SkyHigh

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?

Atmosphere, an alternative hip hop duo from Minnesota, will be in Montreal this weekend. Melodic mc, intelligent thought provoking lyrics and imaginative musical beats. Definitely worth checking out

Born in Toronto, but luckily one of my foster parents (thanks to Harold Ballard) taught me the evils of the maple leafs, hahaha Roy's first year was also my first year playing goalie, we both one a championship (atom house league is almost the same as a Stanley cup, no?). Funny part since I've lived in Montreal, not so much a habs fan anymore. Montreal is not a hockey city but a team city( people know cousins +/- , but still don't know they took out the red line) Petty rivalries aside,that Matthews kid can play, i was surprised to see it was only his second hat trick

So wise! Though if I'm being honest the idea of "cold in winter" is so foreign to me as a Canadian, not sure I'll be able to wrap my head around his undoubtedly rigorous scientific methodology

Ok, I'll give you that one. As much as i may hate to admit it, I too await with bated breath

Of course, you do you That being said, if I may make an analogy. I'm 6'3 and would derive no pleasure from beating a little person at basketball

As I've said before in earlier discussions with you. Learn to argue without resorting exclusively to logical fallacies, and i may deem your incoherent rants worthy of retort.

Of course you don't take him seriously, you can at least form cohesive sentences ( which is impressive in it's own right for a leafs fan, hahaha) What i don't understand, is the entertainment value of one upping someone who's epistemology is that of a primary schooler. By engaging with such people are we not just feeding the beast? Should we not just let them wallow in their own ignorance?

Why do you bother with this fool? His writing style alone shows his extreme ignorance. Why engage with someone that is clearly incapable of rational dialogue?