Tradition is the right word for the appointment in other ways. While most court watchers confidently predicted an aboriginal appointee, a woman, or both, Mr Trudeau confounded speculation by choosing an experienced, older white man. The traditional diversity markers of region and language won out over more recent preoccupations with race and sex.
For the most part, Canadians are a kind and polite people. We help each other, we donate to causes, we rally against injustice and we mind our manners. But our weakness is that we often believe things are better than they actually are. For one, we're loathe to admit that bestiality happens in Canada and often coincides with child sexual abuse.
In the battle between big government and big unions over big tax dollars, the country's highest court has decided there's just no need for the little people -- the taxpayers -- to be heard. This might have made sense if the Court limited its judgments to protecting truly fundamental freedoms. However, its recent judgments expanding freedom of association to protect the economic and contractual rights of unions can have serious impacts on government's budgetary spending priorities.
An area in urgent need of attention is the continuing mishandling of judicial appointments and the government's astonishing neglect of Atlantic Canada, where I am proud to be from. The Liberals hold all 32 federal seats and all four provincial governments in Atlantic Canada. One would think some gratitude might result. Yet like the whittling away of the shipbuilding contracts in Nova Scotia and the decision to make an Ontarian the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the latest slight over a Supreme Court seat has been accepted with barely a whisper.
My friend Chuck wants to kill himself. He is hoping if Bill C-14 does not pass in the Senate by June 6th, he will be able to legally commit suicide with the help of a doctor, thereby ending his constant, debilitating and painful battle with mental illness. Chuck is part of a group of patients who, despite being included in the Supreme Court of Canada's ground-breaking decision in Carter vs. Canada, have been cut out of the Liberal's Bill C-14. Here's why.
Coroners and medical examiners are central to monitoring PAD. As experts in accurate death reporting, they routinely engage in relevant oversight activities: they decide when a death requires further investigation, they report aggregate data concerning death and they make public matters of interest and concern regarding trends.
To Canadian eyes, there is something both familiar and strange about the controversy surrounding President Obama's authority to name a replacement for Antonin Scalia. The issue is familiar because, last year, then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Russell Brown to the Supreme Court of Canada only 6 weeks before the federal election (having announced that he would do so a few days before Parliament was dissolved). Examining both cases can help us learn key differences between our two governments.
Almost one year ago, on February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that some Criminal Code sections were unconstitutional regarding a very small group of people who, the Court ruled, are entitled under constitutional law to a physician's help to die. On Monday, the Government of Canada went back to the Supreme Court to request a further six-month delay. The question is: Why?