sideshow

So nothing positive came of the Liberals *scary* *scary* *scary* campaigns in 1997, 2000 and 2004? I'd agree with that. The only good things Chretien did was in his first term.... I guess that is a matter of perspective. When the liberals increase the EI availability for maternity/paternity leave from 6 months to 12 months, it had a direct effect on me and my family. That was an awesome benefit for us. When the conservatives alloted 100 dollars per month for each child under 6 for child care (or cost recovery with one parent working less as is the case for my wife and I-weve never used daycare) it benefited us directly. That was also an awesome benefit. I personally think that all of the parties have something great to add to the fabric of this country. They all have great ideas and crummy ideas-its just a matter of finding the balance. I love the current situation in government-a conservative minority, an ndp that can make/break them, a fairly strong liberal opposition, and a completely different perspective by the quebec party. i think it makes for good politics to have all of these various views keeping one another in check, yet allowing things to slowly get done (as is currently the case). But i still dont think the conservatives (or the other parties for that matter) should be attacking eachother the way they do. They should concentrate more on their own strengths rather than their opponents weaknesses. Because at the end of the day, these parliamentarians all want the same thing(well maybe not the bloc)-a prosperous Canada for everyone, truly affordable, accessible healthcare, education, etc. in a safe, law abiding society. So why not give Dion a chance? Just like Harper, hes been in parliament for awhile, is a bit stiff, but is still a respectable man that deserves respect for his achievements.

These ads are tacky. Everyone should give Dion a chance-just like Harper should be given a chance. I think the Conservatives denigrated themselves by pursuing this format to push their agenda. Positives don't come from negatives.

This is the official Government of Canada INFO page on the NAU: http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/index.htm That was a joke by the way but seriously, the Canadian-U.S. border is not going to just disappear. Integration between our countries will occur because we are so culturally alike. I agree, much like the integration between the two monotheistic religious states of Palestine and Israel that have so much in common, yet so much difference.

I am actually quite impressed with Dion. I think it will be an interesting election next time with Dion vs. Harper. Both men have interesting directions and are showing themselves to be competent leaders. Congratulations to both of them for reaching out to everyone in their respective parties.

I know lots of people with university degrees that make half as much as i do. And don't like their employment as much as I do either. Not to knock university or anything. In fact, I will encourage my children to get a degree once they they graduate. But I think that working a few hard labour jobs will be good for building their character. As well, I think the university is a stepping stone, not the be all end all to gaining fulfilling, economically viable employment. Its simply one piece of the puzzle.

so far this poll looks like the last election (and dare i say the next one?). lol!

Touche my friend. I was merely having some fun. All joking aside, I really do have respect for our defence lawyers. It is a tough job. No question about it. I just hate to see police officers maligned in any way either. Because like it or not, as much as the public likes to blast lawyers and police, who do you think are the first people they call when they have trouble?

FTA, You are correct in the assertion that there is a difference in providing the charter right and reading it to the accused. Of course you provide the charter right at the station-but once again, defence lawyers WILL argue the point (rightly or wrongly) of timely access to a lawyer (sorry my friend, it does happen all the time). My point was that BOTH issues are argued by defence lawyers. As for administering the tech device, yes it is simple, but without the FORMAL training, defence lawyers use that lack of training as an in to push for charges being booted. And Calgary (and alberta) ( is not the only place in the country. In my city, I can tell you that it is NOT the case that most officers have official training in screening devices. So its a bit of apples and oranges. As for going through the drivethru with a prisoner in the back. That is simply an inflamatory remark that does nothing to enhance the quality of the conversation here. Has it happened? I cant say. But Ive never seen it. And unlike in court my friend, this conversation is not about "winning". it is about defining the truth.

Actually FTA you are mistaken. Once an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is impaired, they are arrested. Which then the charter kicks in and the accused has the right to contact counsel. The officer at this point is NOT at the station-or for that matter, many many times, not at a checkstop station. So the issue of 'providing counsel' is still an issue. The accused is under arrest. To provide the charter right to counsel is not always immediately available. And THIS is the issue that is used by defence (in many cases) as to a reason why their clients rights were violated, and thus should have the charge tossed. Meaning that the defence argues what is a "reasonable" amount of time to contact counsel. The 'reasonableness' is what results in the tossing of charges. Sometimes the amount IS unreasonable, and sometimes not. Sometimes it is simply not articulated in court properly by the officer. Nevertheless, making the assertion that the right to counsel is given in the station-ludicrous. Any officer will tell you that a delay will be challenged. And lets face it. Most of simply talk to legal aid, are told not to give a statement, comply with the demand (so as not to lose their vehicle for twice as long), and go on their merry way. And then, when all of the cards are dealt, the lawyer can look at the evidence a year later and pick apart the officers conduct so as to let the alledged (dare I say criminal?) impaired driver argue his charter rights were violated. Keep in mind FTA that to administer the breath test, the cruiser car will have to have an approved screening device, and the officer will have to be an approved tester. In most cases (other than traffic division cars of course) this is not the case. Most officers dont have the training or the equipment on board. So excepting for the roadside enforcement checkstops, the day to day traffic stops (which are the vast majority) simply do not play out in your scenario.

FTA and others, The issue of providing an opportunity to contact counsel is not quite so cut and dry. Consider logistics. You are on a highway, not near a telephone. How would you give the accused an opportunity at this point to contact counsel? If you have a check stop set up, you need to get the sample. For safety reasons, you dont let an accused used the car cell phone (could be used as a weapon). So to transport to the station, and allow to use a phone, then you run the risk of having the accused sober up enough prior to administering the test. And then when attempting to articulate in court the effects of alcohol wearing off, and still attempting to get a conviction based on an under .08 (at the time of testing), you run a huge risk of a stay. Meanwhile the drunk driver gets off for drinking and driving. The charter provides for an accused to have a "reasonable opportunity" to contact counsel. This is determined (unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at it) many times on a case by case basis. So what is reasonable in one case is unreasonable in another. There is also the issue of people unable (or dare i say faking?) to provide a breath sample and must be transported to the hospital for a blood sample. You still arrest, charge, provide charter, all that fun stuff, and then at the hospital (if safe) provide them with counsel. But once again, it is hard to do without a safe, protected (for the accused, the officers, and the public) environment. It really is a matter of perspective. It IS the police officers duty to provide the charter rights. But logistically, it is MUCH more complicated than simply giving a guy a phone and letting him/her make a call. Anyhoo, probably best to agree to disagree on some of the finer points. I do see FTA's argument, and I am one of those that believe that the Charter is an excellent piece of legislation (though it makes an officers job harder) that protects the individual from the state. Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Well............. Rather than attacking Police Officers as "dumb-ass cop (s)", perhaps reflecting on the realities of the situation might shed some light on the issue of Charter breaches. While a lawyer defending (or prosecuting) an accused has the luxury of looking at the facts with a fine tooth comb AFTER the fact (hindsight IS 20/20 ); and while a lawyer has the ability to scrutinize the actions of the Police Officer while seated in the safety of their office, with reference material, and time at hand, a Police Officer is afforded no such luxury. A Police Officer is required to make split second decisions, and perform while in a (possibly) hostile environment. A Police Officers life is at risk while making their decision, while providing an accused with their 10 a and b Charter Rights, and sometimes (all of the time?) a Police Officer will worry more about the safety of the Public, their partner, and themselves rather than (and perhaps unfortunately so) getting all of their ducks in order. A Police Officers actions are scrutinized by their peers, the courts, the public, their superior officers, and the media. When was the last time a lawyers name was published for a mistake that they made in court? A Police Officer is responsible for being physically capable to handle the situation, and at the same time, is required to be thinking about the possible court case that MAY occur years down the road. Perhaps if more education was provided to the Police Officers, more support by the courts was provided to the Police Officers (Maybe Harper is trying to do this?), more resources were allocated to the Police Officers, then there would not be as many Charter Rights issues. I would never presume to denigrate the position/career of another without having walked in their shoes. Our Charter case law specifically deals with allowing police much leeway on the basis that they amke decisions under pressure and often where safety is an unknown at the time. In my example, we are talking about a person who is already arrested and being brought to a bus or a police station to blow into the breathalyser (not the little road-side tester...the actual machine). There is absolutely no pressure, no safety issues, and the officers have checklists and all kinds of other reference material available to them at the time. In today's day and age, there is absolutely no excuse for an officer to not let an accused call a lawyer before blowing...but it still happens regularly. And when cases like this get tossed in court...everyone wants to say it's because of a crooked defence lawyer. If you would prefer I use the term incompetent instead of "dumb-ass", I'll oblige...but these types of "injustices" are 100% fault of the police. FTA Well sir, I can see by your comment that you do not fully understand the trials and tribulations that Police Officers face. Issues such as: hidden weapons (yes they do get missed in a search-a razor is hard to find), an accused that doesnt speak english (or fakes it ), an accused that requires medical attention (or fakes it;)), and so on and so on. There is pressure, there are safety issues, and if the Police Officer is not assigned to the traffic division, they may be dealing with an impaired driving arrest every couple of years. This leaves them open to making mistakes (technicalities?) that can result in a stay. And sir, if you read my response, I at no time refer to defence lawyers as "crooked". In fact, I believe defence lawyers (and prosecutors while on the subject) are an integral and important part of the justice system. And like Police Officers, they are just doing the job that they signed up for. So please dont say that police are 100% at fault for cases getting tossed. Attorneys do their job, just as Police do theirs. Everyone makes mistakes. It is simply easier for the attorney to look at things in the light of day and to follow the procedure from beginning to end without having the "pressures" of the street breathing down their necks.

Maybe its that Harper is only newly in his position and is still attempting to get his feet wet? I think any person, from any party has a HUGE learning curve, regardless of their past portfolio. Running a Country cannot be an easy thing. I think Harper should be given a chance. And in case anyone feels that I am a righty; I supported the NDP last election.

You have evidence that Manitoba has a poor record of prosecuting drunk driving and taking away people's cars for blowing over or refusing? No, no evidence. And i wasnt infering that i did. I was simply stating that it is hard to get an Impaired conviction-which is true in every province as the CCC is a federal statute. There are lots of t's to cross and i''s to dot and things are very technical. Nothing more, nothing less.

In Manitoba, they prosecute. There is no tougher legislation in the country. Cops here don't take the breathalyser. Even if they don't though, they are guilty. The law finds you guilty of you don't submit to the test. And they can lose their jobs because of that. Well thats a blanket statement that I would challenge. Impaired Driving convictions are some of the hardest to get. There are many variables. And the truth of the matter is, if you provide a sample and are under .08 you lose vehicle for 30 days. you are twice that, you lose vehicle for 60 days. you refuse to provide, you automatically lose vehicle for 60 days. so what would you do? manitoba provincial act (not CCC) provides a limit of .05. sets the bar a bit higher than the CCC.

In most cases yes. Huh? So they are under fire while reading a suspect's rights? I would think that subduing the suspect comes first, then placing the cuffs on them. Then reading them their rights once things are under control. If the guy is running around with a machine gun taking potshots and emptying clips at kids while the officer is making the 'split second decision' of letting him call his lawyer or not at the precinct I would wonder what level of insanity has set in. When they lose a case or get disbarred. And, all they have to do is follow their training, and, once the suspect is subdued, read them their rights and allow the tester to do his or her job in the safety of the administrative area or station. Like what in this case? Armed cops pull car over, unarmed guy is suspected of being under the influence and they give him roadside test. Tests positive and they place him in car, bring him to station (while not taking fire from RPGs) and allow him a call to lawyer. Then give him test with lawyer present. I thought this scenario, (which happens all the time) out as I typed. As a varience, I will put in the suspect is shooting people and the cops pull him over after throwing out a spike belt and wounding him to stop him. They subdue him and then, placing him in the back of the car, take him to the hospital where things are much calmer and safety to the public is a given where he is treated and a court appointed lawyer is present while he is given a test. When a lawyer can beat them in court I would suppose that they did because they were under stress while the proceedings were taking place or, we can presume that maybe the officer did something wrong at some point ie: used too much force during the apprehension or, did not carry out the proper administrative steps after things calmed down. Well things are not so black and white my friend. Just because a suspect is handcuffed, or "subdued" the danger is not gone. Bystanders attack officers, friends of the accused, unseen assailants on floor of back seat, or in trunk, cars driving by that get mesmerized by the lights and hit officers. Even after a search, you would be surprised how often weapons are found on a person. They are much easier to conceal than you think. And with HIV, TB, HEP C and other illnesses born by body fluids, the act of "reading the rights" is still a dangerous proposition when you get people spitting at you, pissing themselves, etc., and you are required to subdue or keep them subdued while providing them with charter. (Try getting someone in a car that doesnt want to go-not so easy;) Providing a suspect with their charter at the station is fine-but it will still be challenged as to why the charter wasnt administered on the spot. ("Constable, can you articulate to the court why you did not provide my client with timely access to his charter rights.") Lawyers do not "beat them" (read-cops) in court. Officers enforce the law. Lawyers argue it. Prosecutors push for a conviction, Defence lawyers push for the opposite. There should not be antagonism between lawyers and police. Two very different jobs, both technical, both part of the justice system. It really should not be an adversarial relationship. And it shouldnt be taken personal.

Well............. Rather than attacking Police Officers as "dumb-ass cop (s)", perhaps reflecting on the realities of the situation might shed some light on the issue of Charter breaches. While a lawyer defending (or prosecuting) an accused has the luxury of looking at the facts with a fine tooth comb AFTER the fact (hindsight IS 20/20 ); and while a lawyer has the ability to scrutinize the actions of the Police Officer while seated in the safety of their office, with reference material, and time at hand, a Police Officer is afforded no such luxury. A Police Officer is required to make split second decisions, and perform while in a (possibly) hostile environment. A Police Officers life is at risk while making their decision, while providing an accused with their 10 a and b Charter Rights, and sometimes (all of the time?) a Police Officer will worry more about the safety of the Public, their partner, and themselves rather than (and perhaps unfortunately so) getting all of their ducks in order. A Police Officers actions are scrutinized by their peers, the courts, the public, their superior officers, and the media. When was the last time a lawyers name was published for a mistake that they made in court? A Police Officer is responsible for being physically capable to handle the situation, and at the same time, is required to be thinking about the possible court case that MAY occur years down the road. Perhaps if more education was provided to the Police Officers, more support by the courts was provided to the Police Officers (Maybe Harper is trying to do this?), more resources were allocated to the Police Officers, then there would not be as many Charter Rights issues. I would never presume to denigrate the position/career of another without having walked in their shoes.

Well............. Rather than attacking Police Officers as "dumb-ass cop (s)", perhaps reflecting on the realities of the situation might shed some light on the issue of Charter breaches. While a lawyer defending (or prosecuting) an accused has the luxury of looking at the facts with a fine tooth comb AFTER the fact (hindsight IS 20/20 ); and while a lawyer has the ability to scrutinize the actions of the Police Officer while seated in the safety of their office, with reference material, and time at hand, a Police Officer is afforded no such luxury. A Police Officer is required to make split second decisions, and perform while in a (possibly) hostile environment. A Police Officers life is at risk while making their decision, while providing an accused with their 10 a and b Charter Rights, and sometimes (all of the time?) a Police Officer will worry more about the safety of the Public, their partner, and themselves rather than (and perhaps unfortunately so) getting all of their ducks in order. A Police Officers actions are scrutinized by their peers, the courts, the public, their superior officers, and the media. When was the last time a lawyers name was published for a mistake that they made in court? A Police Officer is responsible for being physically capable to handle the situation, and at the same time, is required to be thinking about the possible court case that MAY occur years down the road. Perhaps if more education was provided to the Police Officers, more support by the courts was provided to the Police Officers (Maybe Harper is trying to do this?), more resources were allocated to the Police Officers, then there would not be as many Charter Rights issues. I would never presume to denigrate the position/career of another without having walked in their shoes.

November 11 is already a provincial holiday in Manitoba. The malls open at 1:00 pm today...................................

Not only is the idea stupid but given the current labour market, this proposal is vaguely ridiculous. Unemployment is the lowest it has been in 30 years and in all likelihood it will just fall further.BTW, federal minimum wage regulations affect a very small number of people in Canada. Interesting concept. Reduce employers costs by not having them do the paperwork for lower paid workers, and raise the income of the employees by them not having to pay into these programs. Setting a threashold (whatever that may be) as a starting point for collecting? hmmmmm. and the costs saved by employers could also be equally split between profits, and perhaps even untaxable benefits such as dental, drug plans, etc. could be a win win situation for everyone.

Does anyone else believe that this should be a National Holiday? I think that everything should close down and we should respect those that sacrificed their lives for our freedom. Veterans fought for justice, and in my opinion not closing stores is a disgraceful act of consumerism that denigrates their memory. I believe that the political will exists to move in this direction. Lets all salute those that came before us.

I'm 34 next week. I'm told (often) I look about 25. And I present myself to others as someone older than my years.

This is great. I really hope this legislation passes. Drugs are an evil that are eating up our children and we need every possible available tool to help law enforcement reduce the use of them. The ends justifies the means in this case.

Conservatives ALWAYS score lower with women: here, in the states, in the UK, everywhere. Conservatives are generally known as a hard-nosed bean counters interested in solid, economical, efficient government. That's not the most appealing thing to women compared to the soothing, touchie-feelie, love the children, money for everyone big-daddy-will-watch-over-you mentality of the left wing parties. Well I couldnt agree more. Who the hell gave them the power to vote anyways? We should revert to a society like in Mad Max-the strong survive, no taxes, every man for himself. You hit the nail on the head with that last post.

Well i dont support the Conservatives, but really, this whole thing is blown out of proportion. McKay made an offhand stupid remark-big friggin deal. Everyone pulls a boner now and again-it shows the guy is just human like the rest of us. If i had a nickel for every dumb thing ive heard members of ALL the political parties say, i would buy mexico and retire.

geoffery, i am not totally opposed to a flat tax-but i would have to see more information before making a decision. i do believe a personal exemption from tax (i beleive it is currently around 8k) would be a great thing (lets say the original 25k-but it could be 20 or 30). i pay more tax than others, but i dont mind. i feel i have the ability to pay, so i should support those that are less able. my standard of living is good. i eat what i want, buy a few toys here and there, have a home that fits all my needs and drive nice vehicles. i never worry about being able to pay the bills, and i dont mind helping out so that others dont need to worry about paying theirs. thats what is great about Canada-we are more about helping eachother than many, many other countries.