FTA Lawyer

With all due respect eureka, you're wrong on this one. There is a bright line in Canadian common law that sits right on 1982. Countless decisions of the courts have been re-decided in light of the Charter. In criminal law in particular, a vast number of "pre-Charter" cases were no longer considered good law almost immediately after the Charter came into force. To this day, when we are researching cases on which to make current arguments of principle, we almost invariably do not use pre-1982 cases, and it is commonplace to hear lawyers counter such arguments with "that's a pre-Charter case...so it is of little use". Here's a quote from an SCC case decided in March of 1983: Both Judge Bigué of the Provincial Court and Dubé J.A. made clear and thorough analyses of the various decisions of this Court and of the other Canadian superior courts regarding the effect of a flagrant denial of the rights of an inmate, recognized by the Canadian Bill of Rights, on the admissibility in evidence of a statement. It should be mentioned that, at the time of the trial, the appeal, and above all, the decision of this Court to authorize the appeal, Canada did not yet have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The coming into force of the Charter now greatly diminishes the importance this appeal had at the time, namely that it provided this Court with an opportunity to review the rule as to the admissibility of statements under such circumstances. Your opinion on s. 1 and s. 7 may make for an interesting lecture in a university philosophy class, but my statement was one of fact, not opinion. People's Charter rights are routinely violated by the State, and all of the courts in the land have concluded that s. 1 and s. 7 allow it. I referred to the Rodriguez case earlier...here is the headnote of that case from the SCC majority: Per La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Iacobucci and Major JJ.: The appellant's claim under s. 7 of the Charter is based on an alleged violation of her liberty and security of the person interests. These interests cannot be divorced from the sanctity of life, which is the third value protected by s. 7. Even when death appears imminent, seeking to control the manner and timing of one's death constitutes a conscious choice of death over life. It follows that life as a value is also engaged in the present [page521] case. Appellant's security of the person interest must be considered in light of the other values mentioned in s. 7. Security of the person in s. 7 encompasses notions of personal autonomy (at least with respect to the right to make choices concerning one's own body), control over one's physical and psychological integrity which is free from state interference, and basic human dignity. The prohibition in s. 241(, which is a sufficient interaction with the justice system to engage the provisions of s. 7, deprives the appellant of autonomy over her person and causes her physical pain and psychological stress in a manner which impinges on the security of her person. Any resulting deprivation, however, is not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. The same conclusion is applicable with respect to any liberty interest which may be involved. The expression "principles of fundamental justice" in s. 7 of the Charter implies that there is some consensus that these principles are vital or fundamental to our societal notion of justice. They must be capable of being identified with some precision and applied to situations in a manner which yields an understandable result. They must also be legal principles. To discern the principles of fundamental justice governing a particular case, it is helpful to review the common law and the legislative history of the offence in question and, in particular, the rationale behind the practice itself (here, the continued criminalization of assisted suicide) and the principles which underlie it. It is also appropriate to consider the state interest. Fundamental justice requires that a fair balance be struck between the interests of the state and those of the individual. The respect for human dignity, while one of the underlying principles upon which our society is based, is not a principle of fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7. Assisted suicide, outlawed under the common law, has been prohibited by Parliament since the adoption of Canada's first Criminal Code. The long-standing blanket prohibition in s. 241(, which fulfils the government's objective of protecting the vulnerable, is grounded in the state interest in protecting life and reflects the policy of the state that human life should not be depreciated by allowing life to be taken. This state policy is part of our fundamental conception of the sanctity of life. A blanket prohibition on assisted suicide similar to that in s. 241( also seems to be the norm among Western democracies, and such a prohibition has never been adjudged to be unconstitutional or contrary to fundamental human rights. These societies, including [page522] Canada, recognize and generally apply the principle of the sanctity of life subject to narrow exceptions where notions of personal autonomy and dignity must prevail. Distinctions between passive and active forms of intervention in the dying process continue to be drawn and assisted suicide in situations such as the appellant's is prohibited with few exceptions. No consensus can be found in favour of the decriminalization of assisted suicide. To the extent that there is a consensus, it is that human life must be respected. This consensus finds legal expression in our legal system which prohibits capital punishment. The prohibition against assisted suicide serves a similar purpose. Parliament's repeal of the offence of attempted suicide from the Criminal Code was not a recognition that suicide was to be accepted within Canadian society. Rather, this action merely reflected the recognition that the criminal law was an ineffectual and inappropriate tool for dealing with suicide attempts. Given the concerns about abuse and the great difficulty in creating appropriate safeguards, the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide is not arbitrary or unfair. The prohibition relates to the state's interest in protecting the vulnerable and is reflective of fundamental values at play in our society. Section 241( therefore does not infringe s. 7 of the Charter. As well, s. 241( of the Code does not infringe s. 12 of the Charter. The appellant is not subjected by the state to any form of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Even assuming that "treatment" within the meaning of s. 12 may include that imposed by the state in contexts other than penal or quasi-penal, a mere prohibition by the state on certain action cannot constitute "treatment" under s. 12. There must be some more active state process in operation, involving an exercise of state control over the individual, whether it be positive action, inaction or prohibition. To hold that the criminal prohibition in s. 241(, without the appellant being in any way subject to the state administrative or justice system, falls within the bounds of s. 12 would stretch the ordinary meaning of being "subjected to ... treatment" by the state. It is preferable in this case not to decide the difficult and important issues raised by the application of s. 15 of the Charter, but rather to assume that the prohibition on assisted suicide in s. 241( of the Code infringes s. 15, since any infringement of s. 15 by s. 241( is clearly justified under s. 1 of the Charter. Section 241( has a pressing and substantial legislative objective and meets [page523] the proportionality test. A prohibition on giving assistance to commit suicide is rationally connected to the purpose of s. 241(, which is to protect and maintain respect for human life. This protection is grounded on a substantial consensus among western countries, medical organizations and our own Law Reform Commission that in order to protect life and those who are vulnerable in society effectively, a prohibition without exception on the giving of assistance to commit suicide is the best approach. Attempts to modify this approach by creating exceptions or formulating safeguards to prevent excesses have been unsatisfactory. Section 241( is thus not overbroad since there is no halfway measure that could be relied upon to achieve the legislation's purpose fully. In dealing with this contentious, complex and morally laden issue, Parliament must be accorded some flexibility. In light of the significant support for s. 241( or for this type of legislation, the government had a reasonable basis for concluding that it had complied with the requirement of minimum impairment. Finally, the balance between the restriction and the government objective is also met. This excerpt shows the SCC using the wording of s. 7 to "impinge on the security of [Rodriguez'] person" by "depriv[ing] the appellant of autonomy over her person and caus[ing] her physical pain and psychological stress..." It also shows an acceptance that an infringment of s. 15 in these circumstances "is clearly justified under s.1". FTA Lawyer

Yaro, Sorry to pick on you on this, but it has to be done. For one of the most referenced documents in the political dialogue of Canadians, the Charter is probably the least understood. As I have said a number of times, the Charter is the proverbial "rule that was made to be broken." It is specifically designed, and intended to be violated as the drafters understood the inherent conflicts between individual and collective rights, as well as inherent conflicts of one individual's rights with those of another individual. Everyone harps on about the "notwithstanding clause" because it is a direct way for a government to enact a law it knows to be contrary to the Charter, so it is characterised as a bad thing, never to be used (as you have specifically suggested). However, other sections make Charter violations permissible. Consider the wording of s. 7 of the Charter: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." By definition, a person's "life, liberty, and security of the person" can be taken away by the State, so long as it is done in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (which in large part implies "due process"). Also, s. 1 of the Charter, specifically qualifies the entire Charter, and is therefore referred to as the "saving" section becuase it can provide justification for a Charter violation. The section reads as follows: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." So, as I've said before, the "sound-bite" position of Paul Martin that he will never violate the Charter is simply invalid and unsupportable. Unfortunately, the masses eat it up 'cause it makes him sound like a knight in shining armour for human rights. If you want a concrete example, the roadside screening device used by police to initially test if a person may be driving over the legal limit is a good one. Section 10 ( of the Charter says that upon arrest or detention a person is entitled to get a lawyer immediately (I'm paraphrasing). When you are in the back of a cop car being asked to blow into a screening device you are definitely detained. BUT, the state of the law is that you are NOT entitled to speak to a lawyer before doing the roadside screening test. The Supreme Court confirms that this practice by police indeed violates an individual's rights under s. 10 (, however, the SCC is satisfied that this violation is a reasonable limit and is "saved" by s. 1 (because impaired driving is so prevalent and such a societal evil that stopping it is more important than upholding the individual's rights). Is Paul Martin going to amend the Criminal Code to take away roadside screening devices because they violate the Charter? Of course not. Do you really want that Yaro? I suspect not, even though you say that "there should never, ever, under any circumstances be an out for the government to circumvent" Charter rights. I recommend not calling people "political hacks" and criticising them for not understanding an issue when in doing so you prove yourself to be the true culprit. FTA Lawyer

Now Alberta is obliged to save Africa? Are we to take the blame for failures of Federal Foreign Policy? Should the G-8 just stop meeting and hand things over to King Ralph? Oh, and by the way, ask the U.S. about how far 1.2 billion will go toward bringing down tyrranical gov'ts and replacing them with long-standing and stable democracies (about 8 hours into day 2). Talk about out of left field. And if the cheque is "like a present from God" how can it possibly be a waste of tax dollars? FTA Lawyer

Yaro, I don't dispute your statistical analysis, in theory. The problem is, when a 9 member panel hears a case, they don't go their 9 separate ways and all come back with a written decision and then add them up and see who wins. The practicality is that the judges lobby each other to persuade/convince/coerce, whatever you want to call it, and they often pick one of them to write on behalf of all of those who are of the same view. So if judge "x" is sitting on the fence, and the other 8 have aligned in two opposing factions, it truly can come down to one person's call. Maybe things are working well and we don't need to fix anything on appointments or the way the SCC operates, but tell that to the guy who gets a 5-4 split from the SCC that says he goes to jail for the rest of his life, when the dissenting justices were going to send him home... mcqueen, I think I pretty much said what is in your first paragraph, and therefore agree with you, right up to the last sentence where you go a bit awry. While I contend that there is potential for abuse in the current appointment system for the SCC, you'll be hard pressed to find any legal scholar who will agree that the current Justices are all just a bunch of former "political hack" lawyers with patronage positions. In any courtroom in this country, Provincial or Federal, sits some judges who are clear political appointees, and others who have never been more politically involved than voting at election time. Oddly enough, the reason a judge was appointed in the first place arguably has no correlation whatsoever to the quality of the jurist that they turn out to be. As to your second paragraph, eureka has already addressed this issue quite correctly. One of the cornerstones of a developed democracy is to have an independant judiciary...and the rule of law. Judges need to have the security of knowing that their powers and their livelihoods are not in any way contingent on their "accountability" to Parliament or lobby groups or even the general public. Interpreting the law often requires judges to say and do things that are widely unpopular...but they should, in fact they must, do these things if we are to uphold order in our society. When you say "accountable for every decision they make" what you are really advocating is elected judges...which means decisions get made based on what result will more likely lead to the most votes next time around...a horrible scenario (which does exist in some U.S. states...and leads directly to the "Judge Judy" form of "justice"). Did you ever wonder how those t.v courtrooms could actually be "real courts of law"? Elected judges = need for votes = get a t.v. show and keep up your ratings with ridiculous screaming and throwing things etc. God help us if the Canadian system ever deteriorates to such embarrasing standards. FTA Lawyer

I'm not sure how else you can change the SCC over and above what we have now and still be democratic. There will always be cases that are 5 to 4, for and against. SSM came down to basically 1 vote in the House of Commons. But I can live with those narrow margins because I support the democratic system and the concept of "majority rules." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hear what you are saying. I guess I'm saying that the difference is that a vote on SSM in the House of Commons is democracy by definition, whereas a judicial interpretation of a law that was passed by the House of Commons is hardly cloaked with the concept of a democratic mandate...especially when the judges are not elected (I'm not saying they should be, just pointing out that they are not, and therfore are not meteing out democracy when they make decisions). It would be safer in my mind to have some form of further hearing / deliberation in the event that there cannot be at least a "weighted majority" decision in the SCC. We require unanimity from criminal juries...and 2/3 majorities for civil juries (in Alberta...maybe different elsewhere), so why would we be satisfied that when those same cases get up to the highest court in the land that one individual can mean the difference between black and white? Even the fact that as we go up the chain we keep adding more judges to the bench (1 at trial, 3 at Court of Appeal, 5, 7, or 9 at SCC, depedning on the imortance of the issue) would suggest that we want to lessen the chance that only one person (with their inherent potential for bias and error) makes the call. Allowing 5-4 majorities defeats the purpose to a great extent. FTA Lawyer

Yaro, I haven't really thought through the pros and cons of various alternatives. I certainly don't want to see partisan political pandering (good alliteration eh?) clouding up the appointment process like in the U.S., but I would like to see some form of check and balance against the otherwise total authority of the PM. The harsh reality here is that the SCC is becoming increasingly busy all the time, so more and more it picks and chooses the cases it will hear (as many cases require "leave" to get into the SCC). So there is potential for bias in the screening process before a matter ever gets to a hearing before the panel. And since we have no rules requiring anything but simple majority in SCC decisions, any question of law and societal values that gets before the court can be tipped one way or the other by any single Justice...so it would seem appropriate that society as a whole should have as much input as is feasible to prevent a PM from making appointments in his or her personal interest rather than what's best for Canada. To illustrate the importance of my point, consider an example like the Sue Rodriguez "assisted suicide" case. Of the 9-member full panel, 5 Justices said the law against assisted suicide was constitutional and therefore dismissed the case, 4 Justices said it was unconstitutional and would have declared the law null and void. To have such decisions with such rammifications decided by simple majority is another debate in and of itself. In my view, there should have to be a higher standard. But the point is that 4 of the top legal minds in the country (presumably) would have set a course for Canada that is completely opposite to the one we got, and obviously, if only one of those Justices had changed their mind, then Canada's social status quo would have been instantly different. (And please no debates about assisted suicide here...there's a current thread for that elsewhere...I'm not advocating one side or the other, just saying what a profound influence on our country each SCC appointee can have). FTA Lawyer

Argus, Thanks for the article...the paragraph right after the one you cite supports my earlier statement about the PM's authority in making appointments to the SCC: The so-called “new” appointment system of judges is merely the “old” system whereby the Prime Minister still makes the appointment from a short list provided him by the Minister of Justice, and the latter only appears before a Parliamentary Committee to “review the qualifications and track records of the appointed judges.” The committee cannot vote on the appointments, there is no mechanism to object to nominations, and any decision of the Committee is not binding on the Prime Minister. FTA Lawyer

eureka, I have had some valuable discussions with you on this board, but this one certainly did not turn out to be one of them. You complain about my assertion that you likened Manning to Hitler. You say you did nothing of the sort. Objectively, what you did do was: 1. Call Manning a "certifiable nutcase"; 2. Defend this comment and counter my applause of Manning's founding of a political party with "so did Hitler"; 3. Refer to Manning as "obsessed by his sense of mission", "in spite of the social and economic damage caused" 4. Defined Manning as a demagogue - which as you know means "A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace." In my view, any reasonable person would conclude that you likened Manning to Hitler. Certainly, the moderator of this site did...and I hasten to say that his comment was inserted to remove such comments from the discussion, not to "interrupt" in search of "cheap points". I'm a big boy, I'll get over it, and won't hold a grudge. It just seems appropriate to admit when a mistake has been made as opposed to attempt to justify it. FTA Lawyer

That you have stooped to such "intelligence" as to liken Preston Manning to Adolph Hitler I will respectfully bow out of this thread. FTA Lawyer

Harper does have a Masters degree in Economics. He may not be street smart in figuring out how to play the game in Ottawa, and in the media, but unless you contend that Masters degrees get handed out unmeritoriously at Canadian universities, I submit that you need no further evidence of his intelligence. And to dismiss Preston Manning as a "certifiable nutcase" demonstrates your clear partisanship over substance. Agree with him or not, but Preston Manning created a political party and took it to status of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition...not a bad footnote for a resume. Many of the most esteemed members of each political party, Liberal, NDP, Bloc included will give far more credit to the successes of Manning than you do. It's okay that people do not agree with your views...it doesn't mean they are therefore "small-minded, vindictive and angry." FTA Lawyer

eureka, Well, I'm not sure we disagree that much on the Constitutional question after all. Yes, there were provisions in the Constitution, 1867 which could be applied by the SCC to overturn actions of a government other than division of powers...so my statement on this point was oversimplistic. In fact, on the 1st Bill 101 ruling, the SCC shot down some of the French-only provisions on the basis that it violated the entrenchment of billingualism in the Constitution. Here's a little blurb from a CBC report on the point: "Originally it restricted the use of English in the National Assembly and the courts, but these provisions were contrary to section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and were struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1979 (see Quebec (A.G.) v. Blaikie, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1016)." My point stays the same though, that the real opportunity for judicial activism did not really happen until the courts were given the mandate to make discretionary decisions on balancing of competeing rights (with the advent of the Charter). Prior to that, all they were doing was interpreting Parliament's intent from the words of the Constitution (mostly in division of powers cases, but of course, on various other sections of the Constitution as well). Frankly, I think we can bury the hatchet on this one...at risk of getting even more detailed and arcane and losing everyone else's interest on this thread. However, I can't agree with your contention that a deviation from convention on behalf of the PM in the appointment process would lead to any real consequences, let alone an immediate non-confidence vote and a public outcry that would dwarf ADSCAM. Just ask Alberta's "Senator's in Waiting" how much influence can really be placed on the PM's discretion. Although, I suppose you'd be right on the money if the SCC appointment was set to come from Ontario and a PM picked someone from the West...that would be grounds for gov't-toppling. FTA Lawyer

Wow...talk about "naive" and "absurd"... "our appointments are not political"?????????!!!!!!!!!! Our SCC appointments (and Senate and other Superior Court etc.) are made as a prerogative of the Prime Minister...meaning absolutely at the pleasure of the current PM...no one (not even Queen Elizabeth herself) can do anything to influence or block the decision AT ALL. This is the "executive choice" which you say is bad and doesn't exist here...you're wrong. I'm not in favour of the U.S. system because I do feel that it forces candidates to be nominated more for their political views than for their abilities or experience, but at least in that system the nominee has to go through approval hearings and there is some ability of the public to know who the people are that are weilding so much control over the shaping of their society. Now, we are not in a state of total disarray in Canada. Consider the process being used to replace the retiring Justice Major...Tradition says the new judge should come from the Western provinces and so the Justice Minister has asked for a parliamentary committee to submit a short-list of qualified candidates from the region for consideration. This is all fine and well, but, should the PM not like the short-list, he can pick WHOMEVER HE WANTS, FOR WHATEVER REASON, WITHOUT EXPLANATION. I'm not going to say recent appointments are "bad" ones, but it is no coincidence that they happened to have views perfectly aligned with the Government agenda on gay marriage. And remember when the Gomery Commission was created? One of the very first questions openly put in the media was "which PM appointed him?". Why ask the question? Because our system of appointments is as political as it gets...it just so happens that thankfully, as Canadians we seem to have maintained a concept of merit as well. FTA Lawyer

This is quite simply wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> eureka, I'll tell you what's wrong about your statement. We are talking judicial activism here, and prior to the Charter, the SCC (and actually the JCPC - Judicial Committee of the Privy Council before it) had virtually zero ability to impart any activism. You are right that they could declare legislation "unconstitutional" but only on a "division of powers" basis. That is, Provincial legislation that infringed on Fed jurisdiction could be struck or "re-written" to the extent necessary to remove the infringement (and vice-versa for Fed legislation infringing improperly on Prov. jurisdiction). Aside from infringing jurisdiction, Parliament and the Prov. Legislatures had absolute legislative freedom. The impact of the Charter is that it now provides a huge list of principles on which legislation can be struck or "re-written" by courts from as high as the SCC to as low as your local Prov. Ct. The Charter (in s. 1) also provides a mechanism for balancing conflicting rights (eg. one individual vs. another's or individual vs. collective) and this is where judcial activism is truly able to flourish. Not only does the SCC have the mandate to determine when a law or gov't. action breaches someone's rights, but they can decide when such a breach is nevertheless permissible. Further, they can decide when to chose one set of rights over another set. The only element of "supremacy of Parliament" that remians in light of the Charter is the "notwithsatanding clause", which allows a government to expressly take an action or pass a law notwithstanding that it is in violation of the Charter. So I stand by my original statement that those who don't like the level of judicial activism that we currently have can place a majority of the blame on the Charter and its "father" PET. That being said, those who complain that it seems improper for unelected judges to be usurping the function of an elected government have a particular problem in their argument...it was the elected government that made the Charter law and created the current situation. As such, the unelected members of the SCC have a specific mandate from the electorate to enforce the Charter as they are currently doing. If we truly don't like it, we as an electorate have every authority to take that mandate away by amending the Constitution and abolishing the Charter. Short of such a mammoth procedure, we simply need to lobby our current elected officials to use the notwithstanding clause...as it has been used in Quebec...if we want to put control back into the hands of Parliament. Either way, it's a political landmine, and no "national" politician or political party would seem to be able to muster up the courage to actually give it a shot. FTA Lawyer

I have not yet read the decision, but this CBC story helps quite a bit in answering Argus's original concerns. The decision does not really make new law, nor does it compel immigration officials to permit these applicants...it just sends it back to be re-decided by different officers...AND the reason for sending it back is to reconsider the merits of the decision in light of the wealthy individuals' commitments to personally pay for any services their disabled children may need. I guess the point is if the only reason to deny the applicants is the potential financial burden their kids will place on our society...and there is a way to completely remove that concern...then maybe they should not be refused. As far as the general criticisms of the SCC being able to trump Parliament you have one particular person to thank for that...Trudeau. Although it is not fair to put all of the blame on him, because the Charter (the atomic bomb of Judicial Activism) does have the fabled "notwithstanding clause" which allows Parliament to veto anything the SCC or any other court does. Unfortunatley, because we have so little principle or integrity in our government (and I mean as a whole, not just the current Liberal one) there's not a politician in the nation who will actually invoke it because it is potential political suicide. Ralph Klien has threatened it a number of times, but never followed through...and Stephen Harper has hinted at it at times and that has branded him as too scary to be PM. Government would much rather pass the buck (e.g. gay marriage issue) and then say "hey, not my fault...its the Charter and the SCC...what do you expect me to do, my job!?!?!?" FTA Lawyer

Newbie, Thank-you...you get my point. Rather than make some flippant rhetorical "he's scary" comment, you've stated that Harper's position on the Iraq War (which is accurately reflected in the quote you cite) bothers you. Hooray for valid dialogue!! FTA Lawyer

And the point highlighted here is that Canada always had some of the best (and most strict) firearm control legislation prior to the "long-gun registry"...it's been a 100% waste in my mind...it simply wasn't necessary. Keep in mind, the multi-billion dollar registry we are talking about could only possibly reduce shootings with long-rifles that were otherwise lawfully owned (because someone who already illegally possessed guns was not going to sign up to the registry). So, from the 172 shooting homicides in 2004, we would have to subtract: 1)Lawful shootings (by police or citizens defending themselves) 2)Handgun shootings (as handguns have been registered for decades prior to the current registry) 3)Long-rifle shootings where the gun was illegally possessed in the first place. None of these shootings could be reduced by the positive effects (if there were any) of the long-gun registry becuase these types of shootings are not with guns that are the subject matter of the registry. Unfortunately, we don't have stats to tell us just how few such gun deaths we would be looking at, but it is likely less than 20. FTA Lawyer

To the best of my knowledge, none whatsoever. I am sure that the gov't would be flaunting any such report as a 'tremendous victory', but no such thing is heard. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hate to be crass, but ask the Mayerthorpe, AB detachment of the RCMP what their view is of the effectiveness of the gun registry. Those mounties were killed by a lunatic with a bad criminal history, who had a current court-ordered weapons prohibition and a prohibited firearm. My point is, the registration of legal guns by law-abiding citizens (because criminals don't register) does nothing to prevent the bad guys from doing bad things. A billion dollars into the Justice Dept. or the RCMP might have been a much better investment. FTA Lawyer

I wish it was possible to have some independent anlysis of what went wrong with the gun registry. The only commentary available seems to come from either the gov't or people who wish to discredit the registry.I suspect the cost overruns were not really cost overruns but the true cost that the bureaucrats estimated before the registry was set up. The Liberals knew that they could not sell the registry to the public if it was going to be that expensive so they pressured the bureaucrats to come up with politically acceptable but unrealistic budget estimates. A second factor which likely affected the cost would be gun onwers who deliberately attempted to sabotague the system by not following procedures correctly. I am sure Revenue Canada would experience astronomical cost overruns if a large number of tax payers suddenly decided to deliberately submit bad paper work. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You've hit things pretty good I'd say. But...the intentional sabotage was unnecessary in most instances. The problem was no one listened to any gun owners about practical issues. Sure, lots of irrational spew was thrown around (from both sides of the issue) but certain practical truths existed and were simply ignored. For example: - The number of firearm owners and firearms owned was grossly underestimated; - A huge conflict existed due to zero consistency of serial numbers on many guns; - Oh, and then there is the fundamental flaw with the registry...criminals don't comply with voluntary regulatory legislation...(when I say voluntary, I mean since they don't know who has the guns in the first place, it's an honour system to comply) In my own case, I have a WWII training rifle made by Sprinfield Arms. Springfield bought Marlin and Sako and someone else bought someone else and so on throughout history. In the end result, there are guns made by Springfiled and Marlin and others that have identical serial numbers. My gun, as a military issue, has no serial number at all. You can imagine the fiasco of trying to get some telemarketer in Miramichi to resolve the difficulties and advise me how I was even supposed to register! My dad registered guns and got wrong certificates returned to him in the mail, gun shops had massive inventories that all needed to be registered in short order, people w/ no licenses got guns left to them in wills etc etc. The gov't had no idea what it was getting itself into...but it sure satisfied the Marc Lepine protesters. FTA Lawyer

I thought we went through this a few times already. But to use your word, I think it is "misguided" to tar every member of a group with the same brush (that is assuming valid corruption even exists). How about let's wait for Gomery to do his job. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fair enough.

How does it impact lower income people more than the rich? Lower income people spend proportionately more of their income on food and rent, which are GST exempt. At any rate, the thread debating the merits of the GST should be easy enough to find if one wishes to review the arguments made there. Business pays no GST.... The wealthy can portray a large percentage of their expenditures as business expenses, and hence pay no GST on it.... The middle and lower income earners do not have the convenient vehicles of tax avoidance provided to the rich. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Businesses pay GST, If you collect more GST than you pay out, you pay GST! This write off dream you have is not that easy. The government has learned to stick it to businesses, just not their big business buddies! That will all come crashing down, now that these large Ontario firms cannot sink all their cash they used to into support for the Liberals, in return for some good sponsorship dollars!!!! Try getting some facts before you put it in print!! I know that is a tough stretch for one of "your" kind! You could go to work for the Toronto star! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, actually.... The net GST that a business has to remit to the Feds is money collected from customers...they're the ones "paying" it, the business just forwards it on to Ottawa. In theory, as the business collects the GST, it puts it aside into a trust account and from that balance, the business deducts all of the GST that has been spent on business expenditures. If there is a net positive balance it's sent in...net negative and the Feds cut a cheque to the business. Hate to slap you in the face on this one Leader Circle, but if the shoe fits... That being said, you certainly do not need to be wealthy to start a business and take advantage of this "tax avoidance" as it has been called. Every middle-income sole proprieter can buy things through his or her business if they can reasonably be considered business expenses...so this argument makes little sense. Further, consider what the GST is on a $20 million Bombardier jet? If a wealthy guy buys one for his personal use, he's just kicked in $1.4 million into the public purse. Hard to convince this guy it's a regressive tax... FTA Lawyer

No, the problem is that there are as yet no parties that can gain greater support than a party that is alledgedly "utterly corrupt." What does that tell you? Perhaps there is something wrong with Harper or his party, in the minds of the elctorate? Sorry. Canadians just don't see the NCC as a desirable government for Canada, even given the alternatives. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you Trudeau, this is what I have been trying to convey. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I won't argue that Harper is charismatic and outwardly approachable...he isn't. But frankly his biggest problem is that he is intelligent and Canadian voters don't want intelligence...they want smoke blown up their collective asses as hard and as fast as it can be blown. And when you try to be intelligent in front of a television camera and say anything of substance...you look bad, because the guy spouting mindless puffery and rhetoric gets a way better "sound-bite". As a result, Harper has been raked over the coals for articles he wrote while running the NCC...on no intelligent basis mind you...but on the surgical removal of select quotes out of context combined with solid fear-mongering. For all the people who say the Liberals want to stay Canadian and the Conservatives want to make us more like the U.S., consider the campaign style put forth by the Liberals with things like their website: http://www.stephenharpersaid.ca Now, I know, the CPC responded in kind with a site of their own, and it is equally as embarrassing...I don't want to sidetrack this thread on whose got worse campaign tactics... But to continue with my point on quotes attributed to Harper...if anyone actually took the time to READ his articles, they would see he's not nearly as 'scary' as so many Liberals would have you believe. What his articles demonstrate is simply a person who favours more Provincial control rather than Federal dominance. When he wrote the infamous "Alberta Firewall" comments, he was lobbying the Alberta government to take steps to prevent a repeat of the NEP...and even Paul Martin strongly states what a mistake that was. In one of the quoted articles, Harper criticises the stifling effects of an overbearing national government on the ability of the Provinces to prosper. The Liberal party pulls a two-line quote about Canada being content to be second-rate and spins that as meaning that Harper hates Canada. Of course, the firewall quote is equally out of context...and Liberals say it means that Harper is a seperatist in sheep's clothing. But consider this quote which comes later on in one of Harper's letters: "...we should not mimic Quebec by lunging from rejection into the arms of an argument about separation. As that province has shown, separation will simply divide our population in a symbolic debate while, still part of the country, it isolates us from any allies. Separation will become a real issue the day the federal government decides to make it one. Neither should Albertans shun federal politics, but we must carefully guard our interests. Much about the Canadian Alliance is worthy of support, and a large number of Canadians do support it. But the CA will be under considerable pressure to rid itself of any tinge of a Western agenda or Alberta control. This we must fight. If the Alliance is ever to become a party that could be lead by a Paul Martin or a Joe Clark, it must do so without us. We don't need a second Liberal party. Westerners, but especially Albertans, founded the Reform/Alliance to get "in" to Canada. The rest of the country has responded by telling us in no uncertain terms that we do not share their "Canadian values." Fine. Let us build a society on Alberta values." Let's see: 1)Don't argue Alberta should separate; 2)Don't alienate other provinces; 3)Don't shun federalism; 4)Continue to work at getting your views "in" to the national stage; 5)But don't compromise your values and your principles. Wow...that's bone-chilling craziness from a lunatic seperatist...better just stick with the guys who steal from us... The problem is, voters have to either take 1.3 minutes and read 4 paragraphs to actually see the message Harper is giving or just swallow the 2 second "soundbite" that Harper wants to build "firewalls" around Alberta and be misinformed. And the smoke up the asses gets thicker and thicker... FTA Lawyer

This is the problem with Canadian democracy... Our standard of living is so high that we don't even notice a few billion dollars disappearing here and there...and since we don't notice it, we conclude that we have little corruption... And since we have so little corruption, and our standard of living is so high, we conclude that it's really not possible to have less corruption than we do, so whatever corruption we do have is okay and doesn't enrage us. The perfect rationalization of apathy. Thank you Canadian government for being kind enough to steal so little of my money. FTA Lawyer <{POST_SNAPBACK}> FTA Lawyer, Someone mentioned to me at work the other day: "It is a small price to pay to vote Liberal to save this country from becoming more like the U.S." Yes, corruption means different things sto different people. Especially in Canada when the U.S. is involved... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not sure if you're being facetious...but it's clearly misguided to ignore corruption and vote Liberal just because you don't want to become more like the U.S. Vote Green Party or NDP...pretty un-American I would say. FTA Lawyer

eureka, Not to make you a scapegoat here but much of your post underscores our problem in the Canadian political landscape...everyone is so damn partisan, and refuses to actually analyse anything on its merits. In advocating for voting against a government that has demonstrated an incredible amount of corruption, I specifically stated to vote for whomever else you want; just not those who have just finished pillaging you right in front of your face! When a small "c" conservative (i.e. not a CPC member...just someone with conservative political ideas) criticizes the fact that a senior government minister could not really explain where a BILLION dollars had been spent you respond with something in the realm of - "Maybe so but 20 years ago some real bad stuff got done by you Mulrooney-lovers". Why can't we all agree, no matter who you want to vote for, that when a senior government minister, responsible for the spending of the BILLION dollars is at a loss for telling the House of Commons where it went, that this is BAD! Instead you say most of it was probably spent properly and maybe there was a numbers glitch!?!?!?! Why is it acceptable that a government tells the House they will spend 2 million on something and then spend several BILLION and don't even bother coming back to say "oh, by the way, there's been a bit of a change in circumstances"?!?!?! Quoting things that Stephen Harper said when he was employed by a group that's mandate was to protect Provincial rights over Federal intrusion is not a valid way of proving he's unfit to be Prime Minister. He was just doing his job at the time. I've argued a lot of positions on behalf of criminal clients because it is my job, not because I like criminals or the things that they do. Just ask Stockwell Day if it is valid to call a lawyer who acts for a pedophile someone who supports child-molestation. Saying "he's going to breach the Charter so he's no good for Canada" is stupidity...but it seems to work on the masses. Anyone who understands the Charter knows that it is a document which is internally designed to make it okay to breach itself!! AND, we (including Martin, who so gloriously proclaims how he will never violate it) breach it EVERY DAY in the furtherance of certain societal goals. If there are valid reasons to argue that one person or his or her party should or should not be voted for, let's discuss them. If all we want to do is puke rhetoric and sound-bites then lets all just go home and talk to ourselves in the mirror, because it has just as much utility. The system we seem to have right now, and dare I say because of viewpoints like you have put forth, is one of "try to be a bit better than the worst guy" so you can always make yourself look good. I'd rather us, as Canadians, hold any government accountable when it lies cheats and steals...and as I said before, the only way to do that is not vote for them...at least once! So I re-state my question...what will it take for "swing voters who traditionally vote Liberal" to actually NOT vote Liberal? (please note, I did not say "to actually vote Conservative"...just NOT Liberal) FTA Lawyer

This is the problem with Canadian democracy... Our standard of living is so high that we don't even notice a few billion dollars disappearing here and there...and since we don't notice it, we conclude that we have little corruption... And since we have so little corruption, and our standard of living is so high, we conclude that it's really not possible to have less corruption than we do, so whatever corruption we do have is okay and doesn't enrage us. The perfect rationalization of apathy. Thank you Canadian government for being kind enough to steal so little of my money. FTA Lawyer

I guess I'd say that 14th is a fail for a country that is supposed to be one of the leaders of the civilized world. With the way we trumpet ourselves as having such a reliable moral compass, standing proud behind our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being asked to go to developing nations to teach them how to establish policing and justice systems, being proud participants in the U.N. and so on, you'd think we'd be embarrassed to rank that low. I guess it's all a matter of where you choose to set the bar. FTA Lawyer