SkyHigh

Agreed, I wouldn't take any option off the table. In fact I don't even think that bringing employment opportunities to some of the smallest most remote communities would even be feasible. To go a step further, in many case asking them to adapt to the reality of the 21st century, in my opinion in no way is an affront to their culture or values. What is important is whatever solution we do find is done "with" them and not "to" them

Fire may be a little strong, but to disband the unions of non-essential workers and bring in a independent consultant, to evaluate what is needed, and to rearrange the public sector to be more merit based would definitely save us some money. Now this statement just shows an ignorance to the reality. I was fortunate enough to spend some time in the far north for work, My responsibilities involved participating in band councils and other meetings between different levels of government. Putting aside those that are corrupt or those simply of bad faith( on both sides) I can promise you they don't want "free money". From my perspective the phrase " the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind. Often we from "the south" ( I literally laughed the first time they refered to Edmonton as the south) try and do the right thing but are grossly misinformed about not only there needs but their way of life. I specifically had more than one conversation with people saying " I don't need another snowmobile, i need employment opportunities. You can't work 9-5 as you said if there's no jobs to be found. What we do is send money to ease our conscience without actually considering their reality. Money as we understand it doesn't hold the same weight up north

Thank you. I agree this thread has been much more informative than most ive seen in my short time here. When it comes to somthing as important as education, we should, and must be able to evaluate it without resorting to partisanship, the three R's don't belong to any party.

Agreed, that was just an example. On the other side of the spectrum there are gifted students falling through the cracks for the same underlying issues. I just thought your post was well said, and important enough to deserve to be expanded on.

Rabble?

My first posts were all a simple requests for any actual passages from the 1982 constitution, that supported your assertion that it took away parliamentary supremacy, or how it differed from previous constitutions or any other act that mentioned the judiciary, you have yet to do so, we'll get back to that soon After refusing to provide evidence i did direct a post specifically to you and the word "outlandish" may have been a little exaggerated and was admittedly intended to elicit a response but was in no way a personal attack. The rest of the post was a factual statement, you are someone who prefers to argue from partisanship, you proved that in your response by calling me lefty and anti conservative, when not only have i not eluded to my politics(or yours) on this issue, but in fact specifically mentioned partisanship on both sides. Thats a dick post? Seems you're just projecting again but the expression " truth hurts" does come to mind. On a side note I absolutely think we as a society need to be hyper vigilant to ensure that the judiciary branch stay in its assigned lane which is not to rewrite laws but to fil the gaps where necessary. Now back to the topic at hand like i said before all I want is you to show me where the 1982 constitution removes parliaments supremacy. You gave me a link that supports my argument, I'll go over it again The quote from the 1867 constitution, of course it only dealt with the jurisdiction of the two separate levels of sovereign government(parliament and provincial legislatures) that's still essentially all that the constitution deals with, nothing has changed. The court case, "only in some cases"? This is the proof you offered, I have no doubt that if researched i could find many examples of cases dealing with similar issues, again this is the evidence you put forward the burden of proof is on you. Now what has changed is the ratification of the charter, I put forth the notwithstanding clause, your response not on everything, so lets look at what isn't covered? Language and mobility. Let's start with Language, if bill 101 arguably one of the most comprehensive language protection laws on the planet, can pass and the only real objection from the courts revolved around the duration of time spent in private English school before an exemption can be granted, seems we're still functioning under parliamentary supremacy. As for mobility, the day the Supreme Court says that people from New Brunswick can no longer travel free throughout Canada I'll be the first one to storm the court, we can grab a beer in the market after. My hope is you will present a sound and valid argument, but maybe you'd be more comfortable trying to explain how my argument is based on "lefty ideology" and/or "expresses anti conservativism" I'll leave that to you

I think you hit the nail right on the head with this, the balance between making sure every child is equipped with the core priorities, while at the same time recognizing each childs potential difficulty, (whether they be academic or behavioral) in attaining the aforementioned goals. I have a "sister" (we spent time in a foster home together) who is currently an EA (education assistant) in Ontario and because they don't have as strong of a union as teachers are often the first to suffer, when in fact having someone in the classroom that can deal specifically with problem children elevates many of the distractions that limits teachers from teaching those very core priorities

First thing i found See specifically the third "Myth" their word not mine Common Myths About Abortion | Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights

Though no limits are set as to when abortions are still legal, Canada doesn't have the equipment to carry out late term abortions, and all such cases must go south of the border. Therefore this is a mute point

Putting a specific percentage number is difficult, as few people have the time or knowledge to go though each line item of a 300 some odd billion dollar budget. Though I most certainly agree we could get the equivalent( if not better) services at less cost, i feel that the amount of tax we pay is the wrong way to look at the problem. How the money is spent is. When i was younger and still lived paycheck to paycheck and was forced to budget i evaluated what i needed to spend to assure my basic needs were met and went from there, not immediately say where can i cut. This allowed me to figure out the real monthly costs for necessities, this is of course a micro example but I feel it would also apply in the macro

Rabble?

Though i was amused by the projection employed in your adhomenim, as adhomenims are widely regarded as the most "intellectually lazy" form of argument, and by your contention that an objective analysis of the law is somehow a leftist ideological bias, but honestly I expected no less. Now to the crux of the argument I will forgo any comment on the author's opinion as they themself concede that "these are issues of discussion that have not yet be resolved", and focus on the facts. You contended that the constitution of 1982 stripped parliament of their supremacy, yet the link you gave me references the 1867 constitution and states " the judicial branch can and must restrict the authority of parliament" seems they've always been able to check parliament. Also in the link you gave me there was a specific reference to a court case Canada vs Bedford where it is clearly stated " parliament maintains the ability to respond at the legislative level to an unfavorable judicial interpretation, again in direct contradiction to your claim. Obviously anyone with even a passing understanding of the law, will freely admit that ratifying the charter into the constitution, did alter the mechanisms employed by each branch of government but did not alter the roles of said branches, but more relevant to the discussion is the section of the aforementioned charter which is the Notwithstanding clause, who's entire point is to protect parliamentary supremacy. See that is how an intelligent, reasoned person makes an argument, i didn't need to attack you personally or revert to partisan assumptions, still curious as to how anything ive said has "expressed disdain for conservative views", do you view everything through the prism of right or left? Do you see how that can just confirm conformation bias and lead to faulty conclusions? I hope to receive a thoughtful, measured, fact based response, but fear you will just return with another rant laced with fallacies and partisanship.

Still waiting on why legitimate grievances can't be handled through provincial labour boards.

I find it telling that when asked to give specific examples of an outlandish claim you made, you instead chose to continue in partisan conversations where no actual proof is needed to support your erroneous assertions. You seem to be able to provide numerous examples to support your obvious conformation bias over many issues, yet a simple question asking for a fact that should be easily demonstrable, nothing. Granted you do seem to fit the archetype of the majority of the people on this site, more concerned about doubling down on your presuppositions (this being true on both sides of the political spectrum) than an actual earnest search for truth. Am i wrong? Simply provide any evidence that the role of the courts was in any way altered or amended in the constitution act of 1982. Let's just say I won't be holding my breath

Legitimate grievances can be adjudicated by means of provincial labour boards, why not strengthen those instead of paying dues to union management, who live high off the hog of your labour and rarely if ever provide suposed "shareholders" with dividends? I worked in event production and can tell you the excess in union gatherings was unparalleled by most

Please explain, as the 1982 constitution does not change the role of the judiciary, in fact does not even mention the Supreme Court. The BNA speaks to the different branches of government, but in fact it's the Supreme Court act of 1875 thats the closest thing to enshrining the "constitutionality" of the courts power. But please show me the 1982 amendment that redefines the role of the courts

Though at their origins unions were a necessity due to the lack of codified laws protecting workers(child labour, safety conditions etc.) today is a different story. Certain professions that are necessary to society, that most citzens can't, or won't do ( nurses, firefighters, social workers, peace officers etc....) will always need some sort of unifying body, to assure they are compensated justly for their efforts, and a guarantee that services will be maintained at high standards for every citizen from coast to coast to coast. Now for the rest, many union leaders live lavish lifestyles well beyond the means of the workers they represent and supposedly "work to protect", not much different than the patronage they claim to fight against. Today all the energy wasted on "I want more" disguised as an organized labour movement, would be better spent on strengthening and solidify labour laws for all An argument could easily be made that in today's economy "Unions" often impede progress and not advance it. The textile industry in Montreal being a great example.

Other than slight changes made to judicial advisory committee's, how does it differ from the rules established in 1867?

Other than assuming full responsibility for our own parliament, how does the 1982 constitution differ from the path set forward from the paris treaty through to the Quebec act?

Definitely true, we love to golf. Now most of us have had a couple concussions before we start golfing. Coincidence? Who knows?

If there isn't a puck/ball that needs to go in a net, it's beyond my comprehension. Heck, shot three rounds of golf before I figured out I was looking for a hole in the ground.

Agreed, citizens United just codified it in law

How could it not, when it's expressed in a syllogistic form that would put Aristotle to shame

Cricket confuses me , you want to score runs, but runs don't matter if you hit wickets?. I have seen some amazing highlight catches on TSN though

You've picked a great time to get into the game, the NHL has, and is making a concerted effort to evolve the game to highlight the skill and speed that only hockey can provide (I admittedly may have some bias as I played hockey at a pretty high level) For those of us that grew up as hockey fans, rivalries and history most definitely influence our "fandom" but are not necessary to enjoy the game. I was taught to hate the leafs, but if im being honest, they're a young exciting team that are a lot of fun to watch. I've never heard of rounders, is there a professional league i could check out?