bk59

There is no basis of support or evidence that these are incompetent or unknowledgeable legal practitioners. Just your opinion. As for ratings, there are directories of top rated lawyers in the country. So there is some way of making that determination. Yes, they are created by the legal community, but if you want to know who knows the law you are going to have to ask the legal community. There is even an argument that asking the legal community as a whole is better than a made up test written by a select few. Of course none of what you said really makes the case for adding police officers to the committee.

When a doctor is promoted to head of department, does he or she take a test? When an engineer or scientist applies for a promotion is there a test? When a police officer is promoted to police chief is there a test? When someone becomes a new police officer there is a test, but then again when someone becomes a new lawyer there is a test. So your analogy does not work for judges. In our society there are numerous examples of people taking on new responsibility where there is no test. The lack of a test does not mean that the people being given new responsibility are unqualified. I also think you misread my post. I made it clear that lawyers on the committee can look at an applicant's legal knowledge and experience. That in no way implies a test. That knowledge can easily be inferred from their resume, publications, etc.

Why should Harper let the opposition determine when they vote no confidence and force an election? Are you looking for a reason other than the fact that Harper said he was endorsing fixed election dates so that a Prime Minister wouldn't wait for an opportune time to call an election? So the answer simply is, Harper should wait for a vote of no confidence because he said that the only way there would be an election is if four years passed or there was a vote of no confidence. If he isn't going to stand by what he previously said just because it is no longer convenient then his promises mean nothing and he is no different from any other politician. People said this minority government wouldn't last a year. It did. The only way you know this session won't make it four years is if the opposition actually votes no confidence before those four years are up. Until that time it is just speculation. And not a good enough reason to go back on what you promised. And legislated. Incidentally, it is not called realism. It is called opportunism. He said he wouldn't call an election and now he appears to have reversed that position. Don't blame me just because he painted himself into a corner and now is trying to get out of it.

Adding to my list of things that disappoint me: Claiming to support fixed election dates and then saying that fixed election dates do not apply to minority governments when they want an election. It just seems a bit too convenient. Almost as if they were trying to gain partisan political advantage. Harper in 2006: Good thing they don't apply any more.

Does it really matter what term the parties use? We only have three viable, national parties in Canada. Generally speaking, when you put them on a spectrum the NDP are on the left, the Liberals are in the centre and the Conservatives are on the right. Arguing over who gets to use the term "Tory" and the validity of that term just takes away from what Canadians should be looking at - the actual policies of the parties. Voting for someone just because of the party name is, to put it delicately, really stupid. I'm not saying anyone here is doing that, but I find the discussion fairly academic. As a further disclaimer, an academic discussion isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm just not losing any sleep over the term Tory in a discussion thread entitled "Things about the Tory government which disappoint me." There are so many other more interesting (to me) issues that could be discussed here.

But no lawyer who wants to be a judge will be on these committees for the very simple reason that you can't apply to be a judge if you are on the judicial selection committee. Unless you have seen a very different selection criteria than I have. And I've already told you that there are other stakeholders in the justice system that are excluded as well so it can't be prejudice. You have also not shown what the police bring to the table unless they are there to pick pro-police judges. There are many reasons why this may be so, none of which have to do with the makeup of selection committees. Each region has its own committee. A BC committee selects BC judges. An Alberta committee selects Alberta judges. These committees have nothing to do with how judges in other areas of the country sentence criminals. Changing the makeup of the committees will not alter this fact. Unless you want a single national committee to select judges for the whole country, but I happen to think that is a bad idea. (No room for local input and needs, etc.) The Crown can't press charges unless the police have gathered evidence. The judge can't sentence someone unless the police and the Crown have brought them before the court. The judge can't sentence someone unless the police have gathered evidence. Obviously they do have some control. Someone they disregard as a suspect will never be brought before a Crown or a judge. Exactly. They do their best to create a case they can give to the prosecution to get a conviction so that the person goes to jail. The point of convicting people is to sentence them. For serious crimes that involves jail. I'm pretty sure the lawyers on the committee who look at an applicant's legal knowledge and experience are pursuing a goal that is in line with the goals of the judiciary. That is a judiciary that knows the law. QCs can be defense or Crown or non-criminal. The designation is irrelevant and has even been discontinued in places like Ontario. Defense counsel are balanced by Crowns. Again, there is nothing that shows that anyone previously on the committees were doing anything self-serving. And even if they were, they were balanced out by competing interests on the committee. The police do not have that balance. Of course convicted felons are stakeholders. Do they have an interest in who is a judge? Yes. Plain and simple. This is why you need a better reason for including police on the committee. Because I am not the one putting convicts and police on the same footing - you are. By giving a poor reason that applies to police and to convicts. And how did you reach that conclusion? I have already shown why that "one voice out of eight" argument does not hold water.

Your point does not follow logically from the statement that culture provides economic benefits. Just because small businesses contribute to the economy does not mean that we should get rid of all incentives for small businesses. Just because youth make up a particular percentage of the workforce does not mean that we should get rid of all incentives to hire younger workers just entering the workforce.

I don't see this issue as an intellectual property issue, I see it as a competition issue. Sure the market is good at regulating most things. However the market is not able to regulate an industry where the product is specifically engineered to favour the big players and to exclude all of the small players. Markets require choice. There is no choice if every product entering the market excludes all of the small players. The market we are looking at is one of vehicle repair. The car manufacturers are not a part of that market - please hold your objections for one second to see what I mean. The same parent company may oversee both aspects of the business (manufacturing and repair) and may also derive revenue from both aspects of the business, but we are still dealing with two different markets - manufacturing/selling vehicles versus repairing vehicles. Given the nature of manufacturing cars you only have a few big companies who can do this. Vehicle repair is totally different. Almost anyone can start a business in that market. So the manufacturers produce the product as one arm of the parent company's business. But currently they are producing their products in such a way that once the product enters the repair market, they have excluded everyone from competing for the business of the car owner except for the parent company's service department (a different arm of the parent company's business). It seems like pretty straightforward anti-competitive behaviour. To me anyway. The other reason I don't see this as much of an intellectual property issue is because I don't see the need to force the companies into giving away any of the software code inside the vehicle. You basically need two things to get the needed information: the interface (i.e. the "file type" definition that would let you read the repair codes) and an interpreter to tell you what the repair codes mean once you get them. There really is no reason to keep that information confidential unless you are trying to force people who are competing with a different area of your business out of business.

No actually. Not everyone in the justice system is involved in these committees. The immediate examples that spring to mind include prison guards, arbitrators and mediators, paralegals, some medical personnel, etc. Add CSIS to the list if you really want. The point is that the police were in no way specifically excluded in the past. As for lawyers, they bring something to the table that no one else can: the ability to evaluate the applicant's legal knowledge. Whether you like it or not, lawyers are necessary on these committees for that very reason. Not to mention the fact that lawyers represent all of the interests in the justice system and not just one interest. Your speculation that the lawyers on the committee all want to be judges has no basis in fact. That is your big reason for wanting police on the committee? "Give me a break." You'll have to do better than that. Why do you want police on the committee? Different sentences for similar crimes in different areas of the country is a valid concern. But it has absolutely nothing to do with wanting police on judicial selection committees. Of course the police have control over who goes to jail. It is not complete control, but no single element of the system has that complete control (not even a judge). Police do their best to create a case against an individual with one purpose in mind - putting that person in jail. This is what they are trying to do. They don't have the authority to find an individual guilty or sentence that individual, but they are trying to ensure that the jury and judge who do make those decisions makes the decision that the police want. That is their goal. It is not the same as the judge's goal. And I think it is inappropriate to have someone on the committee helping to select a judge based on a goal that has nothing to do with a judge's job. That is practically impossible. The number of people who would count as a stakeholder is enormous. Even poverty rights groups have a stake in the justice system. It also brings us back to the point about convicted felons. Even those convicts still serving time have a stake in the justice system. If you want to include police because they have a stake in the justice system then you have to accept that criminals also have a stake in the justice system. Or you need a better reason to include the police on the selection committee. I don't think that everyone on the committee is acting out of self-interest. But you seem to. You seem to think that everyone is there to look out for themselves except the police. As for the one voice out of eight argument, would you allow an immediate family member of an accused person to sit on that accused person's jury? Of course not. It would be inappropriate. Even though they are just one voice out of twelve. Given that judges do more than just sit on criminal trials I don't see why experience with the criminal justice system is a mandatory criteria. Even more to the point, you brought up the public interest earlier. Community members who sit on the committees for this reason can do so without being employed by the criminal justice system.

Your opinion and how things actually happen are not the same. Any basis for this particular comment? Any legal basis? Without looking up their names, can you even name all of the Supreme Court? Yup, and everyone from Alberta is a gun toting redneck. The police are more interested in eating doughnuts than catching criminals. Everyone from Newfoundland is dumb and lazy. Anyone connected to a university does not know what the real world looks like. Etc. etc. I guess it's just so much easier to stereotype than it is to put the effort into an argument. In most cases? That is a nice qualifier. And why is it that a convicted felon, one who has served his or her time, cannot represent the interests of society? In any case you missed the point. If the justification for allowing police on the committee is that they have an interest in the justice system then the exact same reason applies to criminals (those currently in the system as well as those who have done their time). If the reason isn't good enough to allow criminals on the committee then it isn't good enough to allow the police. And we already had people from the community on the committee to represent the interests of society.

You are saying police should be on the committee because they are police. That is not a good enough reason. The shortcomings of that logic become obvious when you use the same logic for convicted felons. Hence my example. Why is that a reason to have police on the committee? You must have a reason for wanting them there. What is it? You first claimed public interest. Except that there were already community members who represented the public interest. So why police? What interest do they represent if they are not there to select judges that are pro-police? Which is a good reason for them not being there. Judges must be impartial, they cannot favour one part of the system over another. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary and the police. The police are there to investigate and prevent crimes by building up evidence against criminals and trying to put them in jail. If they aren't trying to put criminals in jail, then what are they doing? The judiciary is not there to put people in jail. Judges are there to impartially run jury trials, impartially weigh evidence and determine guilt in non-jury trials, and impose sentences on those convicted of crimes. They are also there to run private law trials, resolve commercial disputes, family disputes, etc. At no time are they trying to put someone in jail. Someone may go to jail as a result of a finding of guilt, but that is not what the judge is trying to do. The police are trying to do that, not the judge. We don't need a voice on these committees dedicated solely to picking judges that favour police over other interests. I also have not seen an argument for what a police officer will add to the selection of judges who will be dealing with non-criminal matters.

"... will soon become arrogant"? I think you may have the wrong verb tense. Yes, there were those in the Liberal party who became arrogant and this probably came about because they were in power for so long. But I would say that the Conservative party, and particularly Harper, were arrogant from day one. Just maybe not in the same way. The way Harper has this hate relationship with the media, the way he runs his office and the Conservative MPs, they all look like someone who believes he knows better than everyone else. I particularly think his relationship with the media is unhealthy for Canadians. It certainly isn't what one would have expected from a party that promised to be open, transparent and accountable. Perhaps. I just think that if you are going to cut taxes, make the cut so that it either benefits everyone equally or benefits those with lower incomes more. Cutting the GST is most beneficial for those with large disposable incomes. An income tax cut would have helped those in the middle brackets more than the GST cut. If done properly of course. The UN isn't perfect, but why the need to dismantle it? How did we lose sovereignty when we joined the UN? The Security Council does have one way to put out binding resolutions, but I can only think of one instance where it was used right now (getting member states to pass money laundering legislation after September 11, 2001). I'm not sure that counts as losing sovereignty in the way it looks like you are saying we did. We are still free to enter into, or not enter into, whatever international agreements we choose.

Your point? Once someone has served their sentence and finished their parole they re-enter Canadian society. They are not second class citizens. If someone has realized their mistakes, served their time and is now a law abiding citizen then why is it that their interest in the justice system no longer counts? You need a better reason to include police than "they have an interest". Everyone has an interest in the judiciary. That does not mean that we appoint the CEO of Apotex to these committees just because Apotex has an interest in the judiciary. They already have representation in the same way that the police already had representation. The public interest was already represented by community representatives on the committees. In fact, these people had broader interests than the police representatives. So this reason also has nothing to do with the police. Why not have a spot for welders, or school teachers, or etc.? The police do not represent the public; people from the community do that. Finally, since you distrust everyone on the committees so much, why do you not think the police will be just as self-serving as everyone else? Judges that play favourites with the police are not in the public interest. Judges that are overly sympathetic to the police are not in the public interest.

The spending, for better or worse, will eventually take care of itself. No Conservative government will hold much weight with voters if it starts running deficits. Canadians saw what it took to get rid of the last deficit (whether you agree with those actions or not) and I don't think anyone will be eager to enter into that mess again. What is more worrying to me is the transparency and accountability of this government. It came in on promises of openness and immediately went into information control mode. It's hard to be transparent when even MPs are not allowed to speak without consulting the Prime Minister's Office. Accountability took a huge hit on day one when Emerson was appointed to the Cabinet and Fortier to the Cabinet and Senate. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. I felt pretty much the opposite about the GST cut. I would much rather have seen income tax cuts rather than a GST cut. I'm not sure North America is quite ready for that yet. With a relatively strong Canadian dollar I don't see people willing to give up their currency.

The reason you gave for including the police on these committees applies equally to convicted felons. They too have an interest in the judiciary. You need a better reason than that to include police on these committees. It might have the appearance of a club if you don't know the process. Or if you just assume that everyone involved in the process is acting out of self-interest. Of course if you believe that, then there is no reason to believe that the police would act any differently. So what input are they providing exactly? They are not legal experts so they cannot comment on the legal knowledge of the applicants. There are already representatives of the community on the committee. They are not generally familiar with private law matters. The only connection they have is to the criminal law, and in that respect the purpose of the police is to put people in jail. That is not an appropriate purpose when it comes to screening candidates for the judiciary.

Would you give a seat on the committee to a convicted felon? Convicts "have just as big a stake in the success of our legal system as the judiciary." The problem is that the police are there to put the accused person in jail. The judge is there to impartially run the trial, determine appropriate sentences and, in the case of a trial without a jury, impartially weigh the evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Having the police help pick judges gives the appearance that they are picking pro-police judges. Whether this happens or not, the appearance is damaging enough. After all, how would it look if we gave people serving prison terms a seat at the table? If one side gets to help pick judges, why not the other side too? Isn't the justice system supposed to be about fairness?

Wilber has been nothing but patronizing throughout this entire thread. I refrained from such rhetoric for most of it. But quite frankly his responses have become tiresome and I have no problem with treating him the same way he treats me and others. You will notice that I am not doing the same with other posters here. I wonder when you will tell Wilber to cut his crap. Fair is fair after all.

You must be acting this simple on purpose. Fine, let me hold your hand. Person A and person B buy identical cars. Idiot response number one dealt with. Of course it is taxing the emissions from the vehicle! But guess what? Vehicles don't just emit CO2 on their own. They must be driven in order to do that. By drivers. Now maybe you would like to admit that your idea does not tax emissions at all. Because under your plan the car and driver emitting more does not pay more for their CO2 than the car and driver emitting less CO2. They both pay the same upfront tax no matter how much they drive and no matter how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere. Therefore you are taxing the purchase of a particular car and not emissions. Here is the truly ironic thing about your last point that drivers don't emit CO2: vehicles don't emit CO2 either. A car sitting on the curb emits absolutely nothing. It is the burning of the fuel that emits CO2. And no matter how you burn it, whether it's in a diesel car or in a bucket, one litre of fuel will emit a certain amount of CO2 when burned. You continually confuse the technology used to burn the fuel with the actual burning of the fuel. You are literal when you want to be (it's the vehicle not the driver) and yet when the exact same logic applies to the rationale behind taxing the fuel itself (it's the fuel not the vehicle) you take the opposite point of view. Oh really? Where is it being snuck in? More and more of your objections are becoming made up. It is also the only new tax on a number of other things. Congratulations on only looking at one aspect of the plan. Except that it will. Except that you ignore the plan as a whole. You ignore the fact that your criticism is based on something that you yourself admit is currently impossible. A rebate on the car would encourage people to buy the technology. A carbon tax on the fuel would encourage them to use less fuel and hopefully drive less. These are two different goals, and they are not mutually exclusive. The only act of an idiot I see around here is the person criticizing a plan for not doing what the person has already admitted is impossible. Just like the supporters of any party care for their agenda and need the money of other people to carry it out. Welcome to a democracy. It's that simple. Not even remotely. Nice try on the mischaracterization. You are coming across as the guy who rejects every proposal simply because it comes from a political party. People need to engage in the debate and discuss how we should deal with this problem. My opposition to your reasons are that they are outright false (like the idea that there would be no incentive to switch to diesel if a carbon tax was implemented) or they just make no sense at all (like the fact that your opposition to the plan is based on something that you yourself admit is impossible to accomplish right now).

Do you have a link? I'd be interested in seeing that forum.

EDIT: For some reason my last post got put up twice. So I deleted this copy of it.

I have already done that. The point is to get people emitting less no matter what activity leads to those emissions. Now you tell me about your plan. You are the one saying how much you are doing for the environment. What is your plan to reduce emissions? You are acting like a child screaming "no no no". You do not offer alternatives, yet you claim that you are in favour of reducing emissions. A one time tax like you suggest may be a good way to place a disincentive on a particular technology like a higher emitting car. But it does not tax actual emissions. Let's say your tax is $1 for each kg of CO2 released per km. And let's say for vehicle X it comes out to $100. Both person A and person B buy the car. They both pay $100 for this tax. Person A then goes out and drives 100km. Person B drives 200km. Person B has emitted twice as much CO2 as person A, but they both paid the same tax. Therefore you are not taxing actual emissions. You are simply taxing a particular technology with a one time cost. You have this disconnect between emissions and carbon. If you wanted to tax the emissions you would have to know how much person A emitted and how much person B emitted. I suppose you could go to each of them and somehow directly measure their emissions, but there is an easier way. We know that one litre of gas will emit a certain amount of CO2. Just like we know one litre of diesel will emit a certain amount of CO2. If you tax the fuel based on those values, then you guarantee that person B pays for what person B actually emits. In driving twice as far as person A, person B will use twice as much fuel. Person B will therefore pay twice as much carbon tax than person A. Et voila. Person B has now paid for what person B actually emitted. You are right that person B would pay more for their fuel because they are consuming more. But current prices do not reflect emissions in any way. They only reflect the cost of the fuel. Actually I thought that the Green Plan does say that there will be no increase on the tax on gasoline over the four years. And yes, the Green Plan will do something to reduce passenger vehicle emissions. Not as much as you would like, and perhaps not as much as the environmentally ideal plan, but you have yet to give us your wisdom about how a political party can introduce a higher gas tax and still get elected so that they can put their plan into action. For example, I think it would be ideal if I got public healthcare and paid zero taxes. Unfortunately that is not possible. You have admitted that adding a higher tax to gasoline is not possible right now given the current attitudes of the Canadian public. So when you are criticizing the Green Plan because of this you are essentially complaining that the Liberal party is not doing the impossible. It is irrational and certainly not constructive. 1. The Green Shift does not tax diesel only. 2. The goal is not to only reduce passenger vehicle CO2 emissions. 3. Characterizing the plan in this way is flat out dishonest. I suggested promoting diesel with rebates on new vehicles. You objected. And have offered no alternatives that would make diesels more attractive for Canadians. To pull a page from your book, how do you know what I am doing? You said you bought a diesel. It's not hard to guess the cost of a diesel, particularly when you yourself posted some numbers. In terms of personal transportation I do know people spending more than that amount. As you yourself said, we were only talking about motor vehicles. I think it would actually be impossible for me to care less about your money. You are that guy, standing on the street corner yelling about how the government is stealing your money. FYI, the government is stealing everyone's money! It's called taxes. Almost all governments do this. And we all pay taxes. You are not special in this regard.

Yes, those are emissions reducing activities (to use your phrase). Neither is a plan that puts a price on emissions. Economists have generally recognized two ways to have the market take into account the true costs of emissions: an emissions tax and emissions trading. Having a patchwork of various programs, like funding public transit, is not enough because people will still not take into consideration the true cost of emissions. This is what I refer to when I say emissions reduction plan. An actual system for correcting a market failure, not a government spending program. There is still an advantage to using diesel as shown by actual math and not just rhetoric. Damn those pesky numbers. Not to mention the fact that no one here has suggested anything that would in any way increase the adoption of diesel vehicles over gas vehicles. Except when I said that I would support rebates on the purchase of diesel vehicles. (Because let's face it, the big cost obstacle to diesel is actually purchasing the car, not 7 cents per litre at the pump.) No, it's not. The emissions reduction program part is the carbon tax. The income tax reductions are what is needed to first ensure that there is no huge shock to the economy and second to help sell the program. Also, the proposed income tax cuts are greatest in the lower tax brackets. These cuts benefit lower income Canadians more than they benefit wealthy Canadians. As I've said, an emissions tax is one of the two ways economists have suggested for a comprehensive emissions reduction program. Neither an emission tax nor emissions trading can be used on its own, but without one of these two features it is highly doubtful that any reduction program would have any affect at all. As an example, you can add funding to public transit. But if people still think it is cheaper to drive then they will drive. There is a cost to emitting and any rationale program needs a way to bring that cost into the market. In other words, a tax or a trading plan. I guess it's easier to quote lyrics to kids songs than it is to propose a rational alternative to an emissions tax. If you don't like the Green Shift then what do you propose?

Except that it will encourage people to reduce their usage of the covered fuels thus helping to lower emissions. At some point all carbon dioxide emitting fuels must be covered at an equal rate. For any emissions reducing scheme that must happen at some point. As for the continual complaints about gas, it has been acknowledged here that no one will vote for any plan that increases the gas tax. So what are we left with? Do we choose a plan that will begin reducing some emissions or do we just say f*ck it, emit as you please? And then give it back in income tax cuts? It doesn't take a magician to explain that taxing something will help lower that something's consumption. It also doesn't take a magician to explain that an increase in expenses due to the carbon tax will be offset by income tax reductions. Aren't cities already getting a piece of the excise tax? I'm all for increased and improved public transit, but that is not an emissions reduction plan. Comparing that investment to a carbon tax is not even remotely apples to apples.

Nope. I am not telling people that the carbon tax is giving them an incentive to switch from gas to diesel. I am saying that there is already an incentive to switch from gas to diesel and the carbon tax does not eliminate that incentive. Don't bother because you realized that the question was irrelevant? Or don't bother because you just assume you know the answer? So switching to diesel is not your master plan. OK... so how exactly will you be accomplishing this goal then: Saying that vaporizing all cars in Canada with a laser based on the moon also illustrates that people without cars will lower emissions in comparison to what people are doing now. The illustration is as pointless as your example if you don't have a feasible goal to make that emissions reducing measure happen. So here's the question you continually refuse to address: you think that no one will vote for an increase on gas taxes. Yet, you basically refuse to accept any plan that does not increase gas taxes. So what gives? Or this could be exactly what I said it was: a four year plan to put in place a system that begins to tax all carbon dioxide emissions. So that at the end of the fourth year, and presumably after another election, the price on all carbon dioxide emitting fuels, including gas, can be raised/lowered/maintained at the same time. Incidentally, I did not say that "putting a small tax on diesel isn't going to do it because so few people use them." You're like a pretzel. You say you bought a diesel. I point out that others are doing more than that. You say, "How do you know, we are only talking about motor vehicles here." When I point out that I was referring to transportation, you now switch to everything that you have done in your life? Did you want to make up your mind? Motor vehicles or entire life? Why don't we start this again. You were acting the martyr because you bought a diesel. Well, good for you. But when it comes to personal transportation, others are doing more to reduce their emissions than simply buying a diesel. Not many mind you. But you don't get some special moral high ground because of the car you drive. Your definition of picking pockets is pretty screwed up.

I did not say that. You said a carbon tax means that there is no incentive to switch to diesel. I said that even with a carbon tax there would still be an incentive to switch. I then proved that with numbers. You show me how my owning a diesel makes any difference to this "discussion" and I will re-answer your question. Except that is not your master plan. What are you proposing that would get every person in Canada to switch to a diesel? I have heard nothing from you except "Liberals bad, Green Shift bad, carbon tax bad". That does not count as a plan, let alone a master plan. Incidentally, repeating your inaccurate statements do not make them true. Are you on crack? Who said anything about putting a tax on gas after someone was elected? Not quite. You said you had bought a diesel and therefore were doing oh so much for the environment. I pointed out that others have done more than that. I was referring to transportation as well. You chose to simply declare that I did not know what I was talking about. I think it's safe to say that yes, I do know people who have taken greater measures with respect to transportation than simply buying a diesel vehicle. It must be hard for you to be so superior to everyone else. Does it get hard for you to keep track of who in Canada has a GD idea and who does not?