberal, BQ and NDP opposition.
 
Details on the new gun control legislation are now emerging:

As per this report in The Star: https://www.thestar.com/politics/20...ed-in-federal-firearm-control-bill-today.html

The bill contains:

- A national freeze on importing, buying or selling handguns

- Provision for the removal of gun licences from people involved in acts of domestic violence or criminal harassment, such as stalking.

- A red flag law that would permit the courts to order someone's firearms removed if they are deemed a danger.

- A modification to the current rules that prohibit large capacity magazines (which hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition) by requiring that all magazines sold in Canada must be permanently
altered to prevent modification for higher capacity; and the banning of sale or transfer of any higher capacity magazine.

***

Not the exact mix I would have proposed, but a plan of action I can endorse just the same.
 
Northern Light said:
Details on the new gun control legislation are now emerging:

As per this report in The Star: https://www.thestar.com/politics/20...ed-in-federal-firearm-control-bill-today.html

The bill contains:

- A national freeze on importing, buying or selling handguns

- Provision for the removal of gun licences from people involved in acts of domestic violence or criminal harassment, such as stalking.

- A red flag law that would permit the courts to order someone's firearms removed if they are deemed a danger.

- A modification to the current rules that prohibit large capacity magazines (which hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition) by requiring that all magazines sold in Canada must be permanently
altered to prevent modification for higher capacity; and the banning of sale or transfer of any higher capacity magazine.

***

Not the exact mix I would have proposed, but a plan of action I can endorse just the same.
Click to expand...
I do not understand a handgun ban, it makes absolutely zero sense and there is no issue with handgun crime as a result of handguns legally acquired within Canada. This only hinders those who would seek to get handguns legally for range and sporting purposes.

Everything else I can get on board with, the mag limit is one of the biggest changes I've been in favour of as it substantially limits the ability for mass casualty shooting events to take place. However, I do think shooting ranges should be given an exception where the range can provide larger magazines that must remain at the range at all times.
 
Bjays92 said:
mass casualty shooting events to take place. However, I do think shooting ranges should be given an exception where the range can provide larger magazines that must remain at the range at all times.
Click to expand...

Disagree. There's plenty of good training value in drilling magazine changes. Don't see why ranges should train any differently than the field.

If there's requirements for a certain sport then sure. Otherwise, I see no reason why the average civilian should ever have more than a 5 rd magazine.
 
I don't agree either. Privately-owned ranges don't provide tactical or combat training. Most members that belong to these ranges are more into accuracy and consistency and, if so inclined, practicing for competition.
 
kEiThZ said:
Disagree. There's plenty of good training value in drilling magazine changes. Don't see why ranges should train any differently than the field.

If there's requirements for a certain sport then sure. Otherwise, I see no reason why the average civilian should ever have more than a 5 rd magazine.
Click to expand...
Maybe a 10 round limit for sake of my old Lee-Enfield? ;)
 
Not political news in the sense of the Federal government; but a national development of interest.....

CIBC is raising its internal, corporate minimum wage for entry-level staff nation-wide to $20CAD per hour, this July.

Perhaps more notable, they have committed to further raise this to $25CAD by 2025 (3 years away), which would equal average annual wage growth of 8%.

****

In a peculiar quirk in this story, they are committing to the same wages in the US..............but higher, because they're demoninated in USD (ie. $20USD per hour, then $25USD per hour); which
unless the Canadian dollar climbs to par is a commitment to pay American employees roughly 25% more than Canadian ones.....🤨

www.bnnbloomberg.ca

CIBC ramps up Big Banks' hunt for staff with wage pledge - BNN Bloomberg

CIBC is boosting its minimum wage and pledging to push it even higher in the next few years as tight labour markets force banks into fierce competition for workers.
www.bnnbloomberg.ca www.bnnbloomberg.ca
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top