Keepitsimple

Harper and the Conservatives have long been accused of wanting to stack the courts with Right-leaning judges - and Antonio Lamer and Beverly Mclachlan's comments speak to this. As a result, they are admitting that newly-appointed judges can be politically biased. That confirms the many accusations that for years, a great majority of appointed judges have been Left-leaning Liberals. So how do we re-balance the courts? Personally, I don't think that most judges end up being "beholding" to the party that appointed them....but I think that some percentage of Liberal-leaning judges would tend to veer towards the "lower" end of sentencing while Conservative-leaning judges would do the opposite. I'd like to think that most judges would simply apply the law with reasonable compassion where warranted. I think the Conservatives are on the right track. For repeat violent offenders, there should be mandatory minimums or at least, a "tightening" of the sentencing guidelines. That protects society's interests in "getting the bad guys off the street". The Justice System should still maintain a high level of compassion and rehabilitation options for those many others who can still turn their lives around......but lenient sentences cannot be allowed to be used as "the cost of doing business" for violent, repeat offenders.

For heavens sake, the Supreme Court has already ruled that these two provisions are constitutional as they are currently written. They have also never been used - with the exception of the single "attempt" to use them which wound it's way up to the Supreme Court. That proves they haven't been abused. By the way, the person who challenged those provisions was the wife of the only person to be convicted in the Air India terrorist attack. The Court's ruling confirmed that there is a reasonable balance between security and rights. Some dummies will say - if we've never used them - why do we still need them? Well - I'm not getting rid of my fire extinguishers - but I've never had a fire. Since the vote was 159-124 with an abstention, that means there were only 184 members in the house. It appears that a couple of BQ's were absent but maybe as many as 15-20 Liberals chose to sit this one out. This should not have been an issue for Dion. He's got bigger fish to fry. He should have worked out a comprimise by extending for a shorter period.

So? The Conservatives go on about crime when the crime rate has been decreasing since 1991. The Conservatives are focusing on violent crime. In 1962, violent crime was at about 200 incidents per 100,000 people. It rose to well over a 1000 at it's peak around 1991. Since then, there have been minimal decreases but the fact is, we are basically treading water at a rate that is over 4 times what it was in 1962. Why do you think the media chooses to highlight the miniscule decreases since the peak in 1991 and hide the horrendous increases that led to the peak? Here's a site that has a number of graphs and commentary about violent crime. http://www.fradical.com/Violent_crime_statistics_Canada.htm

Perhaps those that would like to see the sunset on these clauses should read this very disturbing article: It's aptly entitled "Disturbing Reality Buried" http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Cor...pf-3642930.html

This whole thing is a mountain made out of a molehill - exacerbated by the media leaving out key pieces of information. I just watched CBC Newsworld - Don Neuman interviewed a fellow who I think was the head of the Canadian Bar Association (Legal - not beer/liquor). He clearly spelled out some points of the Supreme Court ruling: 1) A top priority for the government is the protection of it's citizens 2) Subject to a more balanced hearing, the Court agrees that it is OK to: i) Hold a non-citizen indefinitely ii) Withhold all evidence from the person being detained 3) The Court, in their ruling, provided an example of "satisfactory" improvements. The example was actually provided to the Supreme Court by the Canadian Bar. The example involved having a rotating staff of high-security-cleared councillors who would review the evidence and charges and would act as an advocate for the detainee - without speaking with the detainee. The councillor would simply act as an adversary to the government. The final ruling would still be made by a judge. The councillor will have no contact at all with the detainee. 4) If the above example was put into legislation, the Supreme Court says it would pass the Constitutionality test. The Court said there may be other ways but this one was acceptable. Given the above, I consider it to be a wise ruling.

Layton's figure of 1 in 6 came from the Toronto Star's recent series on Poverty. Knowing that this ratio was dubious, I sent a "letter to the Editor". Of course, they chose not to publish it. Here it is: The Toronto Star is to be commended for their attention to the issue of poverty – but its constant misrepresentation of data is not helpful. Exaggerations only serve to turn people off. Yes, we have an issue and we will always have an issue with people who are less fortunate than others - but let's deal with the facts so we can collectively provide the needy with a hand-up and for those who truly cannot fend for themselves - a hand-out. As an example, the Star claims that 1 of every 6 people live in Poverty. Their source, although not attributed, is the usual selective use of Stats Canada data. In fact, if we use the Stats Can LICO Before Tax income, 1 in 6 is a valid conclusion – but if one uses After Tax Income, the number is actually 1 in 9. I think we could all agree that for an honest measurement of purchasing power, After Tax is a better choice that Before Tax. The Star’s analysis includes all workers who claimed income – including those under 18 and over 65. I'm not sure what age we should start at, but surely, workers that are age 16 – 21 should be excluded. They are just starting out in the workplace and it will take some time for their earning power to gain traction. The vast majority of these workers are not "poor". They are, like most of us at one time, simply starting out in life and paying their dues. Seniors (over 65) are also a "special" category. Their requirements are different - and quite reduced. My own mother is beneath the LICO, yet she does very well for herself. So what is the right number - 1 in 10? 1 in 15? I don't think it matters much - what matters is that we recognize that there are real people behind the numbers – people with different situations and different needs.

I hope that everyone gets a chance to read the book. It's written by William Johnson. For the most part, Mr. Johnson has worked for the Globe and Mail. To my knowledge, he is nothing more than an acquaintance of Harper's so is not noticably biased. He's also writing a book about Stephane Dion that should be available by end-of-year. If you like politics - you'll like the Harper book. It's facinating reading. To be honest, I'm only about two thirds through it right now - I've been doing a chapter a night.

Are you talking about the Royal "we"? Who is the "we" that wants to kick them out? The Royal "we" is all Canadians. Who in their right mind would willingly accept a foreigner with terrorist ties when there are so many hard-working immigrants and refugees who are lined up to embrace Canada and have a spotless record? Keep in mind that the existing process has seen a judge review evidence in private and that evidence was found to be enough to hold these people indefinitely as a danger to Canada. So....wouldn't you send them back - if you could?

I thought the French ads were quite clever and tongue-in-cheek comical...but really, what I think Harper is trying to do is to put a lot of doubt in the Liberals' minds so that they can pass their next budget. If they can do that, they can govern for another 6-12 months. Harper doesn't want a snap election because at this point, there is no guarantee of a majority - so what's the point? The longer the Conservatives stay in power, the more comfortable the public will be with having them there.....and it doesn't look like they have to fear Dion becoming Winston Churchill.

If this is true, I'll patiently wait for the blockbuster article that is sure to follow in both the Globe and the Toronto Star.....and of course, there will be a special news report from the CBC.

Several posters have already mentioned it....but it's so frustrating, that I'll put in my two cents anyway. Security Certificates have been in place since the 70's and they worked just fine - if someone was deemed a risk - we deported them back where they came from - no muss, no fuss. But along came our Charter and in 2001, the ruling came down that you could not deport someone to a country where there was a reasonable chance that they could be tortured. Conveniently, almost all countries where terrorists originate could be viewed as countries that engage in torture. So as a result of that ruling what happens? Well of course everyone who steps on Canadian soil and is thought to have terrorist connections, claims that they cannot go back because they will be tortured. This ruling is not as the Toronto Star trumpets, a huge victory for rights - it is a clear warning that while our Charter is well meaning, it has created a huge loophole that prevents Canada from getting rid of undesirables. In fact, one could make the argument that the Charter now infringes on my rights by letting loose on the public an undesirable non-Canadian with possible terrorist ties. Maddeningly, The Toronto Star seems to hold these detainees in high esteem as if this is some worthy crusade when in fact the question remains....how to we kick these guys out of the country?

Perhaps you should scroll down your own article and read the response from another Blogger....then look in the mirror and hang your head. He that lives by the sword......

Catchme, you're absolutely right, and I feel your pain. In fact, Harper has no right to be at 24 Sussex at all. This is a Liberal country, damn it. Liberals really do care - care about everything, and everybody..... care deeply. They don't want power for the sake of power - Liberals simply belong in power. And that man Harper is a very bad man. The Conservatives have gone and spoiled everything. This is unfair! Those voters - they know not what they speak about!

If he doesn't spend money, he's heartless. If he does spend it, he's a cynical opportunist. I'd like to know how the guy can possibly win. Stop listening to how the media and Paul Martin portrayed some of the fringe characters in the old Reform/Alliance......most of that minority has fallen by the wayside. Just pay attention to Harper - read the William Johnson book and see how he ticks. If you did, you'd see that he strongly believes in helping the less advantaged - but money must be well spent - not thrown around for the sake of making an announcement and having a government feel good about themselves. This partnership with Gates - 28 million from Bill and 111 million from the taxpayers - is an effective use of money and includes Canada actually building a testing facility here in Canada for testing Aids vaccines and running trials. We are the first country in Gates' vision of an international effort to develop an Aids vaccine. We are leaders! Sure it's a potential vote getter but it's a darn good cause and deserves to get accolades. This deal has been underway since the August Aids conference if not before. Bill Gates went out of his way to mention that the Conservatives had also worked with him in providing separate funding for another childhood disease that Gates felt was just as important. The funding was finalized 3 weeks ago but because it didn't have the "cache" of AIDS, the press here didn't even cover it. What Harper is not going to do is dole out money to organizations who cannot make a good case for how the money will be spent. I didn't think that much of Harper when he was running for the Conservative leadership - I actually liked Tom Long better......but with each passing day, I come to admire the man more. Let's face it - he's had a slender minority, hostile opposition, and a vindictive press corps...but he's handled things with good decisions and strong principles. Whenever he is interviewed, he gives the most concise and substantive answers that I have ever seen from a Canadian leader.

Strange, I have always had the same impression of right wingers. Tell me, how is being concerned for the environment a "whats in it for me" stance? How exactly is my care and attention of the environment, expressed in numerous ways (from product choice, to recycling) benefitting ME personally? The light bulbs are more expensive. The hybrid cars are more expensive. Recycling is more effort than simply throwing out the trash. The product choices I make due to sustainable practices, more effort again, how exactly is this somehow benefitting ME? Other than a degree of personal self fulfilment, it doesn't. I do it for two reasons. The first is that I care about a whole lot more than just ME. I want others to appreciate our parks and lands. I want future generations to have access to the same resources and advantages we do today. The second is that I support and believe in encouraging companies that are interested in more than simply the bottom line. Companies that have ethical and environmental guidelines to minimize environmental impact and strengthen the abilities of their employees to be independent and self sustaining. To have self worth. In other words, being a left winger to me is about so much more than just myself. It is about a local, regional, and global concern for others, and what I, and others like me, can do to help. My individual efforts may not make much of a difference, but as a community, we are making and leading great changes. And that's great - I have a lot of respect for people who respect the environment. My comments were directed - and I believe I said that - at EXTREME environmentalists who tend to let their beliefs spill over into socialist causes.

Well, there is something a little new about this thread. Left wingers are drawn to Socialism - big government, protectionist policies and the nanny state.....elites and government that know what's best for the minions. Centre and Centre Right (there really are no real Right Wingers in North America) are drawn to Free Enterprise, market forces, smaller government, individual choice and accountability. To my knowledge, few, if any countries have been built from the ground up using the Socialist/Communist/Marxist philosophy, into a modern, successful, thriving nation.....yet there are constant forces in the world (the Left Wingers, the "extreme" environmentalists or alarmists) that would try to suck the life out of countries who built their successes on Centre of the Road policies. Britain fell into that trap before being rescued by Margaret Thatcher. Trudeau's legacy of Government largesse was not adequately constrained by Mulroney so the Big Government approach had Canada on the verge of bankruptcy. Paul Martin, to his credit, helped to reverse the trend - albeit by starving the Provinces. Modern countries like Canada have to strike an effective balance between stimulating economic growth and encouraging personal initiative and accountability.....and providing programs to protect our sick, elderly, and poor......but make no mistake - without the Centre and Centre-right policies that maximize our economic potential - there won't be enough money for our social programs that help us define what Canada is. Too many people have the attitude - "what's in it for me". I've heard many times on this board that income-splitting would be unfair because it doesn't address single people. Dismissing whether Income Splitting is a good idea or not - since when does an attempt to help families translate into "where's my money"? I've heard the same thing about the $100 per child payment. Where's my money?

Sounds to me like Tony Clement is just doing his job. The Provincial Governments are responsible for delivering Health Care services. One of the ways the Federal Government can help is to keep abreast of what certain provinces are doing well - and then to help coordinate a "best practises" model that can be adapted for use in other provinces....Training and Accreditation can also be part of the Federal "help" package - without intruding in the Provinces' domain of actual service delivery. The fact that it is working well in Ontario is great but other provinces might want to catch up. Palliative care is a vocation that is taken up by people with great empathy....but nonetheless, we have to ensure that there is a consistent level of standard care and competence across the country. Will Tony Clement "claim" credit? I think you'll find Tony to be a reasonably humble person who is more interested in making progress - I'm sure you'll see his announcements qualified in some manner as "building on the successes of Ontario......etc."

Mr. Lamer's comments, rightly or wrongly, should be viewed in the context of recent stories relating to the Judicial "committees". This whole "tempest in a teapot" saga about the Conservatives unduly influencing the Judiciary - a Judiciary that arguable is already influenced by years of Liberal appointments - is a bunch of baloney. Lorne Gunter of the Post provides a good summary: Monday » February 19 » 2007 An artificial scandal Lorne Gunter National Post Monday, February 19, 2007 Before we go any further, let's get straight just exactly what the Harper government has and has not done on the judicial-appointment front.

This is indeed a trying area for parents with Autistic children.....but the delivery of Healthcare is a Provincial responsibility and each province has to decide whether to fund care, or not. I know that Ontario has taken some steps but doesn't fully fund care - I believe it stops at age 6. I'm not sure what other provinces have done. If somehow the Federal Government tried to "mandate" coverage, they would be intruding in a Provincial juristiction and forcing provinces to spend money that they say they don't have. However, it is within the Federal Government's capability to coordinate a round-table with the Provinces to help coordinate an autistic strategy and perhaps by doing so, it will help to continue public enlightenment, dialogue some best-practices, and ultimately put pressure on Provincial governments to increase care coverage.

In most respects, scientists do audit themselves through the peer review process - and it works quite well. The problem with Climate Change "science" is that to arrive at a conclusion, or at least a workable "consensus (I hate that word in the context of science), one has to traverse many areas of scientific research - oceans, clouds, land-use, solar influence, carbon sinks, ice-cores, proxies, etc. Each piece of work should (we would hope) pass a peer review process. The problem is that IPCC has a process whereby it selects what pieces of work to give credence to, and what weighting factor to give it - all in the context of their stated goal - to prove that man is the major contributer of GHG and that CO2, or more correctly, the burning of fossil fuels, has a definable/measurable impact on climate change. It is this selection, cumulation, conclusion and reporting process that, at a minimum, I would like to see audited. My point really is that if this is the greatest and most expensive challenge that humans will face - does it not make sense to make sure that the science is done thoroughly, and reasonably free of bias? Taxpayers can be audited. Companies are audited. Organizations are audited. Governments are audited. Why on earth would the IPCC be exempt from independent oversight?

When you cherry-pick situations to support your dislike for a policy - it cuts both ways. Hypothetically, one of the couple - maybe even both - could have been collecting Employment Insurance - and putting that in the bank while living off Mummy and Daddy. There are a myriad of situations where individuals can take advantage of government support. While EI and Welfare are vital to any caring country, there are plenty of stories of abuse of the system. I'd like to think that by far, far, far, the majority of families that receive funding use it in a way that helps them raise their children. People make choices - we can only hope that most of them are good.

Climate Change is indeed complex and a compete audit process would be a challenge. But when you break it down to fundamentals, much of the Science involves the compilation, quantification, and presentation of raw data. Mathemeticians and statisticians should play a large role in the Audit process. If we had this type of oversight, the "Hockey Stick", which was thoroughly debunked by data and statistical auditing, would never have seen the light of day. Perhaps this might be deemed to be Quality Assurance more than Audit, but they really do go hand-in-hand.

Good for them. Shows they are not wasting the money. Maybe the money will be used for the child's education. It's a choice. Not everyone wants to live with their parents.

This Bay Lee character is a nut. Nato forces did not kill 1000. 900 were killed by the insurgents that Bay Lee seems to want to protect. Here's an excerpt and the link: KABUL (AP) - More than 1,000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2006, most of them as a result of attacks by the Taliban and other anti-government forces in the country's unstable south, a rights group said Tuesday. Human Rights Watch said that at least 100 of those civilian deaths were caused by NATO and U.S.-led troop operations, far below another estimate by an Afghan rights group. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/01/30/pf-3481218.html

You don't necessarily need a scientific team - auditors look at the processes that are involved in gathering various reports, collating the data, coming to conclusions, and reporting. I don't know all the ins and outs but we're looking at the integrity of the process. Johanne Gelinas, our former environment commission, who worked directly for Sheila Fraser, might be someone who could lead such a team. Having said all the - you're right in that the whole process has become so politicized that common sense is lost.