nerve

Who cares, their business their business. If they want to cater to a specific religion whether it is a restaurant serving non pork only or no meat and cheese together, or letting women swim alone, or only letting couples into a swingers club it is their choice. People that go, oh my gosh they are accommodating their practices need to wake the hell up and realize that businesses are allowed to cater services to one group and not others. Affirmative actions, as much as you hate it, or providing services for minorities is constitutionally protected. What you cannot do is discriminate if you are government or a government agency on protected grounds. If this was not muslims all you islamaphobes would not give a flyng f. If it is not illegal who cares. If male circumcision is not illegal any other surgical practice that removes stimulating tissue. Fact is it is all discrimination and the government has no place in it. Where it matters is that private individuals have the right to provide lawful services or not and for people to opt to purchase those goods or services. It is all just cultural bias and you people are just ignorant that people do things you do not. When people grow up and let people live their life if it does not infringe on others then we can live together until then anyone who says someone else cannot do something in their private life is the problem. Stop telling other people how to live their life unless they ask. I think a lot of this has to do with missionary spirit and the need to tell people the right way to live. I understand that but you need to recognize where the door starts and the door ends. Sharing is not forcing, and advising is best done where people ask for advice. There is a conflict here. I think there are public mediums that exist to preach or for freedom of expression. We need to accept other people choose to live how they live, and they should be able to provide services to themselves and not other people if they cater those services to a specific person. The basis of discriminating grounds should end where the public ends. Private business should be able to cater services to specific clientel. If this does not comprise a hate crime, or incitement it shouldnt matter. Yes in fact it does open the door to discrimination, and private businesses should be able to pick and choose as far as the law allows. Where that is is generally human rights codes. The whole basis is HUMAN DIGNITY http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-because-gender-identity-and-gender-expression/13-preventing-and-responding-discrimination IMO its stupid we should all be able to walk around naked on a hot day. Reality check aint happening any time soon. People are prudes whether it is amish sex, jewish adversion to meat and dairy, and or muslim adversion to bacon, hindu mcdonalds or burger king, fact is... people are different and we draw the line at interfering in other peoples lives in ways that make them feel violated. You know there is reason, yes it is all stupid, but it is their beleifs and that is what matters. As long as our lives are not infringed live and let live.

This is not a new issue. If people are worried about anchor babies leading to them and their families draining Canadan tax payer of funds must say two things. 1. It is because of a crappy multitiered social safety net that would be better served by a social credit system and guarenteed employment for benefits where the person is able to perform social functions. 2. These chinese people have put millions and millions of dollars into Canada in real estate investments.Making a whole lot of money for government in form of property taxes and other levies.

OMG First Nations comprise upwards of 10% of the population. Government spending in 250+ billion. You might ask why the other 90% of the population of Canada isn't all living in million dollar mansions seeing as even if they got 1 billion of that a year that is still 250 times more for non first nations than first nations. You are so ignorant that first nations comprise over 10% of the population of Canada, yet are getting less than 1/250th of the spending of the government. This while natural resources are being drawn from their lands. Spending is tough because those reserves arn't on major traffic highways, and access is limited. If all your food had to be flown in, you would be pennyless too. Fact is that stuff up north costs more because it is all flown at markup ontop of low quantity retail rates. In winter sometimes they have iceroad access. The north just isn't opened up well enough. Infrastructure only gets put in like electricity, gas, water etc.. if there is resource extraction at a high level. People in Attawapiskat were living bundled into old diamond mine housing with pops over what the japanese do per square foot. Its what the money goes to, not that it is going to there. If the feds want to give people houses they need to put the money directly into houses.

Why? Canada chooses will fly for the "next 40-50 years"... as if no drone technology advances will occur over the next couple of decades! Exactly! notwithstanding that recent released USAF data shows it relying ever more on drone strikes... example: within Afghanistan, drone strikes accounted for over 60% of weapons deployed in the 2016 1st quarter. Yeah so why not just buy some throwaway drones and call it an airforce. Look at it this way, if Russia or China attack, Canada ain't doin nothing notable. Any such event would get hot fast and lets face it Canada has no real cards in the conventional war game. This is all about spending for the US, so why not spend on ROI activities, such as domestic drone production. Now bear in mind I have my own position on this, in terms of what Canada should buy into. I'm in a little of this, a little of that. You know secure the Dassault investment infrastructure. Buy an honour guard of F-35s (like one or two squadrons, every 5 or 10 years) maybe one in 2022 one in 2027. Meanwhile develop drone technology so Canada is ontop of the game. I think we are in a missile era anyway. When was the last time there was a real dogfight with modern aircraft. notwithstanding that recent released USAF data shows it relying ever more on drone strikes... example: within Afghanistan, drone strikes accounted for over 60% of weapons deployed in the 2016 1st quarter. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/0110ce.pdf Here is my take. No one has a clue. If it wants a military its gonna need to do way more. Otherwise its just toy soldiers.

Not if reasonable rules are set. Obviously I have no idea what the rules are, but one would think that there will be an age link and a quantity link. There may be a requirement for licensed sale, meeting certain criteria to distribute. I would invision this as not much different from alchohol. Technically it is illegal to sell booze to people except within the framework. You know people still pick up stuff for their friends and stuff, whether that is legal or not is another matter. None the less there are laws on the books for supplying alchohol to minors. That need not be equivolent to the mandatory minimum sentences that existed in the past. Its obvious that a controlled substances such as tobacco or alcohol still has systems in place to protect youth. It is obvious youth break those rules, but perhaps not with as much regularity as if it were not a controlled substance. You know the fact this stuff is smoked means that there needs to be controls on where it is used. Due to the reasonability required for safe drug use as opposed to abuse, youth really do need to be protected from irresponsible usages. I think if anything this will only create more social awareness of the issues of abuse, and that getting the laced drugs out of circulation and the gateway to hard drugs shut is a step in the right direction. More of the same really isn't a solution. You know now we have a timeline, at this point it is a bit like waiting for a baby. It is being formed slowly but with time we will see what shape it will take. The birth is nearly inevitable though, all we can do is prepare for it and hope that it turns out healthy. Just to put in perspective http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/province-raising-fines-for-providing-alcohol-to-minors-1.512016 Supplying alcohol might meet with a fine, however if you administer a noxious substance (which results in an injury or without consent) it is a criminal offence. Obviously there will need to be differentiation between victimizing someone and breaking a regulation. Victimization equates a crime while breaking a regulation meets with a fine. Part of a crime is also having a criminal intent, such as intending to break the rules and get someone high even though they are a minor, or have not consented to getting drugged. Clearly consent cannot be provided if they are not above 16 years of age or something like that, whereas you would face a criminal penalty for people who have not reached the age of consent while you might just face a fine for underage people who have consented and are of age of consent or age of majority etc.. Here is an idea on age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_Canada The lower the age the worse the penalty. Of course there is also the civil penalty that anyone supplying could be liable for anything that happens for someone who uses a served product under their care. At least as far as any establishents which house the activity.

Why is that?

It is likely that Trudeau is exclusively working with VICE to create a segment on the conditions of northern reserves, I am guessing. For whatever reason I am guessing that the PM doesn't have time right now for discussing the same talking points with other news stories as the documentary format of vice would water down the VICE report. Now the PM should be able to decide when and on what subjects they speak about. Media access does no denote constant media access or media access while other activities are being undertaken. You know the PM should be able to designate when they want to hold press conferences. The real issue is that media is not being allowed on reserve if they are being denied access to the reserve itself, that decision would be made by the reserve itself to allow access or not. Access to the PM is another matter. There isn't enough info to go on, as to why what occurred is occurring. The style of interview would be changed and that is not the standard format of vice. In my opinion if time was available for a media scrum that should be scheduled if there arn't more pressing matters, however it seems clear the intent is to assist the VICE documentary on northern reserves to gain political capital by providing a look into the reserve life as well as the PMs position in a clear controlled statement put out by VICE on the issue. This seems to be more about Trudeau's international image, PR etc.. than about the news itself. Yeah I think that the PM shouldn't be obligated to give press interviews whenever the press shows up but rather that the PM should make information release available. I don't think it would be fair to say there is a shortage of press conferencing going on. I think that there is a markedly different access level between Harper and Trudeau and Trudeau has been very giving to the press. In this case he has put his media time in with VICE for their documentary. I am guessing once that there will be another press conference again at some point. Perhaps the news crews can interivew people on reserve instead to see what is going on in their lives, what their needs are, instead of asking the same questions to the PM. More info here http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/how-vice-brought-canadas-pm-to-a-remote-indigenous-community/ Clearly as McLeans explains this was not an interview the PM was taking part in a documentary. In the words of McLeans "Earlier this year, VICE Canada approached the office of Canada’s prime minister with an ambitious proposal. Last fall, we produced a documentary series on remote Indigenous communities, and we planned to go back. Only this time, we intended to do something different. We wanted to bring Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with us." McLean's goes on to explain: "Those are the challenges that VICE wants to show the prime minister. His office agreed and we chose a date. " It seems fairly clear that the nature of this time with the media was that he would be involved with producing a documentary and that his reason for being there was in concert with those activities. Much like with his 60 minutes interview, you don't expect CNN to show up and be given access while he is preparing for the 60 minutes activities as they are more involved than a regular news story interview or press conference that would be open to members of the press. The fact is if there was a news story on reserve it should have been the first nations members not the PM that was the focus of that story. He was a guest of VICE. The interesting side story to this is https://news.vice.com/article/a-detrimental-chilling-effect-vice-files-appeal-in-fight-with-canadian-police

You know who could really benefit from a fighter design. Bombardier. See also http://in.reuters.com/article/dassault-rafale-india-idINKCN0XM0H8 There is of course the option of buying FEWER manned fighter jets and having ground based pilots or AI drones supplement Such as the Neuron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_nEUROn These drones could perform operations either through programmed missions, or ground assisted, or space assisted missions. Canada could be a leader in UAV operations. Where pilots lives are not put at risk. And where one manned jet, not even necessarily a fighter jet could provide assistance command and control to a number of UAVs and vice versa. If a fighter doesn't have the capability to operate remote UAVs it is the last generation of manned jets. The next generation of warfare will be done with autonomous and controlled UAV systems which will utilize manned companion flights and varied communications systems to maximize operationally efficiency and minimize risk and loss of life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_nEUROn#Potential_Combined_French-British_Follow-on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Offensive_Air_System

Here is another possible location http://www.neilyworld.com/neilyworld/rideaue1.htm None the less, I am sure they will waste as much money on this as they do on Global Maternal health. Really it is some dude who runs an already too impossing and too powerful government. Why are people paying to give a house to this person, when some people don't even have houses. There are lots of heritage sites in Canada that were good enough for people 300 years ago. Like the national gallery would insure arts funding keeps going there, and what better than a posh gallery in your home. Pick a property any property http://www.ncc-ccn.gc.ca/property-management/what-we-manage/heritage-buildings-canadas-capital-region Oooh ahhhh http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=16461&pid=0 Or perhaps it would be better suited for minister of the environment. Atleast this would insure housing allowances go to preserving heritage buildings that need to be paid for anyway. What about Lumpy Denommee's Island or Merrill Island or Nichols Island? Lumpy's seems the best suited for obvious reasons. Then of course there is that summer home called Meech Lake they could winterize or something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake "Numerous residents continue to have homes along the lake. Although all Gatineau Park master plans have long proposed that properties around the lake should be acquired when the opportunity arises—" "The National Capital Commission (NCC), steward of Gatineau Park, operates beaches on the lake during the summer. Although it is not condoned by the NCC, there is a secluded beach often used by naturists." https://www.google.ca/maps/place/45%C2%B032'06.0%22N+75%C2%B053'21.0%22W/@45.491199,-75.9447853,11z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0 gatineau park has its own lakes, ziplines, a golf course and so much more. oooohhh ahhhh http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/historic-meech-lake-property-for-lease-1.1808992 Now 2 million may seem like a lot to renno the O'Brien property, considering sussex costs 10 million to renno and it has windows it is really a steal. Living in the house of the guy who made the Montreal Canadiens, also is almost prophetic for Trudeau. That is only 10 cents per tax payer. here is a better shot. http://www.ncc-ccn.gc.ca/places-to-visit/gatineau-park/news/2013-12-19/tenant-wanted-obrien-house what better backdrop than the park http://www.ncc-ccn.gc.ca/places-to-visit/gatineau-park

who cares, people are people, if it ain't breaking the law live and let live. You know its the Christians, Muslims etc. and other people pushing their values on others expecting others to live a certain way that are causing a lot of social conflict because they want people to live their way. Multiculturalism is all about telling those people to screw off. Practice your practices but as soon as you start forcing others to live your way it is a cult mentality and should not be accepted. People who are living up to the expectations of the law should be left to live their life. We have a lot to learn from others histories and life ways. It is such an americanism to think in terms of black and white. We are well beyond the days of colonization and slavery. People have sex with everyone these days. Canada is a place where muts can live or people can come over and integrate, but they arn't forced to unless it violates the law. The fact it ain't against the law is a testament to the fact there isn't anything morally wrong with the way they live. When you make laws to make their ways illegal to target them, that is just wrong. Laws should effect all society not just one group within society. You think the Christians would have learned from what the Romans did to them in the early days in not persecuting others for their beliefs. The premise of non-persecution is essential to the premise of multiculturalism. People who don't understand that and don't support it hopefully live short lives. Personal security and rule of reasonable fundamental law is where it is at anything that is tainted with classisms and difference is going to tear down society. People who want to engage in persecution should go back to their old country, regardless of what white country they originate in. With 1.5 billion people statistics claim being christian and 1 billion muslims, and 1 billion hindus, and 1 billion and half a billion buddists, these major religions are really drowing things out around the world Fact is humanity needs a fundamental middle ground, but some of these religions violate the essential expectations because christianity and muslim religions call for people to be killed or persecuted, the religions are old fashioned and do not espouse peaceful coexistence, they call for the murder and destruction of anything that isn't them. It is a great problem for society. They contain hate speech but are sacred. You know after the second comming and muslims gehena or whatever it is, global population will be lower and those religions will be extinct, so the sooner it gets done the sooner we will have a working society. I'm pretty sure it is the jews who really don't want a working society to exist, because they have a really bad role to play. It isn't really very fair to them. Although most are in New York now, so it wouldn't wipe them out. None the less there are no simple answers for the time being the less people that get killed or persecuted for their law abiding beleifs the better, multiculturalism reduces social tensions and waters down the homicidal tendencies entrenched in the major world religions. They didn't get to where they are by convincing their logic but rather removing anything that opposed their views.' There is a point when it will just be too much of a priority to do anything but cooperate because the planet is so screwed up after 3000 years of neglect. It is not about us, but rather about the planet we live on, and the ways we have adapted to survive and thrive on it. Multiculturalism is a life saver.

This ain't anything anyone should touch with a 10 foot poll but I will say that these supplements should be based on health factors. I find it odd that mandatory retirement age for government positions such as the supreme court and senate is 75 while everyone else is assumed to have retired at 65, when in fact some people retire earlier and some never work. It would be much better to just give everyone the same rights if they are medically unable to work whether 22 or 88. What I found is that people are basically making the same off of the OAS and CPP benefit it they were low middle income or worse for their life. Social services really needs to be centralized though to reduce program duplications at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. The programs are stupid. They are there to reward people with higher incomes while people with lower incomes basically get the same deal no matter what. The programs are agist if they arn't based on medical grounds. We have gene therapy and people living to 100 these days. The culture behind these programs is based on faulty logic but solid tradition. It would be much worse just to get a good program for everyone whether for medical purposes or a good employment program for those who don't have medical reasons not to work. I realize it is a culture of fulfillment and this is living money for people who didn't have enough to save for an extended retirement. You know if you are going to have social programs you may as well just remove all the administration and just pay out to everyone a basic living wage. All these programs admiinstrations and legal matters is just adding complexity to a multilayers pubic safety net. It is just being cost upgraded through making it more complex OAS, CPP, welfare, disability etc.. It is being done to keep it culturally different, when in fact it is the exact same fecal stuff.

Wherever parliament legislates it to be. Canada already has a bunch of official residences. It has the farm, it has Sussex drive, it has Stornoway, it has the apartment block in parliament, it has the bunker and other facilities scattered throughout the capital region. There have also been a large number of buildings that have been repurposed in Ottawa. The use of the guest house near the governor general's mansion was an inventive choice. In all the spread out factor of all these residences is added security to ensure one attack or bomb or logistic route such as roadway traffic doesn't lock up everyone. The practice of taking the leader of a party in the commons is a bad system though, it would be much better if the governor general had an open election for the role of prime minister since de jure the pm is not elected but rather appointed on advice. Nothing beats a public vote for advice, and it would allow greater separation between the legislative and the executive wings of government to remove partisan abuses of the past. Where the people making the law are not the ones monitoring and enforcing it. Way back the Justice of peaces were the only police officers until Peel and the Row force were developed under the powers of the home secretary. This political centralization of power again has been mirrored by the commons when in fact their role should be to make the law with cabinet drawn from the most capable not the people that the public is technically supposed to be voting to represent their interests in the legislature. Even allowing a public vote of cabinet positions would be great also. None the less to the question, it doesn't matter. Most people don't get free housing from their work. I do think a more pressing matter is providing temporary housing for the government and MPs on the Ottawa river,. or adjacent to it (ocean front) which will allow the river to act as a transport route as not many use it, making it more secure. I would develop a bunker complex on the river front side of parliament hill for temporrary housing. I'd expect all MPs to live in their private dwellings, ideally close to the ridings they are suppose to represent. I think an entertaining house, should not be a living house, Sussex should be used as an entertainment flat for government business when parliament itself is not ideal in the apartment block there. Perhaps also use Sussex to host foreign guests who do not have time to secure other accommodations or where business meetings run late. I think that the MPs should be housed in an offshoot of the underground tunnel system and backup utility wing of parliament. Their families should probably be left at their private residence, not their working temporary residence while attending parliament. There are issues due to the failure to keep the executive and the legislative wings of government separate. It makes people who need to be out of their riding full time to do their job effectively. It just is a bad deal, same with the PM, so little time to devote to their riding. Get donations from parliament if they think they should have publically funded housing. None the less building apartments off of parliament is likely cheaper than paying out for hotel stays and second residences. You know there is even the summer home of the PM. There have been a lot of properties. Who cares. They are making enough to pay for their own house. Security is just over the top 50 million on security for the PM each year under PM Harper. It is just insane. They are being made too important, we don't need to centralize people's rights in an office or non-constitutional position. The PM is only supposed to be ensuring laws are executed properly. (parliament should be calling these cabinet ministers to the bar of parliament to question them for advice on the the execution of those laws) The legislature is only supposed to be making laws that benefit Canadians. They are both failing miserably because of partisanship. Year after year more and more rights are stripped from Canadians, and less and less freedom exists in Canada. Maybe it shouldn't be a publically listed address? Like maybe just at a Trudeaubunker. End of story, who cares. Why not save the 52 million to buy a new PM if the old one gets broke? , There are like 36 million Canadians out there, I am sure Canadians could find a new PM, it is all just cult mentality anyway it isn't healthy, we need educated free people not sheeple. Why exactly are Canadians paying for a house for the PM anyway? Where did that come from? It appeared in the past that these properties were donations, then somehow people started expecting Canadian taxpayers to give special priveleges for upkeep. I am pretty sure MPs have housing priveleges, but I don't see why parliament doesn't raise its own funds to pay for upkeep on donated property. Have him live in some Fort Muesum to save costs like Fort Henry Kingston. (He probably isn't there during the day anyway and it would make getting his wife a job easier if she isn't working. PMs historically have really low attendance records. For that matter have the MPs stay on historic sites too rather than hotels. They are off limits to the public and should have site security anyway. OR how about the Hole at CFB North Bay it used to be a NORAD HQ until it got shut down. Fact is their families should not be exceptionalized, they should be allowed to live their life. The more important you make something the more it costs to keep it safe. JUST STOP making it something big, it should only have a very limited role in government that is acting as an administrator of the minisitries. It is just being made too powerful and too many strings. That is the problem. http://www.ottawhatpodcast.com/2015/12/complete-subway-system-discovered-in.html http://www.citynews.ca/2015/02/24/torontos-other-secret-and-not-so-secret-tunnels/ http://www.forthenry.com/ http://www.fortyork.ca/ Sunny ways?? https://ottawarewind.com/2015/02/19/hidden-fortress-17th-century-fort-on-the-ottawa-river/ Cabinet (foreign affairs and international development, global affairs or whatever they are calling it now) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFB_Rockcliffe MPs appartments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFB_Uplands perhaps the uplands residences for senators and tunnel con dos for the commoners. Or vice versa. depending on whether they are staying for a while to work or leaving real soon. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/journalimages/MCR/1994/Vol_40/mcr40rr02_fig3.jpg paint a decomissioned sub yellow he would love it. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/from-the-archives-the-lost-train-of-nowhere https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/Lebreton+Flats,+Ottawa,+ON/Parliament+Hill,+Wellington+Street,+Ottawa,+ON/@45.4176088,-75.718403,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x4cce0444db0f1769:0x93ecebf541578180!2m2!1d-75.7146744!2d45.413947!1m5!1m1!1s0x4cce04ff4fe494ef:0x26bb54f60c29f6e!2m2!1d-75.700929!2d45.4235937 this would be an easy site to control access to also. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaudi%C3%A8re_Falls They'd love it http://www.verticalreal.com/home/index_e.php Look off to the right of booth https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4194486,-75.7171327,3a,75y,56.79h,74.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slfrUcC14ajcDE_75qOmP_g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 birds eye https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4175321,-75.718129,227a,20y,20.05h,45t/data=!3m1!1e3 then of course there is that empty island just across from parliament hill, technically in Quebec that would be a great spot for a Trudeaubunker it is in hull but there is no rule requiring that MPs/PM etc.. need to live in Ottawa. or https://wikipalapp.com/?l=45.4243&g=-75.6907&type=a controlled access https://www.google.ca/maps/place/The+Rockcliffe+Island+Lodge/@45.4368974,-75.6828417,18z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0x643ca5fd49a203bc we could put the PM in the penthouse suite and all other gov / parliament staffers that would get housing allownaces at other points.. birds eye https://www.google.ca/maps/place/The+Rockcliffe+Island+Lodge/@45.4372557,-75.684714,227a,20y,81h,45t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0x643ca5fd49a203bc!6m1!1e1 You know the senate might feel right at home in Garry J Armstrong. This mysterious building nextdoor is gated.. https://www.google.ca/maps/place/The+Rockcliffe+Island+Lodge/@45.4361051,-75.6841833,3a,60y,339.89h,75.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGy5Q3ta278b0OZlGmvyTzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0x643ca5fd49a203bc!6m1!1e1 aw shucks that is China's embassy.. Apparently the Chinese vote liberal. Plenty of room for beds here http://i2.wp.com/www.westsideaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/brewery-tunnel-2.jpg

The fastest way to protect minors is to encourage the provinces to legislate age restrictions prior to it being any federal action to change its status, and to increase the penalties to trafficking/sales/provision to minors without parental consent. This in line also with youth and children services, children's aid making statements in public knowledge if providing any quantity of marijuana whether low or thc in food or otherwise would be considered abuse, or if vaping or smoking or eating ec.., this is problematic because alcohol can be given to minors with parental consent, so this immediately questions whether any recreational substances should be considered abuse etc.. if they are technically legal. There is also the issue that people like Justin Trudeau seem to be ignoring, regarding providing legal streams to organized crime, THEY ALREADY HAVE ILLEGAL STREAMS DOING THE EXACT SAME THING, whether organized crime or not. Providing legal streams of income is HONOURABLE, not something to be avoided by parliament, BRING IN MORE LEGAL WORK FOR EVERYONE! In fact the government providing licensing to any qualified person, with sales meeting the specific legal requirements of the federal, provincial an municipal governments, provides a safe legal, traceable alternative to dealing with people who violate the law, deal in very dangerous drugs, could lace pot, and may be involved in other illicit activities. Bringing the activities into public record allow easier enforcement and investigation of any neighbouring illicit activities that could invalidate or bar someone from licensed trade, and put them on a public offenders list not unlike the sex offenders list, making a public record of people who have provided illegal drugs to minors (and the number of minors and times they have done it), or who have violated licensing conditions and are barred from selling narcotics to a pubic record, so that they are easier tracked if they after any penalty fall back on illegal trade. Legalization need not make easier illegal trade in fact by providing legal access it would provide grounds to crack down on those who break the rules of legal trade, such as using it as a gateway, or lacing it, to hook people into upgrading to hard drugs. Softening pot access does not necessitate less policing of drugs considered to be social wrongs such as crack and angel dust. People who use illegal drugs are much less likely to report issues of use to pubic authorities because their using it is illegal, however if their use was legal they may report, not so good activities they encounter such as lacing, or bad product. The stigma of use, and potential future health insurance issues, is not something that simply disappears, but we must recognize that we are finally starting to recognize that Cannabis can be beneficial, with or without THC, it is all RESPONSIBLE use that Canada needs to somehow create a system for. Not unlike red wine or coffee, it can have benefits if it is not abused. Delaying this in fact PROVIDES continuance of a multibillion dollar trade that has existed for a few decades now. It is total ignorance to imply that pot isn't already being sold and provided to people quote unquote illegally. How does encouraging and providing a legal means of living in anyway, worsen the situation? Legal supply can be managed simply by production quotas. Unlicensed sale of course can be managed by fines. The provinces need to get on this yesterday, and until the issue of Paramountcy is addressed by passing an interim motion or bill that allows the provinces to regulate on cannabis on the basis of legalization by the federal government, this process will be done with a blindfold. The provinces and federal government ought to coordinate on this. Of course saying a law will happen before a vote in parliament is rife with questions as to how exactly laws are made, and normally that includes a vote. Although the opposition clearly spouting about a failure of the government to act, could very well propose a private members bill that would CHIP away at the issues, and bring those issues into debate. They have no need to wait for the government. THE BEST thing the government can do is get safer and better drugs on the street that correct the cultural issues of the past that introduced risks such as location of use, manner of use, and time of use, and activities while high. No law will have any effect if people break the law. The only thing it is doing is adding costs in keeping people in jail at more than the cost of employing someone each year. It is also limiting the international capacities of Canadians. The costs are extreme and this is for associating with a plant that grows in nature. People do not respect the law, it is making criminals, and encouraging dissent against a legislated society.

I am a little confused, the constitution only seems to designate it as the "Upper House" As far as a change, I am a little confused as the constitution says Constitution of Parliament of Canada 17. There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons. Marginal note:Privileges, etc., of Houses "18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof. (8)" Can you share more info where you are drawing your opinion from on the "role" of the senate. As there doesn't appear to be anything in the written constitution that defines that, that I have seen yet. The only restriction I am aware of on the senate in what Legislation it can craft is voting on spending bills, are there others? (No power to block supply, or budget measures) However, Australia does, and in fact it seems a constitutional change is not required to change those powers, but rather an act of parliament can designate what powers the senate has. "The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada," It seems very clear that any change would not require the constititonal ammending formula but rather for parliament to agree to the changes. In fact the organizational limits remain fairly ambiguous due to the lack of clear definition of form and function of the British Parliament in 1867. I would think it is fairly clear that their powers could redefine the law itself take for example, the powers of the Chancery Regulation Act 1862, which demonstrates that the very function and form of law can be changed by parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancery_Regulation_Act_1862 Although again even Habeas Corpus was defined by Act, not by constitutional right. So indeed, this raises if the powers of parliament were able to effect constitutional rights then would the charter not conflict with the constitution itself? IE if the powers of parliament were able to effect charter rights, then would the charter be invalid due to limiting the constitution 1867? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1862 Of course the notion that the charter / Canada Act violates the constitution act 1867 due to limiting the powers of parliament is likely an argument that would result in the Canada Act being recognized and the constitution act being seen as dated, however in fact I think legally it is the other way around, and it seems that the Canada Act is in violation to the Constitution 1867 due to limiting powers that are reserved under the constitution 1867. I would think that the BNA 1867 would have required to be amended also to avoid the conflict Interestingly it appears that section was ammended... [19th July, 1875] Whereas by section eighteen of the Constitution Act, 1867, it is provided as follows: "The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed. and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the Members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada. but so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the Members thereof:" And whereas doubts have arisen with regard to the power of defining by an Act of the Parliament of Canada, in pursuance of the said section. the said privileges, powers, or immunities: and it is expedient to remove such doubts: Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1. Section eighteen of the Constitution Act, is hereby repealed, without prejudice to Anything done under that section, and the following section shall be substituted for the section so repealed. "The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held. enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof."If you didn't see the difference it is in the end. "but so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the Members thereof:" but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof."" Note that it limits it at the powers of the House of Commons. So, then the question is, without the house of Lords, does the House of Commons have any powers to make laws? If so then, would Parliament even have the power to pass law? So would any law or act of parliament since 1982 even be legal? http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/system/ http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/ "A Bill can start in the Commons or the Lords and must be approved in the same form by both Houses before becoming an Act (law)." The powers of BOTH the senate and commons in Canada is only the same as the house of commons, so there would be no path to make law without sending it to the Lords in the UK. It would seem that the Constitution Act 1867 should have been amended to some how denote the role of the senate is the same as the lords to enable law making ability to parliament. Clearly this isn't the way it is being done but it does highlight the issue with the framework of the constitution as it relates to the model it is using, and the legal language surrounding it. ​I'm guessing most Canadians would be irate if they were stuck in 1982 legally. It would look something like this Gradual Civilization Act, 1857 (Province of Canada)Manitoba Act 1870 Dominion Lands Act 1872 Indian Act 1876 Canada Temperance Act 1878 Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 Criminal Code, 1892 Canada Evidence Act Quebec Boundary Extension Act, 1898 Alberta Act 1905 The Saskatchewan Act 1905 Juvenile Delinquents Act 1908 Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912 Finance Act 1914 War Measures Act 1914 Statistics Act 1918 Civil Service Act 1918 Food and Drugs Act 1920 Chinese Immigration Act 1923 National Parks Act (Canada) 1930 Succession to the Throne Act 1936 Natural Resources Acts National Housing Act 1938 Natural Resources Mobilization Act 1940 Canadian Citizenship Act 1946 Canadian Bill of Rights 1960 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 Divorce Act 1968 - replaced by Divorce Act, 1985 Anti-Inflation Act 1975 Canadian Human Rights Act 1977 Canadian Football Act 1974 Tax Court of Canada Act 1980 Privacy Act 1982 Constitution Act 1982 Atleast we would have privacy rights... A government institution may not collect personal information unless it relates directly to an operating program or activity of the institution (section 4). With some exceptions, when a government institution collects an individual's personal information from the individual, it must inform the individual of the purpose for which the information is being collected (section 5(2)). With some exceptions, personal information under the control of a government institution may be used only for the purpose for which the information was obtained or for a use consistent with that purpose, unless the individual consents (section 7).With some exceptions, personal information under the control of a government institution may not be disclosed, unless the individual consents (section 8).Every Canadian citizen or permanent resident has the right to be given access to personal information about the individual under the control of a government institution that is reasonably retrievable by the government institution, and request correction if the information is inaccurate (section 12).The Privacy Commissioner of Canada receives and investigates complaints, including complaints that an individual was denied access to his or her personal information held by a government institution (section 29).

that is funny. I think Bernie Sanders has more cred than either of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders Even that is funny.