My point was made only in reference to “peace, order, and good government” as Canadian “traits” or the like, allegedly echoed in the original BNA Act
It’s not “alleged”; the introduction to Section 91 of the Constitution Act (1867) states that
“It shall be lawful for the Queen … to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.”
These concepts were more thoroughly enshrined in the Constitution Act of 1982, particularly in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As for referring to the BNA Act as “the creation of a very small group of men, most of them tied to the largest corporate interests of the day”, without disputing this particular point, do you not subscribe to the idea that a great many socioeconomic values can change in 156 years? Or do you believe that the present Constitution and system of government in Canada caters only to a very small group of men tied to large corporate interests?
Population increase, electoral thumb on the scale, military supremacy – off the top of my head.
My “alleged” comment referred only to the notion that “peace, order, and good government” as noted in the Constitution Act somehow reflected Canadian values, as contrasted with the alleged American values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of wealth. Do I think the Canadian state is somewhat more representative today? Yes, somewhat, but I do not think it is very representative. To the degree it has become more representative, that is the result of struggles by people, and those struggles have always been contested by politicians and the powerful. In many ways, I would argue, Canada is less democratic today than it was 50 years ago. I would not say the state caters only to a very small group of men tied to large corporate interests, but I would say it caters mostly to a small group of men and women tied to corporate interests.
You could say that for many democracies. I don’t think “what is good for General Motors is good for America” is quite as prominent today in Canada, though I would like to see better corporate governance policies. I do think “good government”, of which there is no obvious surfeit, would spend more time helping consumers and businesses and less time fixated on narrow definitions of Canadian content, but reasonable people might disagree.
I still chuckle when I think of the Simpsons episode showing Canadian graffiti - “obey the rules” written in spray paint. You don’t think Canucks like order? How do you get a hundred Canadians out of a swimming pool? (You politely ask them to exit the pool.)
Seriously? The pursuit of happiness != the pursuit of wealth. You are distorting what it says.
The pursuit of happiness means you have a right to live for your own goals, and not be forced to serve the goals of others.
I’m curious how someone with such a dim view of Canadian democracy feels about the unbridled plutocracy that rules our neighbour to the south. This is not mere what-about-ism, it’s a relevant measure of how two otherwise similar socioeconomic systems have managed to differentiate themselves by different styles of governance and social policy.
How do you feel, for instance, about a plutocracy where money buys judicial outcomes, where money buys elections, where money is a prerequisite to health care, and where the gap between rich and poor is much greater than in Canada. On the latter point, the Gini coefficient for the US is 41.1, for Canada it’s 33.3 (lower means greater equality) and when plotted against other countries this turns out to be a very significant gap indeed.
You’re right, of course: it was a brain burp on my part. It is, however, the case, that an early draft of the Declaration of Independence did have “property” in place of “happiness.”
Fwiw, I have an even dimmer view of the nature of democracy in the US. Heck, I’m happy to say Canada is the best darn country in the world, but looking around, that’s a pretty low bar, however grateful I am to be here.
Canada is a very good country in most ways. Is it really the best country in the world?
I think the Founding Fathers didn’t get this memo
How is 200 countries a low standard?
The States are far more equal than South Africa or Brazil. Canada is far less equal than Iceland or Slovenia (at least in Gini terms).
No one’s disagreeing with this. Every one is wholly on board with the idea that some rights should never be violated. They’re disagreeing with the idea that these rights exist because of anything other than the government. Yeah, in the US, the government says that it won’t allow itself to do certain things, like infringe on our freedom of speech, or force us to worship a particular religion. And if the government changes its mind about that, and starts passing laws that imprison people for saying or believing the wrong thing, what’s nature going to do about it? Not a fucking thing, because nature doesn’t give a shit about our “rights.” Rights are a human concept, defined and protected by human institutions.
Canada is run by a rich kid who’s the son of a former PM. Half the politicians in the House of Commons are real estate investors who won’t do anything serious about housing prices for obvious reasons; the other house of Parliament is an unelected sinecure for the Prime Minister to appoint buddies and flunkies. The government does nothing to stop monopolistic and oligopolistic businesses, if anything encouraging and protecting them. I’d be careful about casting aspersions.
To that and the rest of your points, those are very simplistic generalization that don’t address genuinely fundamental differences between the two countries that I listed, all of which are factually accurate. Trudeau may be the son of a former PM, but his values are those of social democracy. He’s not by any means perfect but the US had Trump, and today they have a right-leaning centrist president who can’t get anything done because a Republican-infested Congress is insane, and it will be much worse after 2024. Yes, I cast aspersions on American politics, and for the good reasons in my previous post and elsewhere.
Well, gosh, welcome to this thread. No one here is offering detailed examination. You might want to ask if your own perspective might be a bit colored by bias and privilege; almost everyone in the world is sure THEIR country is the good one, especially if they’re in the favored demographics.
I’ll defend Trudeau, but let’s be honest; the only reason he got to be in his positions of power was because of his name, wealth, and connections. Trudeau personally did work to be PM (campaigned and won), but frankly a lot of Liberal party doors were just opened for him and he needed to, at minimal, walk through them.
Granted, he didn’t fail upwards into his position like Doug Ford seems to have done (I swear, Ontarians just don’t care).
True, but I think my points are pretty damned substantive in describing major differences between the two countries.
That’s wrong on both counts. I am indeed privileged to live in Canada, but don’t come from any sort of privileged socioeconomic background. As for everyone being sure their country is the good one, there are definitely a number of countries that can make that claim, but the number is very small. Take a look at this ranking of the best countries in terms of quality of life:
Sweden and Denmark are #1 and #2. Canada is #3. The US is #21. Mostly for the reasons I mentioned upthread, which align closely with the study’s criteria for “quality of life”.
I’m sure that’s a huge exaggeration, but it’s also very much a double-edged sword. Let me say this about my own personal situation. I’ve been retired for quite a while after taking early retirement and also working as an independent consultant for a fair number of years. Two factors were and remain important to my modestly comfortable retirement, and both were due directly and directly to federal government policy.
One was the stability and strength of housing prices, lacking the kinds of downturns the US has seen including thousands ending up “underwater” with their homes worth less than their mortgages. Canada’s robust housing market was in large measure due to the government’s strong banking regulation, the absence of treacherous financial chicanery like subprime mortgages, the policies of the CMHC, and in my area a substantial influx of an educated professional class of immigrants. This has during certain periods sent housing prices skyrocketing, sometimes to breathtaking extents. You seem to regard this as evil, but it’s been a major contributor to my net worth. While admittedly this makes things tough for first-time buyers, I don’t know what you expect the government to do about it when it’s almost entirely due to demand, other than various rebates and buyer assistance programs.
The other factor that’s been very important is essentially zero-cost health care, for obvious reasons.
There’s also the point that the federal government doesn’t have much jurisdiction over things like housing. Zoning laws (eg - proposals to require higher density buildings, so more housing units) are provincial/municipal. Parliament does not have jurisdiction over particular industries, except as set out in the Constitution, and those are mainly industries that cross provincial or international boundaries.
No privilege in lucking in to that, no sir. Nope.
The massive disparity in wealth between your very privileged generation and the generations that now can’t afford housing, a disparity that old people and the politicians who pander to them are deliberately prolonging and worsening, is a gigantic problem that’s going to cause actual social strife until it’s solved. But hey, I guess “I got mine, Jack” is an approach. The chickens are gonna come home to roost in Canada, and I fear for the future of my kid.
That’s absolutely the worst thing you could do. It just increases demand.
The government - at every level, and contrary to what Northern_Piper implies there ARE things the feds can do, as evidenced by their influence over other provincial jurisdictions like health - needs to increase supply. This’ll take years to fix because it took years of neglect to get here, but might as well start now.