Boydfish

You must not have been flying WestJet. When I've flown with them, they treat the french like the joke that it is. The last time, the cheif steward, as he plunked the tape in, asked that if there is a french speaker on board, could they please confirm that he's putting the right tape in? Everybody laughed. There simply isn't a french presence in BC, so trying to pretend there is just makes the french look foolish out here.

Hey, you never know, they're only saying that they'd drop the bilingual requirement. Knowing Canadians, you'd probably try and be the only airline in the world that doesn't operate in English.

Actually, what Harper supported, in specific, was to stand shoulder to should with our allies. That's it. We didn't send troops to Vietnam, but we sure supported the US in that war. We supported without deploying a single soldier, instead we beefed up our deployments intop other areas. We strengthened our warfighting capacity and deployed elsewhere in the global war against communism. What Harper was putting forward was that we should stand with our proven friends like the UK, Australia and the US, not climb into bed with France. What the Canadian media will not admit is that Harper never said "send troops", he just said "support". There is a big difference. Harper knows that the Liberals have hobbled the CF to the point that deploying a warfighting brigade to British Columbia is beyond the CF's capability, let alone one to Iraq.

The article skips over a few key facts: First, BC's economy isn't shrinking, it's growing. The problem is that the areas that it's growing in are "grey" and "black" market areas. The Canadian government is ripping it's hair out trying to get British Columbians to do things like pay the GST; the lack of compliance in BC for Canadian taxation is staggering. As well, marijuana is still the largest cash crop in BC. If you factored in the economic production of that industry, BC makes up the measly $135 to pass Quebec, vaults past Ontario and gets Alberta looking over it's shoulder. Second, Quebec having 3 million more people and several billion dollars in annual aid packages from the confederation to end up at the same level as BC is literally nothing to be proud of. Third, you're extrapolating a great deal from one aspect of the picture.

My suggestion on electoral reform for the Canadian's confederation would be part of the reform of the Senate into a EEE Senate. Each province's senators would be elected in the same way as the House of Commons, every four years. The difference would be that each person's vote would be retractable. In basic terms, it means that a person can "un-vote", or retract, their vote for their senator anytime during the term. This retraction could be via signed letter or even via an on-line format. Once "retracted", the vote is withdrawn from the total that the elected senator got. A person cannot retract and then return their vote; it's a one way deal. If the sitting senator's total support drops below the next highest vote getter's total in the previous election, the seat is declared vacant and a by-election is held. The idea is that it would prevent senators from having radical reversals, either sudden or slowly, from continuing to serve in a capacity that the people did not want. The average voter is only going to make this effort when there is good reason to do so. For example, if the senator suddenly changed parties(Like happened in Richmond's seat in the HoC, where Joe Peschi-dill-hole betrayed British Columbians by abandoning the Alliance and joining the Canadian Liberals), the voters could easily "reclaim" their vote and support. The key point of maintaining long term stability is also there: The senators would be able to make long term plans, but not ones that are not supported by those who elected them.

Prince Charles graduated from the Royal Marine Commando Basic Training Course, the longest and toughest basic training course in any NATO infantry force. Before you claim "Yeah, like they'd fail him", you'll note that his brother failed the same course. Your perceptions about how "hard" the royal's lives are seem to be poorly researched and even more poorly expressed. Charles was a Marine Commando Officer and Andrew was a Royal Navy aviator who fought in the Falklands. You ever done the Royal Marine basic course? Think you would even make it past day one? You ever fought a war? On top of that, they get to have every detail and aspect of their lives examined and re-examined by everybody and their dog. When their grandmother died, did they get to have a quiet ceremony and just grieve? Nope, they had to share their day of mourning with the entire planet. And french canadians cannot understand that the Crown is a vital and important symbol for others. Correction, you don't.

Um, these are Canadian Liberals running in BC: A "win" is when they get double digit vote totals. These five have simply been designated losers by the simple fact that they're Canadian Liberals. It doesn't matter if the parachuted candidates lose or the ones picked by the riding association lose. The reason that Martin is doing this is to create some justification for why Dosanjh is given a Senate seat(Then he counts as a "Liberal" senate seat rather than an "NDP")and also lets him distribute more lolly to the parachuted candidates.

Economic freedom, as I'd define it, is an extention of your overall freedom. The problem is that Canada is drifting more and more in to a socialist republic, which demands that the ruling elite dictates to the masses. The Canadians believe that the job of the government is to run the lives of the provinces and people's of their confederation. Economic freedom comes from being able to generate wealth with the least degree of collective community interference. That interference can range from absolute law to you getting pelted with eggs by the community, but in the end, it's the same thing. The important thing to remember is that too much economic freedom isn't a good thing either: Bilking little old ladies of their life savings ain't cool and we as a community should have safeguards against such practices. Finding that balance ain't easy, especially in a confederation of vastly different nations. As I noted before, British Columbia, as a Pacific Rim nation is culturally more receptive to a vastly more "economically free" environment than Canadians, whose primary cultural reference is to European socialism with a high degree of government involvement. I've often suggested that BC should assert it's tax collection from CCRA, mainly so that we could adopt a taxation format closer to the typical Asian model, especially as it pertains to income tax. Taiwan's tax system is absolutely brilliant. It works pretty much like the Canadian system, except with one real big difference: The higher your gross annual income, the lower your tax rate(The reverse of what we have). The logic is excellent: A person is rewarded for working and producing more, not less. As well, "hiding" income becomes counter-productive, as you want that lower rate.

Yawn. Another Ontario/Quebec issue attempting to be made out as a "national" issue. This story isn't even page Q52 fodder on this side of the Rockies.

Since the overwhelming majority of criminal activity is done by young people, no matter how inefficient or inconvienent it is for people under 40, they should be locked up in camps under heavy police guard high in the mountains. Surely you must agree? Oddly, I've been to homicide scenes where the murder weapon is a knife. Or a rock. Or a pizza oven. Or their bare hands. Having a gun doesn't make you suddenly want to kill somebody: You first want to kill somebody, then you pick a tool to do it. If the police demand the right to unreasonably search you because "They're the experts", then are you willing to give up that right too? That's not hyperbole, by the way: VPD's spokesperson stated that unless the police were not allowed to overlook people's rights in searching people with no cause, the police would not "permit" large public gatherings like the Symphony of Fire.

Maplesyrup, Ontario and Quebec will accept it when it's put to them in terms they can grasp: EEE Senate or we walk from your dumbass confederation. We're either in as full partners all the way in your confederation or we're out of your confederation. (We're far closer to this out in BC and Alberta than the Canadians care to imagine.)

Pellaken, I'm not sure that there is much point to a Senate that is based even partly on population. The House of Commons is supposed to be based on the populations of the provinces. If both are going to be based on population, why bother having two of them? Trying to reform "just" the Canadian Senate is kind of pointless, unless it's taken as part of an overall reform of the entire Parliament. My suggestion would that the House of Commons would be based strictly on population, perhaps with an effective and unmodified ratio of 1 MP for every 150,000 people in that province? We'll be nice and round up, so that we end up with slightly more, than slightly less representation. That would give us a House of Commons that looks like this: NF&L: 4 PEI: 1 NS: 7 NB: 6(Almost 5, but rounding up gets the 6th seat) QB: 51 ON: 81 MB: 8 SK: 7 AB: 22 BC: 28 YK: 1 NWT: 1 NV: 1 Total: 218 seats, down from over 300. Think of how much cash we'd save just in eliminating those seats. The enabling legislation would also link the addition or subtraction of seats on a preset format. I'd suggest that every "zero" year(Thus once a decade), the population levels are compared to the seat totals and the required adjustments made. The Senate would then be made up of 3 Senators from each province, regardless of size and one from each territory. This would make all of them equal, but with the overall population still having it's due say in the House of Commons. It would then total a Senate of 33 Senators. As you noted, putting the selection of the senators as part of the provincial mandate makes sense, but I'd go one step further: Each province should have it's own method for selecting it's senators. This actually makes sense if you stop and consider it: Canadians are comfortable with appointed senators, but British Columbians and Albertans find it inappropriate. There is no reason that Ontario and Quebec could not continue having their 3 senators appointed by whatever mechanism they want, with other provinces holding their own elections in whatever format they choose. The last area, that of an "effective" Senate is one that causes the most concern for Canadians. If it is there to create equality between the nations of the confederation, if it is then given actual "effective" powers, you'd see Ontario and Quebec no longer able to dictate to the rest of the confederation: They'd have to have policies supported by the majority of provinces rather than what works best for them. That scares the crap out of the Canadians. No longer would they simply say "It works in Toronto and Montreal, so we'll do it. It doesn't matter if the rest of the confederation hates it, as long as the Canadians are happy, screw the rest.".

It makes sense to be part of it. I'm actually shocked that the Canadians are going to, partly because it makes sense, partly because Canada or Canadians aren't really threatened by rogue states ICBMs. The only part of the Canadian confederation under threat would be BC from DPRK missiles, but the Canadians have an almost instinctive desire to completely abandon any pretence of defending BC. Who'd have thunk it? The Canadian Liberals seem to be close to making a smart move in regards to BC. Of course, that makes them 1 for 9,384,792,784,572,872, but I guess it's a start.

Hey, cool! I still qualify for instant Estonian citizenship(My dad was born there and our family was forced to flee as a result of the Soviet invasion). If the Canadians continue to screw around with BC, it'll become a more and more attractive option. That aside, it's not a fair comparison due to many factors, with two biggies: The first is cultural, the Canadians would never permit a Asian style attitude to government. That's why Canadians never understand BC. We're a Pacific Rim nation and Canada is a franco-socialist one. BC could handle a government that was as hands-off as Hong Kong; you Canadians would go nuts. The second reason is that Estonia is a pretty small country with a very unified national identity. The Canadian confederation on the other hand, is essentially 10 very different nations spread over a large land mass. Without a strong, centralized government attempting to dominate all ten nations of the Canadian confederation, the whole confederation would fly apart. Estonia can afford to be relaxed about it because they are a single unified nation.

Sorry Communist Boy, but Canadians haven't been very big on giving people choices for a long time, pretty much since Newfoundland & Labrador first rejected joining the Canadian confederation(The Canadians never seem to understand that the idea of being ruled by Ottawa and forced to bow to the wishes of Toronto just ain't that appealing.). That's why BC was never given a referendum on joining, despite having rejected the "pro" party in the previous election. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were created by buying up British territories and then constituted out of those territories. Trudeau never put his Charter to the polls because he knew that it would fail to pass, just as Meech and Charlottetown failed to pass. On to the rest... I don't think that the government should be seeking to solve it's financial problems by targeting any industry, really. I also think that an income based scale isn't really going to fly: I'm not telling the kid at A&B Sound how much I make to buy my daughter the latest Britney Spears album. On the legal/moral issues surrounding it, yes, it's unfortunate that modern technology has rendered the idea of a mega-rich rock superstar somewhat obsolete, but that's technology. We don't tax recording artists to compensate/subsidise live performances. The world and technology have moved on, sorry, to paraphrase the old song, get a real haircut and get a real job. Aside from the difficulties of getting elected in Canada on the above point(Do you think Ontario or Quebec will happily vote themselves out of the dominant position?), you need to understand that being elected by a region does not give you "control" of that region. You don't get elected to be a dictator, you get elected by figuring out what people want, then promising and delivering that to them. I think that you've fallen into the trap of parroting to some degree. The CF certainly needs more funding, but more importantly, how they spend the funds they get needs overhaul before pumping in more funding. Because of excessive political interference and policies aimed at supporting a socialist agenda, very little of each dollar spent in the CF is actually spent on warfighting capability. I think that even your intentions are suspect in this. "Increase production of essential goods" in the Maritimes(I'm assuming you're referring to the Atlantic provinces)? I hate to break this to you, but the confederation pretty much produces raw materials, which means that unless you want to suck oil out of Alberta, trees out of BC and wheat out of Saskatchewan and ship it for free to the Atlantic provinces so they can re-sell it for a profit, you're not going to have much luck with this idea. The government shouldn't try to run the economy or "force" development in any area: Encourage it certainly, remove obstacles to development, but the government isn't supposed to try and do that. That's why the arguement that senior civil servants and deputy ministers should be paid like CEOs in order to "attract the best and brightest" is a folly: I don't want the best and brightest writing policy manuals on what colour ties are appropriate for middle managers in the civil service, I want the best and brightest to go into the private sector, start, run and grow massive corporate empires and provide employment and by extention, a tax base, for the nation. As the Clarity Act doesn't apply to BC(Since we entered on an act of our Legislature, our entry and continued membership in the Canadian confederation is at the will of the Legislature. If it has the power to bring us in, it has the power to remove us, period.), I don't really care about it. I don't think that it keeps Quebec in Canada, as Quebec is simply put, Canada(Hence it's original name "Lower Canada"). What keeps Quebec in the Canadian confederation is the ~10 billion dollars it takes to make it semi-viable as a province. They wouldn't leave if we offered to throw them out. By the way, small usage correction for you, the word you're looking for is "rift", not "riff". What exactly does "provincial status" give them that they don't already have? They would not get any more seats in the Canadian Parliament, they don't have the population. The Canadians abhor the idea of a EEE Senate(Mainly because it would make the Canadians merely two provinces in the confederation rather than the masters of it.), so that's not going to change either. Not a bad idea per se, but you'd have to be very careful with this. You don't just create a new tax to fund infrastructure, you need to project what your revenue needs are for the items you're suggesting, then project revenues from the tax, taking into account economic loss created by the taxation. You'd need to adopt an overall taxation package to figure out the feasibility of this plan. Why does the government still need to be involved with marriage? Avoid the hassle, dump government involvement with it and avoid pissing off either side of the equation. There are no more legal, moral, taxation or society restrictions on being wed or unwed in any circumstance, so why not just turn it over churches? Done deal. Unenforceable. If I finish a cigarette, then walk into the hospital, I can answer honestly that I just "quit". Of course, I quit smoking over two years ago, so if you draw a line somewhere, does that mean I have to pay anyhow? As well, I hate to point this out to you, but Health Care is not in the purview of the Canadian government. Despite a constitutional prohibition on it, they continue to interfere, but that doesn't make it right. I'd keep your hands off the bond system, it works, it's harmless and it's a good tool for teaching people to save their money. The GST can no more be used as you describe than can any other tax: All of them go into the General Revenue Fund are then are distributed. I'd suggest that you don't know enough to dink around with national economies(Don't feel bad, neither do I.). Unworkable and you'd find dead Canadian soldiers and cops mailed back to Canada from Saskatchewan and points west. The current system is collapsing and you want to throw good money after bad? At best, you'd trigger a civil war and at worst you'd trigger another world war. If you make the senate elected, but essentially still weighted by population, you've got a redundant Parliament. It needs to be equal by province, not region(Albertans can no more represent British Columbia than could a Canadian.). Having the Ethics commissioner report to Parliament is really not going to help: The ruling party would listen, nod, smile and do nothing. Overall I realize that you're a little young and this is probably a first attempt, so don't feel bad that it really didn't do too well. You need to try and develop policy based on what your end goal is, rather than try to develop policy on what you and a small percentage of Atlantic Canadians might like. You also need to gain some understanding of areas outside of your areas of experience, which, granted, is pretty much everything. Rework it and try again!

The problems with trying to reform the Canadian confederation's lack of overall democratic process are pretty complex. The Canadians, fearful of being treated as just two provinces among ten, rather than the current exalted position they hold, are wary of ever giving that up. The Canadians are a funny bunch, in many ways: They claim that their policies are "for the best" and "The envy of the world", but become terrified if asked to put them to the test. They claim that french is a vital, growing and vibrant lingustic community in all parts of the confederation, but then spend billions trying to convince people to speak it. Shouldn't people already be speaking it if that were the case? Canadians also get right offended if you try and point out to them that the myth of "Two Solitudes" has more holes in it than the belief that a giant UFO was in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet. Only a Canadian can claim that the other eight provinces are "just like Ontario" and that everybody in those provinces are "uniform Canadian" in thought, belief, culture and national identity, then state that the people in those provinces can't be trusted because "they're not like us". The Canadians will never permit a EEE Senate because it would mean that they'd have to start convincing the other eight provinces of the value of their policies. Unlike now, where the Canadians simply have to consider how their choices will play in Ontario and Quebec, they'd have to start acting with all aspects considered. Reform of the Canadian confederation is impossible, that's why it will likely fall apart in the next 5-10 years. We should try to save it, I suppose, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

I think that until all of the details are in, it'll be hard to make a full judgement as to what happened. I don't agree with PM Campbell's choice not to return to BC when it happened: The political fallout of this will hurt him badly. First, being in Hawaii simply is too much of a political hotbutton based on recent history, so he needs to forget ever visiting Hawaii again while he's PM. Second, the real damage being done to the BC Liberals and PM Campbell himself is that the media is having a heyday painting all kinds of connections between the Canadian Liberals and the BC Liberals. The only reason that the BC Liberal party has formed a government, heck the only reason that they were even able to form the Loyal Opposition is that the official mantra of the BC Liberals for years has been "We're not connected to the Canadian Liberal party". On paper they're not connected, but every party has members that sit on different parts of the political sliding scale: The bulk of BC Liberals and their supporters sit just to the right of George Bush. There are a few people that sit closer to the "centre", who were among the people now under investigation. If PM Campbell doesn't take very public and very active steps to "clean out the temple" of Canadian Liberals, he may well get tossed himself.

No, but that doesn't mean that we can't at least make a reasonable attempt at self-protection. First, let's look at two comparible countries to the Canadian confederation: Australia and Great Britain. Both share a common level of culture and technological expertise. Neither have even remotely similar resource wealth, especially Great Britain. Australia has ~20 million citizens and Great Britain ~60 million. Both expose a very troubling aspect of the CF's capabilities. Great Britain Great Britain currently operates the second largest naval force in the world, with three light aircraft carriers and an amphibious assault ship, with dozens of escorts. They also maintain effective nuclear deterrence patrol subs and an effective nuclear powered sub fleet. They maintain a regular strength land force of three complete combat divisions, all of which can be deployed due to an effective Territorial Army system that is tasked solely for domestic defence. This land force is further augmented by a complete Royal Marine Brigade and the 16 Air Assault Brigade. The capstone formation, the unrivaled Special Air Service, is the benchmark that other Special Forces are measured against. The Royal Air Force has been drawn down a bit lower than the other services, but still mounts a credible force in it's Tornadoes and Jaguars. They can mount expeditionary air warfare, which puts them a great deal further ahead than most air forces. All branches of Her Majesty's forces are professionals, with no conscripted forces in any branch. In broad comparison, if we look at raw numbers, the CF should be able to deploy: Land A complete heavy combat division, along with a reinforced brigade group. What the CF has:In an emergency, the CF could deploy a single combat brigade, with no replacement equipment. A pair of self contained and self deploying battlegroups, one specialized in amphibious assault and one in air assault. What the CF has:Neither. No capability to deploy or even train either. A complete division for defence of the confederation alone, fully equipped and self-supporting. What the CF has:The CF reserves are unable to scratch up a single composite battalion. A complete special forces squadron of ~200 troops with global reach. What the CF has:A dubious SF group that has blown millions reinventing the wheel, when a branch of the CSAS, with proven training and doctrine was freely available to the CF. It was turned down to avoid offending the cheese eating surrender monkey element in Canada. Naval One light aircraft carrier and one amphibous assault ship. What the CF has:None. At least six nuclear powered attack subs. What the CF has:Four diesel boats that cannot self-deploy to war zones. Escort forces able to fight and win anywhere in the world. What the CF has:16 ships, with few actually deployable due to manpower shortages. A fleet auxillary force that can sustain a single group anywhere in the world. What the CF has:Essentially two support ships, both about to rust out. Air Force A domestic defensive air component that can "own" their entire airspace while deploying a small expeditionary air warfare group. What the CF has:No bombs and obsolete equipment. An airlift component that can lift and sustain an entire brigade of troops in under 15 days. What the CF has:They rent obsolete Russian transports for heavy lifting. The Australian example is even more interesting, as they have fewer people and fewer dollars, but have spent the money wiser, as they have focused on remaining a complete combat force, rather than simply buying what seemed politically expedient.

You aren't really serious in this, are you? The SCC, which is appointed by the government and can be tossed from existence by the same Parliament that you're seeking to limit, is supposed to be able to limit the same Parliament on whose their very existence hinges? If Parliament can pass an act in the morning, let's say called Being a Muslim is a crime Act, 2003, there is little to stop them from amending the SCA, 1985to include a provision that all SCC rulings can be overriden by a simple Order in Council. In other words, your Parliament is only limited as long as it wishes to be. Trudeau was simply the founder of the current political movement that wants to see our confederation of 10 equal nations replaced by a "Union of Franco-Socialist Republics". A big piece of that doctrine is the CCRF that you're defending so stridently. So they haven't come for you yet. It's easy to pretend that everything is OK when it's not you that is being persecuted.

39 Ministers + 26 Parliamentary Secretaries Let's see, the Canadian Constitution Act, as poorly written and implemented as it is, is still subject to the laws of basic math: Section 91 gives the confederal government roughly 29 seperate responsibilities. Granted, #2 is 2. and 2A, but #29 is a loosey-goosey catch-all of dubious origin. That means, that assuming that we need a Minister of Weights and Measures, the largest possible cabinet should have 29 seats. Any wonder why British Columbians barely noticed that the Canadians changed their PM on Friday? We don't take him or the Canadian government in general as a serious subject matter anymore.

I suggest you follow your own advice, or at least explain how a right can be "greater" or "lesser", since a right is something that you have or you don't: If it can be removed by the government arbitrarily, it's not a right, it's a privledge. Thus, if there is such a thing as common law rights, they are rights, just the same as the rights that the CCRF repeats. I have noted that all of you CCRF supporters have yet to cite a single right or freedom that was conferred to citizens of the confederation by the charter. Between April 16th and April 18th, 1982, what changed? What was I now free to do that I was not free to do before? You also are neatly ignoring that the CCRF has no included method of enforcing said rights, instead placing it's enforcement, thus where "the rubber meets the road" on rights, in the SCC, which has no constitutional protection or authority. That means that, in a fashion, the CCRF rights are "entrenched"(Really only because they do not introduce anything new, meaning that even if the Canadians repeal the CCRF, my common law rights continue unmolested), but they are empty and hollow words: There is no mechanism to sustain and protect the CCRF as they are applied. You are also ignoring that the SCC, which is essentially just a branch of the government of the day(Created, appointed and subject to replacement or dissolution by the government like any other act.), has demonstrated that they can "read in" whatever they see fit into the CCRF. If the SCC can modify the CCRF by addition of anything, what pray tell, limits them from reading into, as an example, something to Section 12 starting with "Except when..." or simply read in a declaration that all residents of Ontario and Quebec are distinct citizens of the confederation and superior to the lesser peoples of the other 8 provinces and territories? So, if the above is all untrue, why not just simply point to a line in the CCRF that proves me wrong? Or just tell me that the SCC really is in your constitution and that it's not enabled by the SCCA? Or that the SCC really didn't "read in" lines to your CCRF? Your silence speaks volumes....

I understand what "entrenchment" is, the simple fact is that the CCRF is not entrenched in any meaningful way. As for it's "superiority", hardly. The CCRF freely acknowledges that it is a partial list of rights, thus my rights under common law are equal and valid, not subordinate to the ones repeated in the CCRF. Except that the CBR and the CCRF were both passed by the same house in the exact same method. The CBR was passed as an individual act, the CCRF was passed as a sub-clause of an amendment to the BNA. There is no prohibition on the power of Parliament to amend, repeal or disband the CCRF in the exact same manner as any other act. What the franco-socialist republicans Trudeau has spawned need to understand is that the Westminster System is still the form of government in the confederation. What one Parliament vote enables, another undoes. The CBR is not the be all, end all itself either. It also repeats the exact same rights we had before it was written. The amendment formula for the constitution and the CCRF in specific are no more than guidelines for the Parliament to ignore at will. Nothing in the CCRF or the CCA/BNA says "Parliament isn't supreme any more". Since we have a lawful system of government under the Westminster model, that means that Parliament is still the boss, not some scrawling by a Canadian. Cite it. Show me where in your CCRF that it limits or otherwise modifies the supreme authority of Parliament. Obviously, rights are not absolute. It would make life impossible to live in the confederation. But as I've made clear time and time again, the CBR is simply one of a multitude of sources, primarily from common law from which we draw our rights. The CBR didn't introduce anything new either, BTW. No, the Parliament had it's authority limited in no way, shape or form. As well, since the Parliament can, even retroactively, disband, replace or modify the SCC, it is no more subject to review than it was before. Trudeau. OK, so if the SCC only exists by the will of Parliament, that means that it can be replaced just as easily. I'd suggest that there is no way around the fact that the CCRF is toothless and without effective enforcement abilities, "a law unenforced is no law at all".

But the Sharia court cannot enforce it's rulings, those must be enforced by the civil court enforcement order. It eliminates a step in the process, nothing more.

Sharia law does not trump any other law in the confederation, especially the courts. Nobody will be compelled to stand in front of them. Nobody. If they start rendering decisions that tend to be one sided, ex. always siding with the husband in divorce proceedings, then women will not use them. I think that you'll find that in order to survive in a modern society, an arbitrator must adopt the same expected degree of transparency as the courts, or people will simply not agree to use them. This will help clear a great deal of the backlog in civil courts, in my opinion. Thin end of what wedge? That people will be allowed to work out issues themselves? Without involving the courts directly? That means less of my money spent on it. Hurrah!

It has zero effect. The courts are able to now enforce arbitrations from the Sharia arbitrators, assuming that the person seeking remedy can prove that they have a valid agreement from the arbitrator. I'm going to make this a plainly clear as possible: The courts are not required to enforce the Sharia orders. The first big thing that must be clarified is that this only affects civil law. Criminal ain't even on the table with this. If Person "A" punches Person "B" in the nose and both agree to go to a Sharia court to determine civil damages and the arbitrator says "B, you slept with his sister out of wedlock, so it was justified", it just means that "B" won't have a big cheque at the end of it. It doesn't mean that Crown won't/can't charge and have "A" convicted, fined and possibly jailed for assault. If the "order" made by the Sharia court is not compatible with Common Law or Statute Law or even just being distasteful, then when they put it in front of the judge, the judge has the option of deeming the order "unenforceable". This entire issue is a tempest in a teapot.