The Legacy of Pierre Trudeau
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
I liked his intelligence and his abilities to lead, but I disliked his arrogance.
Canada has changed somewhat for the better in some aspects, but not others. For instance, he fought the idea of legislating morality, fulfilled his intent to reduce unemployment and get the economy growing, was against Canada's leaning so heavily on relations with the US (all eggs in one basket, so to speak), made us independent from GB, brought in the metric system (even if it was for the wrong reason), appointed women to traditionally men's positions, but on the other hand, the rapid increase in economic growth spurred inflation and didn't continue growing, he carried on with the alienation of the western provinces, introduced the Charter of Rights n Freedoms which led to an impressive array of legal loopholes for criminals.
I have no idea what Canada would be like today if he had been a plumber or something instead of a politician. And I don't want to even try going there.
Canada has changed somewhat for the better in some aspects, but not others. For instance, he fought the idea of legislating morality, fulfilled his intent to reduce unemployment and get the economy growing, was against Canada's leaning so heavily on relations with the US (all eggs in one basket, so to speak), made us independent from GB, brought in the metric system (even if it was for the wrong reason), appointed women to traditionally men's positions, but on the other hand, the rapid increase in economic growth spurred inflation and didn't continue growing, he carried on with the alienation of the western provinces, introduced the Charter of Rights n Freedoms which led to an impressive array of legal loopholes for criminals.
I have no idea what Canada would be like today if he had been a plumber or something instead of a politician. And I don't want to even try going there.
:angry3:enforced bilingualism country wide: almost impossible to obtain a higer position in the government unless your mother tongue if French.
:angry3:enforced "multiculturalism", would prefer a melting pot with assimilation
:thumbup:had the balls to take on the FLQ, bring in the war measures act, and see it through
:angry3:bit of an arrogant twit, but, no worse than Mulroo or Harpo..........At least Trudeau was intelligent
:angry3:NEP shut down the west and a liberal is hard to find out there.
Lots more, but who cares.............:roll:
:angry3:enforced "multiculturalism", would prefer a melting pot with assimilation
:thumbup:had the balls to take on the FLQ, bring in the war measures act, and see it through
:angry3:bit of an arrogant twit, but, no worse than Mulroo or Harpo..........At least Trudeau was intelligent
:angry3:NEP shut down the west and a liberal is hard to find out there.
Lots more, but who cares.............:roll:
I hate answering a question with a question.
If he had been P.M. for the last 2.5 years, how would we be doing?
I liked him because he 'winged' it, wasn't afraid to speak frankly, and gave the
fuddle duddle attitude, instead of some rehersed nonsense.
He definitely was different to what we were accustomed to, caught our attention,
so that can't be all bad.
It was kind of nice to see the 'regular person on the street' get a little excited for a
change over politics, and perk up, and take notice.
We have been such a 'dull' bunch over the years, lots of whining but no passion, he
created passion.
fuddle duddle attitude, instead of some rehersed nonsense.
He definitely was different to what we were accustomed to, caught our attention,
so that can't be all bad.
It was kind of nice to see the 'regular person on the street' get a little excited for a
change over politics, and perk up, and take notice.
We have been such a 'dull' bunch over the years, lots of whining but no passion, he
created passion.
As PM he was the face of the country on the international level and is irreverent attitude and shrewd intellect made us all look good....at least in my opinion. Repatriating the Constitution and bringing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will impact the country, I believe for the better, for as long as Canada exists.
On the bad side, he alienated the west, stoked the fires of separatism and we still feel the effects of those through the reconstituted Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois. While I don't mind the Conservatives so much, the Bloc is really annoying.
He also wracked up huge deficits that have resulted in a debt we will be paying off for a long time, assuming we continue to pay it off and not incur more large deficits down the road.
I used to be a admirer of PET. I admired his economic nationalism. He was really the last PM who had a strong vision of Canada as a sovereign, centralized nation rather than the fragmented parts run by provincial potentates, or by international financial interests, that it has degenerated into.
His legacy, of course, was primarily the The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has proven to be the most divisive document ever put forward in the this country. It has made Parliament an impotent poodle at the beck and call of an unelected, intellectually inadequate judiciary (no better example of this it there than our utter mediocrity of a Chief Justice in Beverly McLachlin) who have bestowed on themselves the role of Lord High Protectors of Canadian social values.
It proves that those who predicted social upheaval and disassembly were prescient. A Charter like this in a Parliamentary system with out proper checks and balances on the judiciary will turn it into a wild beast, which will turn on its master.
All cultural and moral (especially Christian) memory has been lost. We are left with unrestricted abortion, homosexual 'marriage', rabid Human Rights Tribunals. Unfortunately the country is going to hell in a hand basket.. and Trudeau is, in no small part, to blame.
His legacy, of course, was primarily the The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has proven to be the most divisive document ever put forward in the this country. It has made Parliament an impotent poodle at the beck and call of an unelected, intellectually inadequate judiciary (no better example of this it there than our utter mediocrity of a Chief Justice in Beverly McLachlin) who have bestowed on themselves the role of Lord High Protectors of Canadian social values.
It proves that those who predicted social upheaval and disassembly were prescient. A Charter like this in a Parliamentary system with out proper checks and balances on the judiciary will turn it into a wild beast, which will turn on its master.
All cultural and moral (especially Christian) memory has been lost. We are left with unrestricted abortion, homosexual 'marriage', rabid Human Rights Tribunals. Unfortunately the country is going to hell in a hand basket.. and Trudeau is, in no small part, to blame.
Last edited:
The interpretation of legislation as legal documents is left to judges. The onus is on legislators to draft clear and concise legislation. When legislation needs updating, it's up to the elected officials to craft new legislation. That's how our democracy, and most others, works.
If Parliament is a bunch of impotent poodles, it's because we elect impotent poodles.
What do you think is divisive about the Charter, Coldstream?
If Parliament is a bunch of impotent poodles, it's because we elect impotent poodles.
What do you think is divisive about the Charter, Coldstream?
To be fair, he inherited those and while he initially thought he could tackle them quickly it wouldn't work politically. Ultimately, he played the bad guy with the GST (which we shouldn't forget was sold to us as revenue neutral when it wasn't) and then Chretien played the bad guy buy slashing social transfers to the provinces (though the provinces ended up taking the blame because they were the ones who had to cut services).
Although we had a small debt before Trudeau, he is the one who let things get out of hand.
I'm not sure if you are religious or not (it sounds like it) but the Charter and human rights commissions are already protecting you. Recently, a university students group tried to ban pro-life groups from being part of the students union, a human rights complaint was filed and now pro-life groups are allowed. A guy ran around with a bumper sticker on his truck quoting passages from the Old Testament which referred to executing homosexuals, a human rights commission found him guilty of promoting hate but an appeals court overturned that and told the commission to be more careful in how they handle "foundational religious texts".
Of course, the big freedom of religion case was the kirpan ruling which basically allows for Sikhs to carry ceremonial daggers to school, if that isn't a win for religious freedom than I don't know what is.
What do you think is divisive about the Charter, Coldstream?
Yes, you can't blame the judiciary alone. We have been run by incompetent Prime Ministers and their administrations, both Liberal and Conservative (really both neo liberals) since Trudeau left.
Trudeau was fixated on Quebec. He wanted to use the Constitution and Charter as a bulwark against what he viewed as an imminent threat by radical separatists who would legislate themselves out of Canada, and persecute the English minority in Quebec.
I doubt he foresaw that he would be succeeded by weaklings, who would never use the legitimate authority he gave them to override judicial activism, in the Not Withstanding Clause. So we are left with the sorry new age mess we are we have become. A 'country' with its social foundations in marriage, respect for life, social cohesion and traditions knocked out from under it.
A country that is disintegrating in the pall of radical individualism and relativism that masquerade as rights, but really imposes post-structural 'moral' orthodoxy on all. We are bound to be both far less cohesive, prosperous and free.. and it's weapons are in the Charter
Last edited:
I wouldn't blame him, I'd congratulate him on a masterpiece. Who the heck needs abortion legislation or outlawing homosexuality? That stuff went out in the stone age. And if it means putting personal rights and freedoms ahead of parliamentary goons creating laws based on which way the wind's blowing, the guy was a genius.
Maybe you can give an example of where you think it should be used
An example is Homosexual Marriage, In 1999 Parliament affirmed Marriage overwhelmingly as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all else. This reflected the large majority of the Canadian public opinion. What followed was a series of court challenges overturning a legitimate law as unconstitutional. Parliament, faced with an urgent threat that the Supreme Court would impose homosexual marriage on the country, capitulated without a fight.
Parliament had every right to get back in their face and say, we will govern by the will of the people, and will use the constitutional tools at our disposal. Many or most of the parliamentarians, though, cited the court ruling as authoritative in their decision, even though any circumspect inspection of those rulings would show them to be so filled with shallow sophistry and twisted logic as to be little more than gibberish. This ideal of an impartial, intellectually competent and wise judiciary is a complete fiction. The courts are filled with political hacks, intellectual mediocrities and new age acolytes (Bev McLachlin, our Chief Justice a prime example).
Most of the country still thinks homosexual marriage is a joke, if not an abomination, and an insidiously corrosive agent on Canadian society's structural integrity, But nothing is going to be done about it. Our Parliamentarians don't know up from down, right from wrong, male from female anymore. They have decided to let the wild shamans and priestesses of our courts, twirling with devilish delight under the full moon and before their graven idols, have unfettered sway over them.
An example is Homosexual Marriage, In 1999 Parliament affirmed Marriage overwhelmingly as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all else. This reflected the large majority of the Canadian public opinion. What followed was a series of court challenges overturning a legitimate law as unconstitutional. Parliament, faced with an urgent threat that the Supreme Court would impose homosexual marriage on the country, capitulated without a fight.
Parliament had every right to get back in their face and say, we will govern by the will of the people, and will use the constitutional tools at our disposal. Many or most of the parliamentarians, though, cited the court ruling as authoritative in their decision, even though any circumspect inspection of those rulings would show them to be so filled with shallow sophistry and twisted logic as to be little more than gibberish. This ideal of an impartial, intellectually competent and wise judiciary is a complete fiction. The courts are filled with political hacks, intellectual mediocrities and new age acolytes (Bev McLachlin, our Chief Justice a prime example).
Most of the country still thinks homosexual marriage is a joke, if not an abomination, and an insidiously corrosive agent on Canadian society's structural integrity, But nothing is going to be done about it. Our Parliamentarians don't know up from down, right from wrong, male from female anymore. They have decided to let the wild shamans and priestesses of our courts, twirling with devilish delight under the full moon and before their graven idols, have unfettered sway over them.
Last edited:
The notwithstanding clause was not put in by Trudeau to override judicial activism, it was a compromise put in to appease the provinces who were concerned that a federal court could override provincial jurisdictions (like the Quebec language law).
Trudeau didn't want it included, it was a last minute concession to the provinces.
A constitution means nothing if a simple majority can take away the rights of a minority. Why have one, just pick and choose rights by referendum at every election. I don't want to debate same sex marriage. I'm not homosexual and I couldn't give a hoot who marries who, so long as they didn't deny me my rights. But if that's the way people want our constitution to operate then I'll actively promote the outlawing of religion, or at least certain religions. I think the majority of people are tired of religions promoting all the dumb stuff. 51%, then punt them out.
I know that, that's another knock against Trudeau. But essentially it means nothing anyway, if Parliament does not have the courage to use it. And it has never shown anything like the intestinal fortitude to do so.
The problem rests with the existence of the Charter itself, as anything but a statement of principles. Parliamentary systems are much different the constitutional republics like the U.S. They are designed, through the system of argument and speech, to develop consensus, subject to the oversight and approval of the electorate. Any law that is passed can be overturned by a subsequent government. It is that which gives the process its flexibility and responsiveness to the popular concerns.
Parliament needs to be sovereign in governance, subject only to the will of the people. The U.S. system is based on a highly contentious system of checks and balances, which was intended to produce a 'winner' rather than a consensus. It was intended to be inflexible and unresponsive, giving precedence to the original U.S. Constitution. It is deeply distrustful of all innovations, oversight, and of any unchecked privilege of any single branch of government.
What Canada has now is the worst of both worlds. Unbridled privilege for the judiciary, no electoral oversight over huge, crucial areas of public policy, and a cynical collusion of the executive and legislative branches without any dynamic balance between them.The party system, once much more consultative and responsible to individual members (and those they represent) than it is now, has now robbed these member of rights to oppose any specific legislation.
Their acquiescence has been purchased (bribed) with huge pensions, and the threat that their nomination papers will not be signed by the PM is they don't tow the line. The electorate has been increasingly marginalized.We have a government hobbled with crippling indecision and misdirection, interspersed with reckless and arbitrary actions.
Last edited: