bk59

It is upsetting to see immigrants not being encouraged to integrate into Canadian culture. Like when people try to exclude immigrants from the political process for no other reason than their place of birth.

What a perfect example of how it is not your birth place that matters, but how you act and what you believe. If I was to make the same generalizations that many here are making, then I would conclude that people born in Canada are not fit to serve as Prime Minister. When you find something that is actually applicable to Elizabeth May let us all know. Until then this is irrelevant. There are many, many more examples of foreign born Canadians contributing and helping their country, but why judge May by those standards when it won't accomplish your goal of excluding people from the political process. Your example lends no support to the idea that May is unfit to serve as Prime Minister because of her birthplace. All it shows is that some Canadians are unfit to serve as Prime Minister.

I'm comparing penalties within those two pieces of legislation. Perhaps you would like to explain why it is that a penalty found in federal legislation is acceptable, and the same penalty found in municipal by-laws is acceptable, but when found in provincial legislation it all of a sudden becomes unacceptable? Why would I stop pointing out a flaw in your argument when you still have yet to address it? The same principle regarding punishment applies to the Criminal Code as well as to provincial legislation. In fact, if anything, penalties under the Criminal Code would be monitored much more closely for illegality because of the higher profile nature of crimes and the fact that the Criminal Code is federal legislation. And yet, similar penalties have not been found illegal in the Criminal Code. The fact that a penalty has been imposed in no way affects the fairness of your trial. Does the fact that your car was impounded mean that the judge no longer looks at evidence? Does it mean that you aren't allowed to face the police officer in court? Absolutely not. What makes the trial unfair? How is it not fair? The same penalty (having your car impounded before a hearing) exists in all three types of legislation. If both the HTA and municipal by-laws result in no criminal conviction then why is it that the same penalty is unacceptable in one, but not the other? That's an interesting response. There are multiple provisions in the HTA that allow police to impound your car. You have chosen only one to complain about. And yet you find the fact that there are other identical penalties in the same piece of legislation irrelevant. You might need to rethink that one if you want your argument to even begin to make sense. Minor speeding. 50km/h over the limit is arguably not minor. We have different levels of punishment for different levels and types of infractions. This has been done for other infractions and these are legal. Those municipal parking by-laws come to mind. This law does not penalize speeding at "+1 over the limit". And this law also captures people who are racing at 20km/h over the speed limit. Those facts are not lost on me, they just are not proving anything. You mean like giving the person a ticket? That's not lost on me at all. What's lost on you is that the government can enact new measures if it feels the old ones are not working. That would still be enforcing a penalty before a hearing. I thought you were against such things. None of which changes the fact that in a traffic accident, or a traffic act of negligence if you prefer, excessive speed increases the chance that someone dies. And trying to avoid this is not a bad thing. So you want to impound a car that was destroyed? I was not aware that the police were impounding civilian cars after they were destroyed.

Guilt is determined by a court of law. This law in no way prevents someone from going to court, therefore it does not violate the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. Your issue is with the penalty. Which means you are really talking about an allegedly illegal seizure of property. Or having your car impounded could lead to you walking into a local convenience store, which could lead to you buying a lottery ticket, which could lead to you winning millions of dollars. Listing a bunch of things that might happen does not make any law or penalty illegal. Once again, excessive speeding greatly increases the likelihood that an accident will be fatal. It does not have to be the sole or even the primary cause of the accident to increase the chance of death. So if people have been driving at these speeds for over forty years and are still not slowing down isn't that a sign that the government should do something more to discourage this behaviour? You are working to get the numbers, but you say you've already seen them and they make no sense. So the question is, have you actually seen those numbers, and if so, where? Do you have any links to this MTO website? The language is not fuzzy. The section does not hold provinces to account, and in fact lets them off the hook when they wish to pass a law that infringes unjustifiably on a right or freedom. And, one more time, the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty has not been violated by this law. Most problems facing society are complex. A multi-pronged approach is preferable to any single attempt to solve the problem. So things like impaired driving require social solutions and legal sanctions. Not just one or the other. Either one on its own will not work. No thanks. If you want to sell your book you could try a bookstore.

I love the what if game! What if she were born in Antarctica and then we found out that there is a whole nation of Antarcticans who hate Canada and then Canada went to war with Antarctica? What if people on this forum were able to argue a point without making up ridiculous scenarios and then claiming that this proves their point?

I think Canadian voters will be able to judge whether or not a potential Prime Minister has values and feelings that they agree with. Your birthplace does not determine your values or your feelings. Probably because typical Americans live in the United States of America. They do not emigrate to Canada. People used to say the same thing about learning languages. Until they were proven 100% wrong. Children learn things faster than adults, but this does not mean adults are incapable of learning.

My aren't we quick to think the worst of others on this site. I did not dismiss your observations. I said your original crisis was a product of your imagination. Referring to your belief that because someone is born somewhere else this would present such a conflict of interest that they could not possibly serve Canada. You have not given a real reason to support why someone's place of birth should disqualify them. I then said that you responded to my questions by telling us about your day dreams. Which, if you read your post, is exactly what you did. Don't blame me for what you wrote. I did not say that you never saw flags from other countries. I said that I was not surprised that your response to my questions was "I was daydreaming". Maybe if you did not judge others so quickly you could see that nothing we have seen from May so far indicates that she is a secret US agent out to sabotage Canada.

This law does not deprive anyone of the right to be tried before a court and it does not deprive anyone of the right to cross-examine the police. It does impose a penalty before a trial. Then again, arresting someone is imposing a penalty before a trial, but that is not unconstitutional. Different laws allow the police to impound cars before a trial, and these laws are constitutional. Courts have found them constitutional. So simply saying that the law is unconstitutional because your car can be impounded before you get a trial is mistaken. You are confusing the power of the police to act within their authority when they believe a law has been broken with the power of the court to find someone guilty. When the police impound a car they do not "assert" the guilt of the accused any more than when they arrest someone. When someone is arrested they are detained, and this does not mean that they have been found guilty. Impounding your car does not mean that you have been found guilty by our justice system. The arbitrary detention argument is weak, mostly because it is not exactly arbitrary. The only way I see that this law could be unconstitutional if it was challenged on the grounds that it is mandatory for the police to seize the car. Courts have held that a law can constitutionally give the police the power to impound a car. The law must be reasonable and I think the case can be made that since excessive speed increases the chance of a fatal accident seizing a car to discourage excessive speeding is reasonable. The only part of the above argument that might carry weight is that courts have also said the seizure must be reasonable in the circumstances. But even then, it is not necessary to get a judge's approval before seizing the car, so that part of the argument is not correct. If police have no choice but to seize the car then it can be argued that the specific circumstances were never taken into account. But you have to understand what you are arguing. The law does not violate the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. The law does not deprive anyone of their day in court. At best, it might go slightly too far by making the seizure mandatory. A minimal change to make the seizure discretionary and the law probably becomes airtight. If it isn't already constitutional.

Don't worry about it. Since your original crisis was also a product of your imagination it is not surprising that you responded by telling us about your day dreams.

What is this "gut" feel for being a Canadian that you are referring to? Someone who grew to adulthood in Newfoundland will have a different "gut" feel for being a Canadian than someone who grew up in BC (or Montreal or rural Ontario or Calgary or the NWT or etc.). Canada has a culture, but that culture does not require that you be born within our borders in order to participate in and contribute to that culture. I happen to believe that Canadians are smart enough to look at a politician and see if he or she represents their views and vote accordingly. There is no need to protect Canadians from someone just because they were not born here. This is not a non-factor, but it is close enough that it really does not matter.

Why? What makes this penalty illegal? When the police arrest someone on a charge they are taken to jail, fingerprinted, etc. They still have a fair trial. Detaining someone who is charged is not considered illegal even if they are later found innocent. Physically detaining a person is worse than detaining only their car. There are also other situations where cars get impounded and those are not considered illegal. More on that below. You are correct, I could stop there. There is no right to drive. So the Charter is not violated by this penalty. Do you have any case names or links? The reasons in those cases might be informative. It should also be pointed out that just because a judge dismisses a case that does not mean the law is illegal. A case can be dismissed for numerous reasons. If a judge had found the law illegal then it would cease to be in effect. So my original point stands; no one has demonstrated that the law is illegal. Nice try. Cars can be impounded under drunk driving offences in the Criminal Code. Cars can be impounded under parking bylaws at the municipal level. So what makes provincial legislation different? What makes the provincial legislation illegal, but the other legislation legal? Simply saying "apples and oranges" does not show that a comparison is invalid, especially in this situation where both federal and municipal laws agree and you are trying to argue against a provincial law. This also does not change the fact that cars can also be impounded under provincial safety legislation. Is that penalty illegal? A police officer can pull you over and declare your car unfit to drive. So someone still must answer the question about whether or not all of those laws have somehow destroyed the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. You will have to convince people that those penalties are somehow illegal. No, it does not. Every time a police car pulls you over you are being detained. Does that mean you are considered guilty? (The answer is no.) Even if you were able to come up with a good argument why people are considered guilty when their car is impounded, that still does not make the law illegal. Since the Charter was brought up we can see that Section 1 of the Charter allows a government to justify some infringement of rights depending on the legislation. You would have to show that simply impounding a car goes too far in trying to accomplish the objective of reducing the number of people who drive at excessive speeds. I am doubtful that your argument would succeed at that. That is not the only reason. Excessive speed is also very easy to target. Sure, there are many other reasons for deaths on the highways. Like weather. Should police be investing their resources in weather control devices? Excessive speed is easy to detect and easy to stop. It does generate revenue, there is no question about that, but stopping excessive speeding is also one of the simplest ways to reduce the chance of fatal accidents.

Like it or not, the government has the right to define words in legislation. There is no legal requirement that the definition be updated in the Canadian Legal Dictionary first. In fact, it is the Canadian Legal Dictionary that is updated to reflect changes in legislation. That is not entirely true. Everyone still has the chance for a fair trial. Legislation has existed for some time that includes the concept of strict liability. This means that if you are caught doing the prohibited act, then you are liable. It is up to you at a trial to explain that you did everything you could to avoid the prohibited act. Or, in this case, explain why it was that you needed to go more than 50km/h over the speed limit. The process is called a trial, which means that the police are not the judge, jury and financial executioner. The police are not unsupervised. If you have any statistics showing that this power is being abused please post them, but, in the absence of actual evidence that police power is being abused, this argument is so far personal opinion. These two cases that you know of, were the people driving more than 50km/h over the speed limit? That is not how Section 33.1 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause, works. The notwithstanding clause does not make a law illegal. In fact, the notwithstanding clause can only take a law that would be illegal according to certain sections of the Charter and make it legal. Section 1 of the Charter requires that a government justify any law that infringes on the rights and freedoms in the Charter. That justification does not have to be included in the law itself. This type of explanation is required in a court when the law is challenged, but I am not aware that this legislation has been challenged. To challenge this law you have to show that a right or freedom is being infringed. Which right or freedom is being denied to drivers in Ontario? There is no right to drive more than 50km/h over the speed limit. If you can't show that a right has been infringed then you can't say that the law has violated the Charter. Look at what you just wrote. One statistic is for fatal traffic accidents, the other is for accidents in general. If you have the Ministry of Transportation statistics please link them. The data I have seen indicates that when looking at fatal traffic accidents speed is the dominant factor. Of course this is different than saying that it is the cause of the accident. Without excessive speed any accident will likely only cause minor injuries. However, if you add excessive speed to the mix, the accident is much more likely to cause death or severe injuries. It does not matter what the original cause of the accident was, if excessive speed is involved then the chance of death is higher. Reducing excessive speed is a valid objective for the government to pursue in light of these facts. Reduced speed means a reduced likelihood of fatal accidents. I think saving lives is a real incentive. Are speeding tickets in general cash grabs? A little bit. Would I like to go as fast as I want when driving? Sure. However, that does not eliminate the fact that there is a real concern with speeding and reducing excessive speeds on roadways is a good idea. You have not demonstrated in any way that the law is illegal. How was the process of passing this law illegal? How is any process associated with this law illegal? And finally, what civil right has been denied to you? Stopping people from driving at more than 50km/h over the speed limit in no way threatens the fabric of Canadian society. No one is being executed. What do you mean by the steering of prosecutors? Exactly. The faster you hit someone the more likely there will be death. This is a good reason to put penalties in place so that people do not speed excessively. There is nothing wrong with the police trying to prevent fatalities. Most people would consider this a good thing. Nothing about this law has changed the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty. Nothing about this law indicates that current and future legislation is about to be abused. When someone is found to be driving while drunk we impound their car. This is the same thing. Do you think we should be letting the drunk drive home while we set a trial date to determine innocence or guilt? Or do you think the police should prevent the drunk from driving home while we set a trial date to determine innocence or guilt? People who park illegally sometimes get their cars towed. Has this destroyed the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty? You may have a problem with the penalty imposed for driving 50km/h over the speed limit, but that does not mean that it violates the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

We have a federal party dedicated to breaking up the country. In the absence of any actual indication that May favours the US over Canada this is a non-issue.

Simply saying "this is software and protected as intellectual property" does not mean you get to do whatever you want. Just as Microsoft about their antitrust cases. This is not what the issue is about. Mechanics don't want to go reprogramming the car. We are not talking about programming code (i.e. programming language instructions), we are talking about diagnostic codes. I pointed this out above: all mechanics need is the file definition for the signal coming out of the car and a list of what the diagnostic code means (e.g. 100 = part X is bad, 200 = part Y is bad). The list doesn't even have to be electronic, it can be written on paper. So there is absolutely no chance of someone playing with the software inside the car and no chance of performance levels being compromised (aside from whatever the mechanic is doing to repair the car of course). Now the bill might be talking about forcing manufacturers to give their diagnostic programs to mechanics, but I think that would be wrong. Even though this still would not be giving mechanics the software code it would go too far in helping other businesses. For a right to repair all you need to do is give a file definition and a list of the diagnostic code meanings. Neither of those things needs to be in electronic form. Then people can go off and program their own diagnostic tools if they want. Exactly, these things depend on what is protected and why. Your example with the logo has nothing to do with this since that is trademark not copyright. Software is copyright. Or patents. Even if the file definition could be copyrighted (which is questionable) then you could justify giving the file definition to mechanics under competition laws. And again, a right to repair does not need to have anyone messing with computer chips. And many of those rights are legislated. So introducing a right to repair isn't that different than what has been done in many other cases. I am really not sure about this mini rant. How did street racing legislation deny you a right or destabilize all Ontario legislation? I guess I will check out that thread, but you may have to face the fact that all laws limit freedoms in some way. I am sure there are some people who would love to go get totally smashed and then jump in a car to drive home, but that is a freedom we happily take away from people.

That's not really a hidden agenda though. What politician does not want to lead a majority in Parliament? A hidden agenda generally refers to policy not to campaign tactics. Although if Harper is saying that he expects another minority then the next obvious question is, why is he thinking about calling an election if he does not think anything will change? I'm guessing he does think something will change, but realizes that Canadians don't like it when their politicians start talking about winning majorities.

Sorry, but that is complete BS. It's now sanctimonious to think that we should expect better from our politicians? Double standards may be part of the political scene right now, but Canadians deserve, and should expect, better both from their elected officials and from each other. This is why so many people get turned off of politics. Not only are politicians seen as useless, but their partisan supporters and their open willingness to throw rationality out the window also drives people away. Thinking we can all do better isn't sanctimony so much as it is optimism. And since the "fixed election date" has obviously not changed that practice in the least you can see why I consider the legislation impractical. I'm willing to bet that even in a majority the governing party won't stick to the fixed election date. There is nothing maybe about it. Harper is doing what he used to complain about and what he promised not to do. Incidentally, me committing to an election in October 2009 is the same as me committing to reaching the moon by October 2009 (i.e. irrelevant since I have no control over elections or space travel). I'm not the Governor General (yes I know, that will come as a surprise to many of you), nor do I control a political party. As I said before, even if I had a choice of date for an election it would be irrelevant to this discussion about Harper changing his position on fixed election dates.

Your Christian car example is not really analogous to an easement though. It is more analogous to a covenant that runs with land. That is, when someone sells land they could have you promise to not do something with that land (e.g. promise not to build a building over 30 feet tall). To my knowledge, if a buyer purchases the land without being told about the covenant then the new buyer is not held to that promise. If we were to answer your core question from above then you need to consider competition law as well. It overlaps with aspects of property and contract law perhaps, but it is unique enough that it deserves to be mentioned on its own. Look at the Microsoft example in the US. Microsoft was not allowed to tell users what they could do with the property they bought (the Windows OS), at least with respect to internet browsing software. Microsoft was not allowed to lock users into one particular browser.

And this is the part that I find so amusing. When another party, let's say the Liberals, change position like this there are certain people, including people here on this forum, who scream and moan about how they can't be trusted, how they are corrupt liars. But when Harper and the Conservatives do this the answer seems to be "no big deal, everyone does it" or "they're just being practical". How people rationalize the double standard is amazing. It definitely wasn't a bright thing to do, that we can agree on. There really was nothing practical at all about putting in a new fixed date when we already had a fixed date of five years. That is not why I posted here. I am disappointed that after all of Harper's talk about being open, accountable and transparent, about his desire to reduce the political maneuvering that surrounds election calls, in the end Harper is doing the exact same thing that he used to complain about. He's now thinking about calling an election because he thinks it is convenient. All his talk was just that - talk with no action. There was nothing evasive about my answer at all. But thank you for also proving the point I just made. To you, when Harper sees an advantage to reversing his position it is just "reality" and no big deal since everyone else does it. Tell me, is that how you feel about reversals from other parties? Harper committed to a fixed election date knowing and even publicly saying that the opposition parties could vote no confidence at any time. Nothing has changed in that respect. Your point above would be relevant if Harper had not already agreed to do exactly what you are saying he does not have to agree to do. Whether minority Parliaments are different or not does not matter. The complaint is that Harper agreed to this situation: fixed elections in a minority government. He has now changed his mind because it is politically convenient for him to do so. If fixed election dates are only relevant in a majority Parliament then you need to ask Harper why it was that he agreed to fixed dates irrespective of the type of Parliament.

One does not have to support or oppose fixed election dates in order to point out that Harper has reversed his position on this issue. What is ironic is that he has reversed his position because of political convenience which is what fixed election dates were supposed to help eliminate. What does it matter when I want an election? Will my choice of date somehow change history and make Harper's position in 2006 match his 2008 position?

2006: Harper committed to a fixed election date. Harper specifically acknowledged that an election could be triggered by a vote of no confidence. 2008: All of a sudden minority governments are "different" and Harper finds that fixed election dates no longer matter. When they talk about voting no confidence in the government the opposition parties are doing exactly what they are allowed to do, and they are doing exactly what Harper said they could do under his fixed election date legislation. Nothing that the opposition parties are doing changes the fact that Harper has reversed his position simply because he finds it politically convenient to do so. Which is what he claimed his fixed election date legislation was to prevent.

None of those Prime Ministers passed a law for fixed election dates. The issue is not whether or not a Prime Minister should have the right to force an election. The issue is that Harper gave up that right and now is flip flopping in order to get that right back. If he doesn't want a fixed election date then let him repeal his own law.

The answer to your question is very simple: Harper passed a law for fixed election dates that still allowed opposition parties to vote no confidence in the government. He is now making up reasons to get around that position so that he can force an election. Why is it that when he passed the law for fixed election dates there was no mention of a minority government being "different"? People on here seem to be arguing that it is OK for Harper to avoid the fixed date because the opposition parties might vote no confidence. But Harper himself has already shown that argument to be invalid by supporting fixed election dates while also saying that the opposition parties could vote no confidence. It was acceptable in 2006, but in 2008 Harper has found that position inconvenient.

Nothing I have said is either for or against fixed election dates. I am pointing out Harper's convenient flip flop and why I find that disappointing. Oh, I see. He thought better of it. With all the posts on here about Liberals promising one thing before an election and doing something else after, I did not realize that this could all be justified by saying "they thought better of it". This is a law that Harper passed two years ago. If he is thinking better of it then let him repeal the law. Otherwise his position is one of convenience, not a position of principle. The key there is opposition parties. Versus the Prime Minister. You will always need at least two parties to agree to bring down a minority government versus a Prime Minister who can always make that decision on his or her own. That is an advantage for the Prime Minister both in a majority and in a minority. This has nothing to do with any other person's, or party's, position. This is Harper reversing position when it is convenient for him to do so. He introduced fixed election dates knowing and admitting that a vote of no confidence could still cause an election. He still committed to a fixed election date. Except now he wants an election, so the fixed date goes out the window. Me? This has nothing to do with me. I'm not a member of Parliament. More importantly, a vote of no confidence was always allowed even under the fixed election date legislation. Harper even said so in 2006. Except that now you want to use that as a justification for Harper's reversal. Sorry, but if it was fine for Harper in 2006 why is it not fine now? (The answer: political convenience.)

This is not new territory. Harper passed this legislation in the current session of Parliament where he had a minority. Nothing has changed in the makeup of the Parliament since then. The only hypocritical position here is Harper's new position. He said he wanted fixed election dates and specifically said that elections could still happen if there was a vote of no confidence in the government. He left that option open to the opposition. That was in 2006. Now that position is inconvenient for him and so he is now saying that a minority government somehow changes things. It was a minority government in 2006, but he was all for fixed election dates then. But not in 2008. In 2006 he specifically said that the opposition could still vote no confidence, but now in 2008 that position has changed. The Prime Minister could call an election at his or her discretion whether it was a majority government or a minority government. If it is an unfair advantage, then it is an unfair advantage during both types of Parliaments. Having the entire opposition agree to vote no confidence versus the Prime Minister choosing to have an election is not exactly balanced. But even so, that is not the point. The point is that in 2006 Harper accepted fixed election dates in a minority government position and even allowed that no confidence votes would still trigger an election. Now, in 2008, he does not accept fixed election dates in a minority government. Nothing has changed with respect to no confidence votes. It may be true that things are different in a minority Parliament. But that is not my problem with Harper's new position. My problem with his new position is that in his previous position he accepted that there was nothing different in a minority government that would prevent fixed election dates. All of a sudden, when it is convenient to do so, he flip flops his position.

Everyone else represents a valid interest. The police do not represent any valid interest that is not already represented and they do represent an inappropriate interest (picking judges who are pro-police). My objection to police on the selection committees has nothing to do with sentencing across the country. You're the one who brought that up. I have no idea why you are confusing my position on that. And how does changing the makeup of the committee affect sentencing in a different region of the country? Do police in Alberta know more about sentencing in Newfoundland than the others on the Alberta committee? Here's a reason that sentencing may be different, and it has nothing to do with selecting judges. Different regions of the country have different wait times for trials. If someone is sitting in jail for longer before their trial then their post trial jail time will take that into account. So yes, the statement makes perfect sense. I said that the goal of the police is to put people in jail. This is different than saying that they have the sole power to put people in jail. Police investigate people and gather evidence with the ultimate goal of having that person found guilty and sentenced, usually to jail time. As I and others have pointed out, defense council and Crowns are both on these committees. There is balance between competing interests. You still haven't shown me what interests the police will represent that either aren't already represented or are simply inappropriate (i.e. picking judges that favour the police). I'm not saying the police will definitely be self-serving. But the worst case scenario is that everyone on the committee is self-serving. In which case now the committee is unbalanced and favours pro-police, pro-prosecution judges. Besides, you seem to think everyone on the committee is self-serving. According to you all the lawyers are just there to either get picked as a judge later or to look out for their clients. Given your ideas about the committees, why do you think the police would be different? Neither am I. I am pointing out the huge hole in your logic when you say that police should be on the committee just because they have an interest in who is a judge. Except I never said what you claimed I said. Nor am I simply anti-police, despite how you try to characterize my position. Yes, and you have yet to respond with anything that shows this one in eight argument is relevant. I know you don't like to read the posts so I'll just quote it for you: As a further example, you would not accept the argument that prisoners serving jail time should be on the committee and it would not matter because they would only be one voice out of nine. So why should we accept that police should be on the committee because they would only be one voice out of eight?