Phaedrus 209521 Report post Posted October 18, 2013 Actually... and at the risk of raising a few eyebrows... I don't have a problem with this. I'd consider that the government of the day has a duty to defend the laws that are currently on the books whenever they're challenged in court, and this has absolutely nothing to do with whether that government actually approves of those laws or not. Obviously there's no particular conflict when the government supports the law being challenged, but when a government disapproves of a law the correct course of action is to introduce legislation to change that law, rather than to simply refuse to defend it in court. Having said all that, I have no doubt that this somewhat esoteric argument isn't actually the reason the current government is opposing the Bedford case so vigorously :) And with reference to that case: my understanding is that the government will simply have to abide by whatever the SCC rules, and if they don't like the ruling they'll have to get a bill through Parliament to change the law appropriately. They have no choice in the matter: suck it up, or legislate. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cinelli 22184 Report post Posted October 19, 2013 Anything to distract voters from the Senate mess. Plus, Throne Speeches in general have a little bit of everything in them to appeal to every possible voter's interests. A lot of it turns out to be fluff that is forgotten or never acted on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LuxeMulvari 65764 Report post Posted October 19, 2013 (edited) interesting discussion Edited October 20, 2013 by LuxeMulvari Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WriteOn 3250 Report post Posted October 31, 2013 Plus, Throne Speeches in general have a little bit of everything in them to appeal to every possible voter's interests. A lot of it turns out to be fluff that is forgotten or never acted on. Generally speaking not worth the paper they're printed on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waterrat 1261 Report post Posted November 26, 2013 The Department of Justice Act requires that the Minister of Justice examine every Bill and Regulation to ensure that it does not violate the Charter. I wonder if Rob Nicholson is at all concerned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
antlerman 17064 Report post Posted November 26, 2013 I have never seen a speach from the throne........must be funny and awkard to see some one itting there on a toilette while talking about the economic future....... Posted via Mobile Device 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cinelli 22184 Report post Posted November 27, 2013 violate the Charter Vic Toews wanted to have warrantless searches of your computer, browsing history, emails and phone records. Yeah, the Tories really care about the Charter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
backrubman 64800 Report post Posted December 3, 2013 Vic Toews wanted to have warrantless searches of your computer, browsing history, emails and phone records.Yeah, the Tories really care about the Charter. Good point but do keep in mind that they do have (and use) warrant-less access to this information, Toews only failed to make it official and legal in all cases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
