This attitude, together with the declining attachment to Canada amongst Gen Z, is partly the result of shredding Canadian history and civics in our school curricula.
How many of these young people who prefer a strong-man republic could write a paragraph accurately describing our constitutional monarchy rooted in the Westminster Parliamentary tradition?
How many of them have been taught the fascinating story of the organic development of Parliamentary government over eight centuries?
How many of them have been taught to be proud of having inherited one of the most stable, democratic systems of government in the world?
A system that created the concept of the rule of law through the Magna Carta, the Common Law, habeas corpus, trial by jury, religious liberty, the abolition of slavery, etc..
How many of them have been taught anything memorable about the fight for responsible government in Canada, and how it is embodied in our Parliamentary institutions? Or the division of powers in our federal system?
How many of them know that Canada is the fourth oldest continuous democratic state on Earth?
Not only have they been denied this basic civic literacy that is a requisite for responsible citizenship, but they have been denied access to the poetry of patriotism: the old stories and heroes (including ordinary heroes like the voyageurs and pioneers,) that formed and transmitted pride in Canada for generations.
Instead they are more likely to have been taught that Canada is a genocidal white settler society built on stolen land; that our British and French roots and institutions are the regrettable vestiges of Eurocentric colonialism; that our founders were nasty racists; and that we continue to be characterized by systemic racism.
So is it any wonder that rather than embracing the customs and institutions that made Canada one of the most successful nations on Earth, the emerging generation prefers a strongman?
This is the rotten fruit of the Canadian educational establishment having been dominated by Gramscians pumped out by OISE and adjacent institutions for decades.
🚨I introduced my first bill in the House of Commons: Bill C-270, the Stand on Guard Act.
With rising home invasions in York Region, this bill clarifies self-defence laws so Canadians protecting their families during a break-in are presumed to be acting reasonably.
You should not have to think twice about defending yourself in your own home.
#cdnpoli
For all of those losing their minds over Canadian Conservatives calling for the prompt deportation of convicted foreign criminals: it’s the policy of the Swedish socialist government, for goodness sake.
Sometimes I’m astonished by how much of the Canadian commentariat can ramp itself into a moral panic over completely sensible, broadly supported ideas.
Like the idea that foreign nationals who have abused our generosity and broken our laws should be promptly removed.
The Charter that the "supermajority" adopted includes the NWC. There's no way around the fact that it forms an essential part of the constitutional bargain, and that imposing limitations on it through judicial fiat would be deeply undemocratic and a massively destabilizing move.
What @SeanFraserMP doesn't say, but must know, is that he has asked the Supreme Court to adopt a totalising view of judicial power that would fundamentally alter the Constitutional compact of 1982, throwing the country into constitutional crisis. Funny he leaves that out.
I'll explain:
1. As the Alberta Government's factum puts it, "The Constitution Act, 1982 was the result of a carefully negotiated federal-provincial agreement. Simply put, there would have been no Charter without s.33."
2. Minister Fraser and the Liberal government now want the Courts to undo that agreement and exercise a plenary and undefined power to limit the ability of legislatures to use the democratic safeguard of s.33.
3. On what basis are they asking the court do do this? Oh, you know ... ::Liberals gesture vaguely:: ... by using a ... uh ... "holistic" reading of the "basic constitutional structure" of the constitution ... sortofthing.
4. Why should that phrase "basic constitutional structure" raise alarm bells? Because it's the justification Supreme Courts in other countries have used to sweep aside democratic powers (look up "basic structure doctrine.")
5. How baseless is this proposal? Baseless enough that the Liberal government actually has to try to twist the fact that the Charter expressly provides for renewals of s.33 into an argument that this means that it in some cases it should not be allowed to be renewed. Really. (See AGC factum ¶¶ 26-31).
6. The Liberal government doesn't even purport to offer a test or clear rule for when the Court should second-guess and limit the use of s.33. Their actual words: "[T]his Court need not establish a definitive or exhaustive test. A court could assess the impact of any statute invoking s.33 by examining the specific circumstances of each use and by conducting a contextual analysis." (¶40).
7. It gets worse, but the upshot is that the Liberal government is asking the Supreme Court to engage in an unconstitutional power grab that would re-write the political compact that underpins our Constitution. How?
8. In 1982, all parties agreed that the Constitution would preserve some of the safeguards of our parliamentary democracy to prevent a handover of all legal and political powers to the courts. That safeguard was preserved in s.33. Now the Liberal government wants the courts to assume control of s.33 and limit its use based on an undefined "test" that the judges themselves will make up and apply on a case-by-case basis.
9. If the Court follows this approach, it is asking for a constitutional crisis. It is making the case for QC separation and inviting governments to ignore its rulings. I would like to think that at least four justices of the SCC have sufficient respect for the Constitution and enough of an instinct for institutional self-preservation to reject the Liberal government's reckless approach.
10. We'll see. I am not optimistic.
What are we even doing anymore.
Ford should recall the legislature and reenact the law in 24 hours with the notwithstanding clause and the minute it gets Royal Assent, he should take a jackhammer to the closest lane himself. You can just do things.
https://t.co/qVAwoAenkh
A cloudy morning. The smell of saltwater. Waves crashing on the hull of the landing boats.
Soldiers quiet – carrying the weight of Europe on their shoulders.
We remember the brave heroes who risked everything when they landed on Juno Beach 81 years ago.